Well speaking of getting the DACA deal done https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/politics/trump-dinner-schumer-pelosi-daca-obamacare.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/chuck-schumer-nancy-pelosi-donald-trump/index.html
@mattrawlson is this literally happening right now?
@debateme13 idk about literally right now, but it went down less than an hour ago
Nice round @sararose! You did a solid job and I hope to debate you again sometime :)
@metant3 has won this debate! I apologize for not being able to present a more cogent argument this round, but I have enjoyed this tournament and look forward to participating in more debates soon!
@sararose this is really cool sportsmanship from you. I really enjoyed watching your early round debate against Julian, and I know you weren't all there this time, but I look forward to seeing more from you in the future :). You should sign up for the September tournament! (but first get some rest lol)
@sararose thats really classy! Thanks for being a great sport and having a good debate. I voted for you in the last debate you had and you are solid! Keep up the good work and hopefully i'll see you in the next tourney!
@sararose Admitting defeat is rare in debate, and thus to be admired. You did put up a good fight with what you had.
Straight off, it was a pleasure to watch and you both comported yourselves as honorably as could be.This is one of those cases where I have some bias in the general political sense, but Con's case, supportive of dreamers does a great job capturing my political view and framing it in opposition to the resolution. I wonder where hard core anti-immigration advocates will come down here.@metant3 came with a very strong negative case, backed by some really great evidence quotes and clearly caught @sararose off guard in terms of her own case's contentions and her research. Because the Con's legal case subsumed the aims of her moral case and doubles down on it, she was left to improvise a defense.And she did do exactly that. She found chinks in the Con's armor and attacked them, but ultimately, while they were good lines of attack, she didn't have the kind of evidence prepared on her side needed to do real damage. Con carries this one pretty handily.Style talkBoth debaters have good speaking voices and cadences. I enjoyed listening to you both and you were both easy to understand. Pro could work on tying her opening claims to the resolution a little more directly. In substance, they were right on point, but the delivery didn't give us a concrete and concise story for why we uphold the resolution.A bit more research probably could have helped here. It's a complicated topic to be sure. Con seemed to have done more "homework" and it really paid off for him in this one.Many of Pro points were well formed from a rational perspective but could have benefited from a more concise and compelling description. I think the best way to work on this is self editing exercises. Come up with an argument, Record it, watch it, then think on ways to verbally shorten and clarify it, then try again until you feel like you have it really honed. It takes lots of practice to get to where you can do that on the fly, but it's one of the more powerful skills in debate.Most of all, keep debating. You did a great job in the tournament and I think with some practice you will get better and better as you have both sharp logical thinking and a strong presentation style.