I really appreciate all the research and evidence you are providing!!! I am doing an Earth Day project with students and I will be adding your video as a possible resource for them.
I live in a state with a plastic bags ban, it was implemented by charging money to use plastic bags at grocery stores. I have seen it work very well and most people have transitioned to using reusable bags.
Im finding cards online that say Microplastics have no evidence to cause disease/harm, but also cards that say they can cause development issues and harm. What do I do here? I have never faced this issue before (this is the end of my first year of debate so not too much experience)
Use the cards that say YES there's harm for Aff, and the cards that say NO harm for Neg rebuttals (if your opponent says there's harm). Having contradictory evidence is pretty common in debate and in fact is evidence that it's a good topic to be debating. In real life, they probably do, but yes there's limited evidence because they haven't been extensively studied.
Do you have any real life analogy’s about the pro side that i can use for the judge? For section 230 on pro I talked about how if you had the ability to run a red light you would and then correlated that with the immunity it provides companies such as google. It’s important for our team that we dumb down analogy’s to the judge. Thanks.
thanks, this video was really helpful to get some general ideas of what sides are gonna be arguing. Although, I am a little worried judges are going to hear a 'phased in ban' and think it's veering too far off the original topic. What would you say is a good thing to point to if someone's unsure if having a phased in ban is allowed in debate?
Great question. With a most national policies, we can look to State policies and policies from other countries to see what worked and what people do. As it turns out, ALL states thus far have had 'phased in bans' (none have totally banned SUPs) and all comparable examples (China, EU, Canada) have had phased-in bans, so that's really what everyone actually does in practice. Actually, Neg should justify why the US WOULDN'T do what all the other countries do -- phasing in a SUP ban-- the burden really isn't on Aff (or, that's what you could argue).
Do you have any suggestions how to justice that the US shouldn't ban the plastics even though all states so far have had phased-in bans for single-use plastics, (however, haven’t banned completely), and so have other countries. Why US shouldn’t ban it?
Sure, for States, there are many things that are regulated at the State level and (mostly) not at the National level -- Education, Criminal Law, Family Law, Health & Welfare programs, State elections. As per the supreme court recently, abortions. Having States decide provides a purer democracy, where smaller groups of Americans can decide what's right for them. So Neg can argue that even if it's good for every State to ban it, we should keep the Federal government small, let States decide, and not ban SUPs at the national level. For other countries, there's plenty of things they do that we shouldn't. If there's a bunch of DisAdvantages to banning, and few Advantages, then it doesn't matter how many countries have done it, it's still a bad idea. Ie, those countries are probably making bad decisions. (Also, Europe & China are different from the US in many ways.) If you have the time, I did an HSR interview with Randal O'Toole on this channel who does a great job of talking about keeping the federal government small and not taking bad ideas from other countries.
I heard you say smth abt an argument on NEG hurting business owners but plastics is an integral use in medical/scientific practices, was that mentioned in the NEG section or just on the plastic good section
Not sure what your question is exactly. Many businesses use SUPs, mainly food services, or business that use plastic bags, but yes medical & scientific too. So a ban may hurt those businesses.
For this resolution, and most of them, a CP would be on Neg. “Don’t do the plan, do this instead” eg “don’t ban SUPs, tax them instead” or “don’t ban SUPs federally, have states ban them”
@@Mango-pj9vx Oh I see, you really do have to argue 'ban (all) SUPs', but your individual argument(s) can definitely be about specific plastics, because if we banned SUPs, then those specific plastics would also get banned, which you're arguing is good. In short, yes, focusing on specific types of plastics could be a great strategy. With bioplastics specifically though, you do have to prove topicality. Why are they / aren't they included in the ban?
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
------timestamps-------
3:13 - resolution background
12:15 - plastics background (good/bad)
22:08 - Aff
34:00 - Neg
Thx
Thank you for breaking down the complexities!
Thank you once again Joel!
In Joel we trust. 🙏
Super welcome 🤙🤙
this helped me a lot with my debate case. thx :D
I really appreciate all the research and evidence you are providing!!! I am doing an Earth Day project with students and I will be adding your video as a possible resource for them.
That’s so kind of you to say! This one might be a bit long 😭 but I hope it can educate some people
I live in a state with a plastic bags ban, it was implemented by charging money to use plastic bags at grocery stores. I have seen it work very well and most people have transitioned to using reusable bags.
That's cool ✌️ I guess we can get used to anything huh? Which state?
Thank you! these are really helpful for TA's.
Very happy it helps! TAs, students, and anyone else 🙏
Im finding cards online that say Microplastics have no evidence to cause disease/harm, but also cards that say they can cause development issues and harm. What do I do here? I have never faced this issue before (this is the end of my first year of debate so not too much experience)
Use the cards that say YES there's harm for Aff, and the cards that say NO harm for Neg rebuttals (if your opponent says there's harm). Having contradictory evidence is pretty common in debate and in fact is evidence that it's a good topic to be debating.
In real life, they probably do, but yes there's limited evidence because they haven't been extensively studied.
Also, someone needs to be held accountable (punished) or else it doesn't matter
Do you have any real life analogy’s about the pro side that i can use for the judge? For section 230 on pro I talked about how if you had the ability to run a red light you would and then correlated that with the immunity it provides companies such as google. It’s important for our team that we dumb down analogy’s to the judge. Thanks.
analogies are great! the red light sounds like good one. I"d ask Bard, I'm not much of a wordsmith.
thanks, this video was really helpful to get some general ideas of what sides are gonna be arguing.
Although, I am a little worried judges are going to hear a 'phased in ban' and think it's veering too far off the original topic. What would you say is a good thing to point to if someone's unsure if having a phased in ban is allowed in debate?
Great question. With a most national policies, we can look to State policies and policies from other countries to see what worked and what people do.
As it turns out, ALL states thus far have had 'phased in bans' (none have totally banned SUPs) and all comparable examples (China, EU, Canada) have had phased-in bans, so that's really what everyone actually does in practice. Actually, Neg should justify why the US WOULDN'T do what all the other countries do -- phasing in a SUP ban-- the burden really isn't on Aff (or, that's what you could argue).
Do you have any suggestions how to justice that the US shouldn't ban the plastics even though all states so far have had phased-in bans for single-use plastics, (however, haven’t banned completely), and so have other countries. Why US shouldn’t ban it?
Sure, for States, there are many things that are regulated at the State level and (mostly) not at the National level -- Education, Criminal Law, Family Law, Health & Welfare programs, State elections. As per the supreme court recently, abortions. Having States decide provides a purer democracy, where smaller groups of Americans can decide what's right for them. So Neg can argue that even if it's good for every State to ban it, we should keep the Federal government small, let States decide, and not ban SUPs at the national level.
For other countries, there's plenty of things they do that we shouldn't. If there's a bunch of DisAdvantages to banning, and few Advantages, then it doesn't matter how many countries have done it, it's still a bad idea. Ie, those countries are probably making bad decisions. (Also, Europe & China are different from the US in many ways.) If you have the time, I did an HSR interview with Randal O'Toole on this channel who does a great job of talking about keeping the federal government small and not taking bad ideas from other countries.
@@DebateTrackthat’s an awesome reply! thanks
TYSM!!
why did i hear my friend say the topic is about private space exploration?
Ooo I’d ask your friend! I do not know
probally not pf then@@DebateTrack
I heard you say smth abt an argument on NEG hurting business owners but plastics is an integral use in medical/scientific practices, was that mentioned in the NEG section or just on the plastic good section
I saw medical too
Not sure what your question is exactly. Many businesses use SUPs, mainly food services, or business that use plastic bags, but yes medical & scientific too. So a ban may hurt those businesses.
If we were to argue for bioplastics for pro, would that be considered a counter plan which is against the NSDA rules?
For this resolution, and most of them, a CP would be on Neg. “Don’t do the plan, do this instead” eg “don’t ban SUPs, tax them instead” or “don’t ban SUPs federally, have states ban them”
@@DebateTrack okay great thank you so much! So just to make sure, if I argued for some specific bioplastics, it would be alright?
@@Mango-pj9vx Oh I see, you really do have to argue 'ban (all) SUPs', but your individual argument(s) can definitely be about specific plastics, because if we banned SUPs, then those specific plastics would also get banned, which you're arguing is good. In short, yes, focusing on specific types of plastics could be a great strategy.
With bioplastics specifically though, you do have to prove topicality. Why are they / aren't they included in the ban?
@@DebateTrack okay thank you so much for the help!
Thank you! Does "ban" mean " ban all"?
That's definitely up for debate! But probably not....there's edge cases and exceptions to almost every law
thank youu
Super welcome 🤗
my king
Yes yes and yes
Where are the time stamps?
good catch, added & pinned
🔥🔥🔥
very useful
nice
Who is this stud
Ian is your last name really Blackwell 😅
Yo I thought you were another dude thanks for the ups 🔥🔥🫡🫡
Just wondering, where are the rebuttals on the website? I can't find them 🥲
They're in the same folder as the evidence! Just click on the Evidence tab