Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[67] At the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Oprah Winfrey used the phrase, [68] and In Taylor Swift's endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris shortly after the second presidential debate. Swift signed off on the post by calling herself one. [69] "They're eating the dogs", a false claim used by Donald Trump in the Second presidential ...
In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress.
The vice presidential debate between Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was a civil and policy-oriented affair, and it included some important developments. 36 key lines to ...
One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues. The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost ...
Derived from the Oxford Union debating society of Oxford University, Oxford-style debating is a competitive debate format featuring a sharply assigned motion that is proposed by one side and opposed by another. Oxford-style debates follow a formal structure that begins with audience members casting a pre-debate vote on the motion that is either ...
Networks showed a split screen with both candidates for most of the debate. At various points she looked amused or befuddled by whatever Trump was saying, as if w ordlessly saying he was lying.
You may want to read Wikiquote's entry on "List of political catch phrases" instead. This page was last edited on 18 January 2022, at 16:28 ...
Topicality is a resolution issue in policy debate which pertains to whether or not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. [1] To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue.