Debate Competition

I am in 9th grade and decided to join speech and debate. My school’s president of speech and debate suggested I do something called "dec" where I memorize and recite a speech. What does "dec" mean? Also, what do these abbreviations mean?: LD, PF, NFL, CFL. And which of those events am I eligible to participate in with my category? Thanks! Anything will help!

LD and PF are certain types of debate.
LD is Lincoln Douglas – it has to do with moral issues (you do not have a partner)
PF is Public Forum – it keeps more to the political side (it was my favorite type) you will have a partner
NFL – is the national forensics league (you should join, it looks great on college applications and such) you have to have a certain number of "points" to join. so after a few tournaments you can. your teacher will tell you or you can ask him/her.
Speech is great also but debate will give you more skills and keep you more informed on whats going on in the world.
I highly recommend it.

Does it make their lives easier by presenting everything as black or white instead of addressing the many issues that fall in the middle of the political debate?

Yes, all the major media news outlets have their Hannity to their Colmes or a Bennet to Carville… some agencies make it very top heavy to one ideaology but they all exploit the differences. It is rare for a story to be just told without some lib vs con commentary. The viewer doesn’t even get to digest the information first without any filter from the spin… instinctively if you believe Hannity then you will veer to his argument and its in the reverse if you don’t buy his arguments. Seldom do we actually research the topics in detail…. we tend to trust the guy who is in line with our ideaologies.

It didn’t used to be this way…. and in the past we tended to compromise more and have more diverse opinions. Now everything tends to be black and white.

I’m Canadian, but as you know we are greatly interested in who becomes the next President. I have to say, I was completely disappointed with Mitt Romney. Very Unpresidential behaviour, acting defensive, and getting upset…I suppose Huckabee in an Andy Griffith sort of way would make a Great President if this was 1955 or something..
Mccain seems like a friggin psyco. The two candidates on the ends obviously aren’t in the running. Fred Thompson seems like the same guy as he does on TV. Juliani is too short to be President. That leaves Ron Paul.

its very odd that when the Dems were having their debate, everyone was cheering like crazy when the candidates were saying they will bring the troops home, yet when he suggested it, he was booed, and Mccain compared him to Hitler!!!!

Here is how I ranked them.

1.Mike Huckabee – witty, well-prepared, and compassionate and would unite us! He is the man for the job! Death penalty skate, but I understand why!
2.John McCain – affirmed that he is the a well respected veteran and would Lead well.
3.Mitt Romney – bickering with Rudy made him look petty; comments on torture made him seem wise and made McCain seem cold and on the attack! Comments on Confederate flag non-issue.
4.Ron Paul – didn’t respond well to McCain’s attacks; rant about North American Union conspiracy made him seem too extreme.
5.Duncan Hunter – Faired well, not much time, but all answers were good! He would be a great VEEP to Huckabee!
6.Tom Tancredo – Good on one issue: Immigration, but he ranks high on my candidate calculator, so candidate for VEEP too!
7.Fred Thompson – not heard from very much, seemed poorly prepared and confused. Not very articulate and disappointing. Sounded like he was trying out for VEEP.
8.Rudy Giuliani – bickering with Romney made him look petty, if I have to listen to his stats about NY one more time, I will PUKE!

VOTE TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE!

A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. Neg, please.

Negating this resolution is quite easy, all the negative needs to do is prove in one instance where death is an equitable punishment for the crime committed. Even in a "just" or perfect governmental society.

Now, what you need to do for negating is define "just society" as a perfect governmental society, leaving NO chance for false conviction, therefore, no innocent lives are taken, other than the victims.

how long has the debate on whether we should eliminate the electoral college or not, been going on?

probably since inception. but there are some things that some people will always whine about and always fail at changing. it’s there for a reason and it’s going to be there a long long long time.

Theres a high school debate next week with the above motion. I dont know how to execute it. I have points in my mind but I can figure out how to begin, what phrases to use etc
Help fellow Y! Answers users. Please

First of all, you have to have a clear idea of what justice is. Secondly you have to answer the question that this statement infers: How does delaying justice deny it?
In this context justice is the administering of deserved punishment or reward. What would be your idea of justice in the case of a murder? That the person guilty of murder would be punished, (sent to prison or executed), and anyone incorrectly accused would go free, right? Can you imagine how delaying either of those consequences could be considered a denial of justice?
Well, I think I’ve given you more than enough to get you started. You’re going to have to think it through and build an argument on how you think postponing a judgment would equate to a denial of justice.
You can do it. Good luck.

How do you feel about the first presidential debate of this cycle?
A. It was good because your candidate did better than the other candidate.
B. It sucked because your candidate did worse than the other candidate.
C. It was a sham because only two of the candidates were in it.

DEFINITELY C.

We need more parties in here. Constititionalist, Libertarian, Green, Independent, ugh, even Socialist though I think Obama is covering that.

Here’s the situation. An evolutionist and a creationist get into a debate about how the Flood waters (relating to Noah) receeded. Both parties suppose that there was actually a Flood. What would a creationist say happened to the Flood waters and how would an evolutionist combat that?

Why would a scientist who’s specialty is biology (evolutionist if you will) have an opinion on what happens to the water in a worldwide flood? That is not in his branch of science.

Someone who knows about geology and earth sciences may argue that there isn’t enough water in the global ecosystem to have a worldwide flood. If, for some reason, they have conceded the possibility of a worldwide flood, then I don’t know what they would propose as a method of draining the water.

I just found out about the debate tonight, and I would like to make sure that I don’t miss future debates.

go to your candidates site.

barackobama.com

I have a website and I wanted to post some topics that would interest people. I’d love to have enough people to get a good debate going but I never really have enough people to do so. Any good ideas?

by the way,
my website is www.freewebs.com/mistview if you want to check it out

is killings criminals right or wrong.
is there a god.
are humans gods (dont shut it out because it is different. think about it.)
is there life outside our planet.
try not to do one sided stuff like is fox hunting right or wrong, renewable energy.