The entire point of a debate is to try and argue your side to the other people in the debate. "We are not qualified to say" is the side that I am arguing for. It is a 100% valid position to hold and with something as important as defeating CIA we really cannot afford to make mistakes. Let's leave it to the professionals.
Well, as someone who is in higher debate and attends like 9-12 regional statewide and national tournaments a year, I'm pretty sure I know how it works. But thanks.
"We don't know, we can't say" is a pretty terrible debate strategy, but even if it would win over the judge, the median in which we are arguing is completely different. We aren't arguing to make a better case and thus win a medal, we are arguing so that our personal worldview will expand outwards into the minds of others. You win an Internet argument by convincing more people that "
CIA is a larger threat than just territory" or that "
CIA can be defeated through brute force" or that
"CIA is totally awesome". "It's not my place to say" is unlikely to resonate with anyone on this floor. I have economic opinions. That doesn't mean I would exercise them if I were in a position to do so--because even though we're unqualified, that doesn't mean we can't debate.
Lol I would love to sit here and stroke your ego by arguing with you but how do i put this.. You're beneath me :)
It sounds like you don't consider yourself all that capable, bud.
Also not the largest drama sadly :(
Yea, uh, link me a larger personal drama. You can't.
