Make your own free website on Tripod.com

How to Flow in LD

You may or may not get far with the standard system of flowing in policy debate with its awkward 8-speech design... try this method.  It's easy to keep track of on-aff-case arguments, off-neg-case arguments, and you get to hold your legal pad normally! Score. :)  This is an example of an LD flow pad, actual notes from the final round at Nationals between Kirsten Flewelling (aff) and Caleb Winn (neg).

1AC 1NC 1AR 1NR 2AR
Def
1. restriction
2. welfare
3. agriculture

VP: Q of L





VC: Health

OA: enjoy all values

OB: sole end of government

Def: Econ Liberty

A1: pesticides

A2: HACCP

A3: water





VO1: subjective value
VO2: utilitarian idea
VO3: sacrifices one portion of gen welfare for others (moral)



OA: should happen - it could become bad at extreme
OB:



A1: done recently









VO1: simple to further
VO2: voting - how utility
VO3: I believe these restrictions are moral so doesn't sacrifice one part



OA: extreme


 








 
 
 
 
VO1: Still multi-faceted
VO2: inviolable rights sacrificed

 
 
 
 
1NC 1AR 1NR 2AR 2AR
Res burden:
1. prove resolution is true in all instances.

VP: Justice
Plato - Not meddling w/ others concerns

VC: Liberty

1. Justice highest value
a. moral right - Rawls support individ right "inviolable"



b. upholds gen welfare

2. Proactive justice


3. Voluntarily destroyed animals w/ mad cow
Res burden:
1. on balance - my burden is to convince you uphold res

VO1: indefinable value - so many different defs




1.
a. dif morals. can't be highest in society w/ so many dif mindsets

Rawls for distributive justice


2. prevention necessary when certainty of harm exists



Res burden:
1. on balance - my burden is to convince you uphold res

VO1: directly impacts. should only step in when harms someone else
 



 

 
 
 


2. never good


3. voluntarily
 
 
 
 
Neg voting issues:
1. neg value supports gen welfare
JUSTICE
 
2. free market solve itself
 
 
3. real world

 
 
 
 
 
2. drunk driving, not killed anyone yet, we have laws to prevent harm
3. as in my 3rd contention, accidental harm. so OK to prevent
Res burden:
1. shown basic restrictions of econ liberty are justified.
 

1. only on basis of his unsubstantiated definition which may not be true
 
2. "accidental infusion of pollution in ground water sources" 3rd contention
3. real world health is necessary... let's go eat steaks.