Contentions are the arguments that make up the building blocks of your debate. They are comprised of a claim, warrant (evidence), and impact (how the evidence connects to your claim). Think of it like CER in science. Warrants are made of a tagline, which introduces the evidence, evidence, which is the evidence itself, and an analysis which shows how the evidence connects to the impact. 

Real talk: Those of you who were here may have recalled that the wheel (now aptly renamed to the wheel of chaos) woke up and chose violence in terms of debate topics. One of the first topics chosen had to do with affirmative action, and while we did our best to explain, there was only so much we could do in a virtual setting. We will try to clarify what we meant next week in person, but in the meanwhile, please refer to this article if you are still confused: https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action Another topic brought up had to do with the death penalty, and whether it should be used on those who are severely mentally ill. We understand that this is a very sensitive topic and that many of you may not be comfortable with debating about topics and other ones like it. We will go over our policy regarding more sensitive SP/AR debate topics next week.

On a lighter note, we'd like to congratulate Aarush (not Aryav) and Vanna for a fantastic, entertaining, and well-thought-out SP/AR debate on none other than the fast food establishments of McDonald's and Taco Bell. The debate opened with Vanna sharing her experiences at both restaurants and adding that McDonald's tasted much fresher than Taco Bell. Everyone's favorite commentator, Isabelle, was quick to point out that no fast food was truly 'fresh'. Aarush then followed up with a questionable argument, stating that Taco Bell 'appealed to the Mexican population'. At this point, several of us could barely keep our laughter in, but Aarush maintained a perfectly straight face and delivered a fantastic argument, despite being a side he didn't particularly agree with. The chat was exploding with running commentary from Maya, Isabelle, and Kaashvi, but the debaters held strong, making it through a glorious CX where both Vanna and Aarush showcased a perfect balance between calmness and a competitive spirit. Overall, the Taco Bell debate is one to remember. 

Thank you to all the ADACC members as well as Mrs. Abdelmalek for sticking through our shenanigans, a newly godlike wheel of chaos, and one of the best debates I have seen in a while. See you all next week!

This week, we covered Opening/Closing logic and value/policy oriented debates.

Opening logic is a story, scenario, or anecdote used to open the debate and explain why you affirm/negate the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "Gun control laws should be stricter", and you are affirming the resolution, then your opening logic could use an anecdote about a school shooting, and explain how weak gun control laws led to that scenario. Your closing logic is simply just using this anecdote at the end of your case to end it. For example:

Opening logic: On (date), (name of school shooting) took place, killing many young children. Their parents had no idea that that would be the day they would never see their children again. The shooter, who acquired a firearm through dubious means, migh have been stopped, if not for weak gun control laws allowing them to commit this atrocity.

-present case-

Closing logic: If gun control laws had been stronger, the children at (aforementioned school) would still be alive. Stricter gun control laws will save many would-be murderers and their victims from tragedies such as these school shootings, murders, and much more.

Value and Policy oriented debates are two types of debates that are used commonly in competitions. In a value-oriented debate, you are debating the value that the resolution supports. If the resolution has to do with gun control, the value in question might be life or safety (for the affirmative side) or freedom (for the negation). LD is a value-oriented debate because values are used to weigh the debates and decide which resolution is more important. 
Policy-oriented debates are debates where you argue a specific policy. In the case of Congress or Parliamentary debates, this policy is a law that might be passed. Many policy-oriented debates also use values to weigh the importance of the policy in question.
No homework, all we did was choose partners for our LD debates as well as topics.

Happy ADACCing!

First off, I know there haven't been any debriefs for a while, seeing as everyone was presenting their LD debates. If you haven’t gone yet, you WILL be going next week, so have your cases finished by the tenth! If you need any extra help, reach out to Kaashvi, Shriya, or myself.

After saving Avi from death after snorting sugar, Shriya (the great) presented an introduction to Congress debate, a form of debate in which students roleplay as senators in congress (shocking right). In Congress debate, you debate collections of different bills, called dockets, and students can send in ideas for various bills. Unlike LD, in which you are assigned a side to debate, you are allowed to pick a side in Congress. Remember, don't shame someone for picking a side you don't agree with. Everyone has their own opinion! Some commonly used bills involve issues such as raising the minimum wage and universal healthcare. Bills are broken up into sections. 1) which will usually show what the bill is doing, 2) who is enforcing the bill should it become a law, 3) when the bill will be implemented, and 4) that all laws in conflict with the legislation will be declared null and void. This video is a brief introduction to Congress debate, and we highly recommend watching it if you have missed this lesson. 

A reminder to everyone that snorting and/or dealing Prime packets on school grounds is not a safe, legal, or sensible decision. Don't post anything mean, racist, or otherwise inappropriate online. Besides the obvious moral issues, you will eventually be found, possibly even by the police. I really hope this warning won’t be necessary, but please make good decisions. Happy belated birthday to Tomisin (Congressional debate extraordinaire) and Vishnu (That one ChatGPT guy), and we’ll see you all next week!

~Debrief by Maya Lakshman (ADACC secretary)

~Edited by Vanna Sardana (ADACC Junior Officer)

Congress bills/legislation are the heart of congressional debate, and the students participating in the debate are the ones that write the bills. Bills need to be well-researched in order to show that there is a convincing argument for both sides. Here are some sample Congress bills for you to look at. All Congress Debate bills start with the phrase "Be it enacted by the Congress here assembled that", and they contain multiple sections. Section 1 will usually explain what the bill is and what it will do, section 2 will define any key parts of the bill, section 3 will address who is enforcing the bill should it become a law, section 4 will state when the bill will be implemented, and section five will show that all laws in conflict with the legislation will be declared null and void. If, in a bill, there is an issue with any of the sections, you have the power to negate that bill. The sections can be in a different order, but all of the sections should still be there. We got into groups and started writing bills. If you weren't here, you will be placed into a group by the next meeting. See you all soon! (P.S.: Eating six pieces of chocolate in the span of an hour is not a sensible decision, especially when you start acting like you've been possessed by the Wheel Of Chaos at the end of said hour. You know who you are.)

~Debrief by Maya Lakshman (ADACC Secretary)

~Edited by Vanna Sardana (ADACC Junior Officer)