Watch the following Presidential Debate on YouTube and wri/te two paragr/aph critiques for each candidate about any of the debates, you don’t hav

Policy Debate Critique

Should the U.S Government lower the drinking age to 18

AFF: Donovan and Siohmara NEG: Sultan and Joanna

AFF Opening: The opening argument for the affirmative team is about what I expected.

The main point of contention is that we are already considered adults at 18 so why can’t we

drink? We can vote for the president, go to jail, put our life on the line for our country, and can

even smoke medical marijunana. But despite all this we can’t drink alcohol. I thought this was a

classic argument and it was smart to open with it because I think it's a generally accepted idea

NEG Opening: The argument opened with a personal story about her experience with

alcoholism. I thought this was very bold and I respect her being able to talk about it. I think it

really helped solidify her argument because it got rid of the disconnect we have to people

suffering from this issue. It makes her supporting information that much more impactful. We

already know many of the negatives of alcohol like death, peer pressure, and drunken accidents

but she helps drive it home.

2nd AFF: I thought this affirmative argument was very smart because it mainly tackled

one of the big issues of drinking. We know about the issues of drunk driving but the argument

helps clear up misconception. He gives information about how many young adults even have a

driver’s license and it was low. I thought this was an extremely important point because it made

me think about how many drunken accidents occur where maybe the driver is over 25. If it's high

then young drivers are not the issue.

2nd DEF: I thought the second defense could have used some more uniques in its

argument. It was mainly just we know alcohol is bad for you at its core so we shouldn’t allow it.

He claimed that the more students drink the dumber they will get. I think this would be a good

argument for banning alcohol all together but for lowering it, it just doesn't stick with me.

Assault Weapons should be banned (3 People Debate)

AFF: Natalie and Ahmend NEG: William O. and Nicholas

AFF Opening: This debate has already been talked about for a long time. The arguments

are there so I thought the most important factor going into this one would be the presentation of

facts. It started off with the safety argument, children and people in general would be safer

without the presence of guns. I think this is a strong argument especially with the presence of

school shootings. I would’ve liked to see a stronger emphasis on the saving of children but I still

think the argument was done well. However the argument that stood out to me was that since

social media is unregulated gun owners can socialize and misinformation about guns can be

spread. I have not heard that argument in the gun ownership debate but I think it has merit.

Social media increases the odds of a wacko meeting another wacko so it definitely stuck with

me.

NEG Opening: The opening argument started with a fact that I actually wasn't aware of.

He stated that the majority of mass shootings are not done by assault weapons. I think this was

the best information you could have started with because I would say that it is a common

misconception. After all, I didn't know that, and one of the biggest fears of guns is the mass

shootings. He spoke lightly about how even if there was a ban there would still be guns in

circulation. But another argument that stuck with me is that if Americans are armed it deters

threats of war because having to fight soldiers and citizens is dangerous. While I think it is an

extreme argument, with the war in Ukraine it definitely made me think.

2nd NEG: The argument started off with what I personally believe to be a weak argument

and it was that we have 2nd amendment rights. I always thought it was an outdated argument, the

idea that it comes right after free speech just hasn’t sat right with me. So while it is mainly

considered a solid argument it personally puts me off. I think his other argument was really the

core of his point. He claimed we should move our resources into helping the mentaily ill. This is

just overall a solid point, it’s a little easy but the idea of it is still strong.