Watch the following Presidential Debate on YouTube and wri/te two paragr/aph critiques for each candidate about any of the debates, you don't have to wri/te a critique for all the debates just use two of them.
I will provide an example of how I wanted to be structured. ADHERE TO THE STRUCTURE
YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ&ab_channel=C-SPAN
Policy Debate Critique
Should the U.S Government lower the drinking age to 18
AFF: Donovan and Siohmara NEG: Sultan and Joanna
AFF Opening: The opening argument for the affirmative team is about what I expected.
The main point of contention is that we are already considered adults at 18 so why can’t we
drink? We can vote for the president, go to jail, put our life on the line for our country, and can
even smoke medical marijunana. But despite all this we can’t drink alcohol. I thought this was a
classic argument and it was smart to open with it because I think it's a generally accepted idea
NEG Opening: The argument opened with a personal story about her experience with
alcoholism. I thought this was very bold and I respect her being able to talk about it. I think it
really helped solidify her argument because it got rid of the disconnect we have to people
suffering from this issue. It makes her supporting information that much more impactful. We
already know many of the negatives of alcohol like death, peer pressure, and drunken accidents
but she helps drive it home.
2nd AFF: I thought this affirmative argument was very smart because it mainly tackled
one of the big issues of drinking. We know about the issues of drunk driving but the argument
helps clear up misconception. He gives information about how many young adults even have a
driver’s license and it was low. I thought this was an extremely important point because it made
me think about how many drunken accidents occur where maybe the driver is over 25. If it's high
then young drivers are not the issue.
2nd DEF: I thought the second defense could have used some more uniques in its
argument. It was mainly just we know alcohol is bad for you at its core so we shouldn’t allow it.
He claimed that the more students drink the dumber they will get. I think this would be a good
argument for banning alcohol all together but for lowering it, it just doesn't stick with me.
Assault Weapons should be banned (3 People Debate)
AFF: Natalie and Ahmend NEG: William O. and Nicholas
AFF Opening: This debate has already been talked about for a long time. The arguments
are there so I thought the most important factor going into this one would be the presentation of
facts. It started off with the safety argument, children and people in general would be safer
without the presence of guns. I think this is a strong argument especially with the presence of
school shootings. I would’ve liked to see a stronger emphasis on the saving of children but I still
think the argument was done well. However the argument that stood out to me was that since
social media is unregulated gun owners can socialize and misinformation about guns can be
spread. I have not heard that argument in the gun ownership debate but I think it has merit.
Social media increases the odds of a wacko meeting another wacko so it definitely stuck with
NEG Opening: The opening argument started with a fact that I actually wasn't aware of.
He stated that the majority of mass shootings are not done by assault weapons. I think this was
the best information you could have started with because I would say that it is a common
misconception. After all, I didn't know that, and one of the biggest fears of guns is the mass
shootings. He spoke lightly about how even if there was a ban there would still be guns in
circulation. But another argument that stuck with me is that if Americans are armed it deters
threats of war because having to fight soldiers and citizens is dangerous. While I think it is an
extreme argument, with the war in Ukraine it definitely made me think.
2nd NEG: The argument started off with what I personally believe to be a weak argument
and it was that we have 2nd amendment rights. I always thought it was an outdated argument, the
idea that it comes right after free speech just hasn’t sat right with me. So while it is mainly
considered a solid argument it personally puts me off. I think his other argument was really the
core of his point. He claimed we should move our resources into helping the mentaily ill. This is
just overall a solid point, it’s a little easy but the idea of it is still strong.
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need this assignment or any other paper?
Click here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25