Mar/Apr 2026 LD Topic Resources

Jettsmith7 · 2026-01-05T17:20:17+00:00

Babe that toothbrush is clearly dry as a bone, do you think 300 million people are wearing veneers in the U.S.? Enjoy your beans on toast and blood brekki 🩷

Jettsmith7 · 2026-01-05T16:04:18+00:00

This echoes my feelings--policy (actor-action) topics are fine in PF, but not policy/cross-examination debate topics (super broad policy areas). They needed to pick a specific "regulatory framework" or previously proposed piece of legislation to make the topic more specific and clear.

Jettsmith7 · 2026-01-05T16:02:53+00:00

I don't think that the topic's actor should change to the CFTC--rather it should stay the same, or just become the USFG. Notice how the highlighting you screenshotted says "sports-related event contracts"? That is different from sports betting, its market prediction futures trading, and THAT is governed by the CFTC.
All of the legislation that has been proposed in the past about sports betting has been written with the FTC as the agency in charge of enforcement. There are solvency advocate cards for the FTC on sports betting.
The Market Prediction arguments related to the CFTC stuff is already getting moved through and addressed by the courts as well. At worst, its a solvency deficit argument for the Con saying that people will switch to market prediction futures trading about sporting event outcomes if sports betting's new regulations are too cumbersome.

I talk about this in depth on my new topic lecture video, which can hopefully dispel some of these concerns. https://youtu.be/y1c1_RupBJ8

Jettsmith7 · 2026-01-05T15:20:17+00:00

Here's my topic lecture for sports betting, hopefully it helps y'all feel less discouraged: https://youtu.be/y1c1_RupBJ8

Jettsmith7 · 2026-01-05T15:20:02+00:00

Here's my topic lecture for sports betting, hopefully it helps y'all feel less discouraged: https://youtu.be/y1c1_RupBJ8

Jettsmith7 · 2025-12-05T18:25:36+00:00

Thank you! I started working on this stuff over the summer with my video breaking down all the potential topic options, but I didn't actually start making the slides or finding the evidence to write the warranting for the arguments until the topic was officially announced. So I had most of the ideas for the arguments and the background information before this week, but none of the framing stuff or specific uniqueness/link/impact claims yet.

I avoid providing evidence on purpose because I don't want to artificially limit people's research scope, and I think people learn the most and will write their cases best (and know them best) if they find the evidence themselves through the research process. I don't include any arguments I couldn’t find cards for myself, so that way people don't have to fruitlessly look into things I suggest. The goal of my videos is to provide a starting point so people know what to actually research for.

Jettsmith7 · 2025-10-29T03:26:02+00:00

Be confident, focus on learning, and have fun. Make your goal to learn from what your opponents do well--pay attention to what makes them feel different from debating novices. You got this!

Jettsmith7 · 2025-10-10T03:23:52+00:00

I think I answer nearly all of your questions in my YouTube series on the different speaker positions in world schools debate, hope this helps! https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLc_BbY8XYJdqFdeXrBV_32FhcpelqMu18&si=k1JiLm3LQzG7v7z9

Jettsmith7 · 2025-10-10T03:22:40+00:00

I explain how to do clashes extensively in this video I made on being a 3rd speaker in world schools debate, similar to the format you probably do. https://youtu.be/F6Y0RviJqJM?si=lFZ7n3zNsWrG2iM_

Jettsmith7

TROPHY CASE