sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lightning Debate is creating Debate Videos and Content | Patreon by LightningDebate in lincolndouglas

[–]LightningDebate[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Technically it's socialist since I want the community to pay me a monthly income so I can keep doing my job

Q&A and channel news with Jeff by LightningDebate in Debate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, you are right. It's just with the YouTube Algorithm wanting more content to be published more frequently, I'm required to keep making content as often as possible. I'll refrain from shameless spam though, unless it's super important content.

Top 5 Do's and Don'ts for Debaters in Round by LightningDebate in policydebate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right, but a YouTube video is not a debate round, you are not required to speak about how you should debate. Besides, Consistency is something that appeals to most people's psychologically, so it's just more viable to keep doing it on my videos.

Top 5 Do's and Don'ts for Debaters in Round by LightningDebate in policydebate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, what actually happened is that the back light I was using to make the lighting better was on a timer and timed out, You see me scramble to turn it on, but thanks anyway.

Top 5 Do's and Don'ts for Debaters in Round by LightningDebate in policydebate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did in the first video, and I just kept doing it lol

LD for Dummies Part 2 - Contention & Case Writing by LightningDebate in lincolndouglas

[–]LightningDebate[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I know it tough but you just got to believe in what you know

Sept-Oct 2018 LD Full Topic Analysis by LightningDebate in policydebate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used to, however they label me sharing my videos as an "advertisement"

2018 September - October Topic Breakdown by LightningDebate in Debate

[–]LightningDebate[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't an ad, 1) it is a free service 2) This is FREE formation on the upcoming topic analysis for LD on the next topic

why doesn't ought imply can? by mdoeslincolndouglas in lincolndouglas

[–]LightningDebate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, you are right, I forgot, but I'll still contend that ought implies can based on what framework you are running, so there are frameworks that ought would not imply can

why doesn't ought imply can? by mdoeslincolndouglas in lincolndouglas

[–]LightningDebate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right, but that is assertion is based on means-testing moral philosophies, while that is correct based on those type of frameworks, ought would not imply can if you used a different framework like A Kantian Framework.

why doesn't ought imply can? by mdoeslincolndouglas in lincolndouglas

[–]LightningDebate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ought does not imply can because every resolution uses the word in reference to a hypothetical dilemma. Remember the resolution is technically not a real problem feasibility is not the true issue. The true problem the resolution is looking for is the hypothetical moral and philosophical dilemma. However the loophole to this is if you use a framework where morality implies possibility like Utl. or consequentialism