I know that debate videos dont get a crazy amount of views for the amount of effort it takes to make them, but i just want you to know that im someone who comes from a school with an extremely small debate program with little to no resources and this helped me a great deal and gave me guidance when i was super lost.. thank you very much
No 100% I am one of the two people in my school's ENTIRE speech and debate program (both s and d!!) and I really appreciate this because our coach is not familiar with debate.
I think maximizing net benefits is essentially the same thing as saying consequentialism. It's not specific enough to exclude certain types of impacts. I think saying maximizing expected wellbeing or minimizing suffering would work better.
Kind of unrelated but I'm a novice debater and I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of Subpoints in an argument, I know they are like short part of your contentions? I would love some clarification on this matter!
Hello, subpoints are just smaller contention arguments usually. Or if you have 2 related contentions that are kind of similar but different enough, you could read them as part of the same contention but different subpoints.
Hey Mr. Smith, I am just wondering on what aff arguments to run for icc. From my knowledge, arrest warrants can only be carried out by country compliance, how can the u.s. deter atrocities in other countries if it only has jurisdiction over its own territory?
Hello! This is a good question. I think the argument is that the U.S. joining the court massively increases funding for the court, which increases the resources for investigations into other countries, and because it means the U.S. will be cooperating in investigations with its wide reaching intelligence operations info more often.
what would be your suggestion for a case for aff and neg like general or specific. Also, don't you think you would be weaker by only talking about one since the opponent could mention both?
I would say that it depends on your judge and circuit. I think it is likely more strategic for the Aff to read a specific case to either UNCLOS or ICC if you like debating big impacts and solvency, and if you typically use utilitarianism based frameworks. I think its more work for the Neg to write specific contentions to each half of the topic, but also probably more strategic if you're willing to put the work in. But if you are in a traditional circuit with lots of lay judges and formal traditional LD debaters, the generic side might be better.
21:36 question for you, and you might've said it later and I just didn't see, but why would the U.S. subjugate itself to this if it has nothing to gain? So far what I'm seeing is "we and private businesses lose the ability to do things and gain nothing" I'm not arguing the morality with this question because if it was a morality thing that would cause them to solve it they could just solve it themselves, they dont need to be bound to other restrictions, so what is the actual gain from this I don't understand?
@BraydenBrooks-ol6rl Thank you for giving the whole video a chance! This is honestly a super fair question and the exact reason we haven't really signed.
I know that debate videos dont get a crazy amount of views for the amount of effort it takes to make them, but i just want you to know that im someone who comes from a school with an extremely small debate program with little to no resources and this helped me a great deal and gave me guidance when i was super lost.. thank you very much
second this lol
No 100% I am one of the two people in my school's ENTIRE speech and debate program (both s and d!!) and I really appreciate this because our coach is not familiar with debate.
You're back!! Thank you so much!
You're the man, Mr. Smith!
I’m gonna try running a morality Aff case on UNCLOS, do you think that a criterion of maximizing net benefits derived from util is a good criterion?
I think maximizing net benefits is essentially the same thing as saying consequentialism. It's not specific enough to exclude certain types of impacts. I think saying maximizing expected wellbeing or minimizing suffering would work better.
Great lecture! will you be doing a lecture on the Jan 2025 PF topic?
Yep, working on it now!
Kind of unrelated but I'm a novice debater and I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of Subpoints in an argument, I know they are like short part of your contentions? I would love some clarification on this matter!
Hello, subpoints are just smaller contention arguments usually. Or if you have 2 related contentions that are kind of similar but different enough, you could read them as part of the same contention but different subpoints.
@@jettsmith7 Thank you!
Hey Mr. Smith, I am just wondering on what aff arguments to run for icc. From my knowledge, arrest warrants can only be carried out by country compliance, how can the u.s. deter atrocities in other countries if it only has jurisdiction over its own territory?
Hello! This is a good question. I think the argument is that the U.S. joining the court massively increases funding for the court, which increases the resources for investigations into other countries, and because it means the U.S. will be cooperating in investigations with its wide reaching intelligence operations info more often.
what would be your suggestion for a case for aff and neg like general or specific. Also, don't you think you would be weaker by only talking about one since the opponent could mention both?
I would say that it depends on your judge and circuit. I think it is likely more strategic for the Aff to read a specific case to either UNCLOS or ICC if you like debating big impacts and solvency, and if you typically use utilitarianism based frameworks. I think its more work for the Neg to write specific contentions to each half of the topic, but also probably more strategic if you're willing to put the work in. But if you are in a traditional circuit with lots of lay judges and formal traditional LD debaters, the generic side might be better.
21:36 question for you, and you might've said it later and I just didn't see, but why would the U.S. subjugate itself to this if it has nothing to gain? So far what I'm seeing is "we and private businesses lose the ability to do things and gain nothing" I'm not arguing the morality with this question because if it was a morality thing that would cause them to solve it they could just solve it themselves, they dont need to be bound to other restrictions, so what is the actual gain from this I don't understand?
Nvm I understand it now 😅
@BraydenBrooks-ol6rl Thank you for giving the whole video a chance! This is honestly a super fair question and the exact reason we haven't really signed.
@@jettsmith7 sounds like my new DA
First
Bro has a PhD in yappology
I don't even have my masters yet 😔