Both sides will state their position in the first round. Also to answer your second question, the term "others" refers to a number of people in general that are not yourself, and "society" is more of a social construct that consists of rules and social norms created for a large group of people. Did the way I explain make it more clear?
Can you provide some examples? Some popular
shonen anime/manga that showcase child soldiers include Attack On Titan, My Hero Academia, Naruto, Jujutsu Kaisen(if that counts), Dragon Ball, etc. and (in my opinion) while they showcase this concept, the characters don't go in depth about the affects.
Shouldn't both sides be allowed to use their own sources instead of the ones provided by the instigator? That way it prevents from the evidence being biased to one side of the debate.
By extend, do you mean, you need more time for your argument?
I regret setting the time to only 12 hours. I realize that my arguments definitely needed more time than that.
Both sides will state their position in the first round. Also to answer your second question, the term "others" refers to a number of people in general that are not yourself, and "society" is more of a social construct that consists of rules and social norms created for a large group of people. Did the way I explain make it more clear?
I tried to start a debate on this topic a month ago, but it fell apart. I'm interested to see how this one goes.
Sorry. I've been caught up with school so I just now saw this.
My argument took way longer than expected. I will make sure that it doesn't take this long again.
Just so I'm clear:
Pro must prove why all drugs should be legalized
Con must prove why drugs should NOT be legalized
Can you provide some examples? Some popular
shonen anime/manga that showcase child soldiers include Attack On Titan, My Hero Academia, Naruto, Jujutsu Kaisen(if that counts), Dragon Ball, etc. and (in my opinion) while they showcase this concept, the characters don't go in depth about the affects.
So, just to be clear, for con, that means the person believes that yes, it is wrong for someone to be against dating outside their race or tribe?
Shouldn't both sides be allowed to use their own sources instead of the ones provided by the instigator? That way it prevents from the evidence being biased to one side of the debate.
So just so I'm clear,
Pro-Explains why Ted IS obsessed with Robin throughout the show
Con-Explains why Ted is NOT obsessed with Robin and in fact has pure love for her