 | Debating Start‑class (inactive) | ||||||
| |||||||
Cleanup
editPage lacks structure & clarity. Mix of modern and historical thoughts with little clarification as to what's what on the stock issues. Thoughts on improving? Bluestrike2.5 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
links to issues
editthe links to the pages for all of the stock issues say about the exact same thing that is said about them in this article(except for topicaliy, which seems to be a lot more fleshed out). I put "move to wiktionary" on them. Gsham 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Harms
editWhen did Harms cease to be a stock issue? I did debate for 5 years between high school and college, and it was always taught as such.Preston (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- What region and time period? Harms is not considered to be one or, at least, it has changed since you last debated. If you can find some sources, maybe we can bring some impartial attention to the discrepancy if one exists in the article. True Skepticism (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- As a policy debater, I can say that harms is at least a stock issue in Utah. solvency, harms inherency, and topicality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.17.183 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- What region and time period? Harms is not considered to be one or, at least, it has changed since you last debated. If you can find some sources, maybe we can bring some impartial attention to the discrepancy if one exists in the article. True Skepticism (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ducknish Edits
editI reversed Ducknish's edits.
No offense intended to Ducknish, but the edits you are making are not productive and explanatory. The purpose of this article and the other debate articles is to give the readers the most relevant, detailed, and explanatory information on the issue of policy debate. These eliminations and edits done in this article are clearly counterproductive. The reader needs to be able to understand the logic behind the stock issues (i.e., logicality) and the other important details that are associated with each issue. Contemporary policy debaters are holding a technical knowledge barrier against outsiders because their activity is very specialized and has constructed its own jargon. I can testify to this as I was a former policy debater. We want to empower the reader and casual observer by breaking down the specialized material into coherent and sensible pieces of information.
This isn't just our own dialogue that we're perpetuating here. I can go pull some debate cites from debating manuals if you think they are unnecessary. True Skepticism (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)