Check out the Tournament Ladder
@lewisoflime @change_my_mindPlease note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 5 votes i.e. community + 4 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @matthewhidalgo
@matthewhidalgo My b on the confusion! On the parent thing - I wasn't trying to say my opponent was pretending to be a parent, quite far from that. I was trying to point out how he was misusing the need vs want contrast - it makes sense in a scenario where we have the authority to delegate that (IE a parent telling his child he wants something, but doesn't need it) which doesn't make sense in the resolution - it's not meaningful to say that the world truly wants this but somehow doesn't ACTUALLY need it. (like we would know better or something)In other words, I was just trying to de-link his rhetoric. I know that bit was a tad confusing but hope that clears it up.Thanks for your analysis as always!
@lewisoflime Got it! Yes it wasn't something I got hung up on at all, but that clarification makes sense. Thanks for a great performance as always!
@lewisoflime Congrats for advancing to the Semi-Finals (third time in a row!)@change_my_mind See you at the $5,000 Championship in January for which you already go a free entry!
no one needs cardigans
This breaks some record for Mic passes
I don't think Con ever disproved the resolution, in fact he basically accepted it. He's saying Trudeau is decent but that there are others who might be better.The resolution is that the world needs more leaders like Justin Trudeau. In order to disprove that you'd need to show that Trudeau is a net negative. I think Pro rather obviously proved Trudeau is a net positive, and Con even seems to accept that concept, so the resolution is shown to be true.
@debateme13 pity the motion is virtually undebatable :'(
@debateme13 cant really disagree
@liamm I can, Trudeu is garbage.