Jump to content

Talk:Policy debate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

what about a Technology in Debate spinoff page?

It provides an opportunity to remove a lot of the unnecessary junk that's still notable from the main policy debate entry and doesn't need to be solely about policy debate either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.204.32 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should Procedurals Arguments by Added to the Types of Arguments Section?

What about things like E-Spec, O-Spec, etc.?

I think those are considered theory arguments.Eebster the Great (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First Debate??

I had always been told that the first intercollegiate debate was held at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas. http://cat.sckans.edu/frederick_debate/history.htm "Although dates vary, Southwestern is still recognized as the host school for the first intercollegiate debate tournament"

Time needs to be changed.

Why is the phrase "except for colorado and Missouri" in the time listings. I am a Missouri debater, and those times are correct.

Are you kidding me? 

you are retarded. I also debate in Mo and the times for the 1ar, 2ar, 1nr, and 2nr are 4 minutes. Not 5.

In colorado, the times are 4 minutes for all of the rebuttals.168.103.80.159 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In Michigan, the times are 5 minutes for all rebuttals. Please, if you are going to modify the times in any way, please provide a source from your state. I am adding Michigan as a footnote to the times with the link to the Michigan Interscholastic Forensics Association (MIFA) website which gives the times for Michigan debate (i.e. USE SOURCES PLEASE, FOLKS)JGonzo (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous policy debaters?

Is there any proof that the list of famous policy debaters is correct? I think that the names should be attached to legitimate citations or removed.

Represent?

Is anyone here actually a current high school policy debater? --Mr Anthem 10:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am a current policy debater in High School. I'd be happy to chat with you about policy debate if you want; I love it. Staeiou 03:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am becoming one.. --Geobeedude 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Geobeedude

Well, I certainly _was_ a policy debator. Now, I'm primarily involved as a judge. I have probebly judged something on the close order of 1000 debate rounds in the past 25 years ranging from local high school tournaments to the NFL National tournament. Why? Rick Boatright 12:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Policy debate is great. I debate at Groves High School in Beverly Hills, MI. --Oneac 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You debate at Groves? Do you know Jonathan Warsh?

Yes I do and I have two classes with him. --Oneac 15:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Ok folks, essentially everyone participating in editing this article is a policy debator. Who else would WRITE this stuff? That said, as a long-term judge, I am embarassed by the total lack of citations in this article. Frankly, we suck.

To that end, I have just added to references to Rostrum articles on judge qualifications. I encourage you all to find references to support the other assertions and stuff in the article. The total lack of cits and footnotes in an article about policy debate is just freaking EMABRASSING!!!! Does no one HAVE a copy of "Mastering Competative Debate" we can put into a = = REFERECES = = section at the bottom? Come on folks, let's get busy.

See Wikipedia citation sources for sample citation templates or use WikiBib to build them for you. No excuses. Imagine how this article would LOOK on a flow with no cites. Ick. Rick Boatright 14:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 

       I need help with debate

This is much better

Still could use some work of course, but this is way, way, way, way better than the original. It actually makes sense and no longer reads like a how-to (see history of 1AC). StopTheFiling 20:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary Information

The statement about the Kentucky Fellows (under Institutes) seems a bit un-encyclopedic to me. Also, we might want to consider getting rid of the names of the TOC winners. Only the 2005 winners are mentioned right now, and even if we do include every team who ever won the TOC, then we should also include the names of every team who won NFL Nationals, and Catholic Nats, and every TOC-qualifying tournament, not even to start on college tournaments... I just don't think this information is important/interesting/encyclopedic enough to include here. What does everyone else think? Hollyvic 21:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm not sure it belongs here at all, but is there a list of all of the TOC winners on the net? I have never been able to find one. Tfine80 05:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Since no one has said anything else about this subject, I went ahead and removed this info. Hollyvic 19:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

This page is overly long, complicated, and technical. I would suggest paring it down for reasons of simplicity.

Judge types.

An anon editor added the following:

There are overall three types of judges: 1. The "Lay" Judge- the Lay judge is generally a parent or other relative of a student debater who has signed up to judge. The Lay judge generally has judged either no or very few debate rounds before. 2. The "Flay" (False Lay) Judge- The Flay judge is considered by most debaters to be the most "dangerous" of the three judge types. A Flay judge is essentialy a Lay judge who thinks that he is a Flow judge (see below). These judges generally flow horizontally on long pieces of paper. 3. The "Flow" Judge- The Flow judge is generally the most appreciated of the three judges. The Flow judge is usually an ex-debater. They know what they are doing, and can generally be trusted to make well informed decisions.

I have several problems with this:

  1. It's very POV. the term Flay judge is prejudicial and insulting.
  2. Not only is it not the only possible catagorization, it's not the most common.
  3. Horizontal flowing was _the_ method taught in the late sixties, seventies and early eighties... therefore, many experianced judges who have judged literally thousands of rounds do horizontal flowing (as do a number of well respected coaches.) Although I've had the idea of "use a new sheet of paper for each new idea" explained to me, I disagree. As a judge, I want to SEE the flow, to see the dropped, and combined ideas, to see if a debator actually follows the flow or jumps around (if my lines end up crossing a lot.) Flowing on one page accomplishes that for me.

The editor who wrote this is confusing and confounding "flow" judges with "young, college debator style judges who will vote on crap."

If we must catagorize judges, can we please use a taxonomy which provides a useful service to the individual reading an encyclopeadia article? Isn't a taxonomy by judging paradigm PLUS experiance enough? I am an ex-debator, ex-coach, fifty year old, stock issues flow judge. I've probebly judged a couple of thousand rounds of policy debate from in-school practice rounds to nationals. I know well what I like and don't. I am utterly consistant. I am well respected on my circuit, and students are very happy to see me in the back of the room 'cause they know how I will vote and can accomodate me easily. I flow horizontally. Rick Boatright 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how you personally feel about these categorizations, they are very much relevant to this article. Its not POV to use the word "human" for example, even though, as debaters, we know some would take issue with it. Other categorizations can be listed as well. I don't think flay is actually flowing horizontally. The way I've heard the term, it refers to judges (parents, coaches of non-debate events, bus drivers) etc. who have had a crash course in debate and thus have very specific, but unvoiced opinions about what should take place in the round. 69.22.42.35 07:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My high school flows horizontaly. It has no Advantages or D/A's, It is merely a different style. And in fact, my Highschool has won 1st or 2nd in our state for the past 10 years flowing that way. Don't Diss it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.92.60 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Split

It seems to me that this page consists of about a dozen articles which should be separated and listed in Category:Policy debate as a subcategory of Category:Debating. What remains here should be an overview.

On a different note, those elements of the "Resolutions" section that are copies of external websites should be dramatically reduced and replaced with the relevant links. Melchoir 09:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you are obviously neither a debater nor someone who understands it. the resolutions give context to the types of topics that we discuss and the ways in which we approach them. copies of external websites? they could just as easily be typed in by people who debated on those topics... 66.112.37.194 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Your assessment of me happens to be correct, but I find it extremely unlikely that all those resolutions were typed by hand. If their purpose is to provide examples, why are there more than three? They certainly do not provide any information on the ways in which topics are approached. If you wish to provide an overview of topics then you should write about exactly that, rather than quote lengthy stretches of primary source material and leave it to the reader to figure it out. Melchoir 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Melchoir, I agree with your assessment. Why not be bold and suggest the subarticles which you think you be created. If you feel that you don't know enough about the topic to summarize what remains in the original article, why not leave the same text in the original and daughter article at first in the hope that others will shorten what remains here and lenghten what is moved elsewhere. I for one would be glad to help but I do not know how to create articles or which subarticles you had in mind. On a side note, I think the debate resolutions add a lot to the artlce. The exact wording of certain resolutions extrememly relevant to many debates. I think the side by side listing of resolutions says a lot about the way the community has chosen to word topics over the years, and conveys information which would take far more words without using "primary sources". It doesn't really matter whether they were typed or copied-surely this information is public. Masterdebater 21:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
We already have sub-topic for the theoretical issues that need to be expanded. This article should give a full overview of the activity. Tfine80 22:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

66.112.37.194, thanks for your introduction to the Resolutions section; it really helps, although I hope more can be done.

I'm not quite bold enough to radically alter an article on which I have no expertise, but I can certainly make suggestions. The following topics seem to be specialized and self-contained enough to merit their own articles:

If such articles are created, they would belong in Category:Policy debate along with the existing articles:

among others. How does that sound? Melchoir 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already created some article similar to these Masterdebater 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, done Masterdebater 15:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking good! I'll go categorize all those... Melchoir 19:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
...Right! Category:Policy debate now has 24 articles; for those of you who are new, you can check Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Policy debate to keep track of them. Melchoir 19:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

stub category

Many of the policy debate stubs are labelled as "law", "evidence" or other types of stubs. I think that there should be a "policy debate" stub category (perhaps a subcategory of something else) which could eventually provide a method for organizing the daughter articles of this article. 66.112.37.194 00:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did you find these stubs? Melchoir 00:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

pictures

If you dont like my pictures, someone please upload some. Masterdebater 04:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

template

I went ahead and tried to create a template for a series to tie these articles together. Comments or improvements would be appreciated. Template:Policy Debate Masterdebater 02:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Permutations

There seems to be a lack of explanation about permutations. They're a tricky little topic that should probably be covered a little more. Thinking back oh those many years I recall time permutations, actor permutations and other slippery devices. Any other suggestions? By the way, this whole collection is really well done.

Spread

I've never heard this was the origin of the term, and I've been around the debate world a bit. It doesn't seem obvious to me, and in the study of slang a lot of things that seem to be apparent in retrospect do not represent the true origins. I would ask someone associated with the old Georgetown debate institutes or perhaps someone who was around the time of Tribe. But original research is not allowed on Wikipedia anyway. There needs to be a published source making these claims or it should not be included. Tfine80 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could cite Resolved? Eebster the Great (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

7 week

I'm glad someone acknowledged the 7 week debate camp in this article. It's really the best program in the nation. I went to it, so I should know. -User:Afghan Historian

To know that wouldn't you actually have to have gone to all the debate camps? Just a thought . . . Eebster the Great (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous policy debaters

Someone should acknowledge a major current policy debate star, David Gobberdiel.

I've never heard of this person and just graduated from college.Nnn9245 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
David is quite possibly the coolest person I have ever met in this life, or in any other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.133.81 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of severely insufficient citations and lots of original research. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs Major Surgery

Why is the debate theory section in the middle of the article? It clogs up a lot of space, and explains little to the uninitiated and casually interested. It should be a separate article. Further, it's extremely confusing which of these theory issues are obsolete and which aren't. A better way to do it would be just to say in the theory section that there are multiple branches of debate theory (link to an article) and then just say the basics: in a typical debate, the aff gets a plan and the neg gets the squo or a counterplan (and explain what all these means). Then in the actual theory article, you can explain which regions/circuits adhere more strongly to which theories, as well as explaining the mutability of debate theory in general. Nnn9245 00:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of popular camps is good and all those camps deserve to be on it, but can someone clean it up along the following lines: (1) consolodate programs under the same camp (eg northwestern and miami one link each not two) and (2) clean up the ENDI link? Thanks!

if you care so much and dis it so much, why didnt YOU write the article??

That's a totally ridiculous and unsigned comment. Suggestions on how to improve an article should be welcomed, because this article clearly needed and STILL needs some of this work, particularly at removing the original research. Not everybody has time to do the necessary research to rewrite parts of the article, but if they have time to make suggestions, those are still useful. Eebster the Great (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the reversion?

The edits I made Aug 8 seems to more accurate than the original text regarding paradigm, judging, and some minor awkward language. The first two points matter most to me. I noted that the term "paradigm" is largely obsolete in NDT/CEDA and it is. Second, I eliminated the idea that experienced judges tend to get "caught up" which seems to assume the POV of someone who does not prefer lay judges. Instead, I emphasized common differences between their perspectives. So why did was it changed back to the old, more inaccurate version?

There is already a lot of original research in this article. One of these days I'll get around to removing it. Until then, please don't add anything else that can't be cited to a source. If you can find an article in the Rostrum or a book about debate to back up what you want to add, please add it. But don't add things just from your "personal experience." savidan(talk) (e@) 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a link to the NFL's (and similar organisation's) archive of old topics or perhaps an article which manifests the information? http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Main/poltopics.pdf

note on page moves

A note to the policy debate fans. I have just moved a lot of pages like Topicality, Solvency, Inherency and so on to the more proper X (policy debate). This will probably create some problems with the templates and so on so be sure to check them out. Frankly it's a bit annoying to follow a link from a financial article and see solvency defined as a stock issue. It's great that there's room on Wikipedia for things like policy debate but people have to realize that it is a marginal subject and should name pages accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 04:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominate for Good Article status?

Someone should nominate it. I don't have the time to perform the subsequent tweaking, but this article is definitely worthy, of even featured status!

As someone who has worked on this a lot, not just reverting vandalism, I have to say I don't think its ready even for good article status. Too much of this is just written off-hand by people involved in the activity, which is better than nothing, but it needs to be referenced and written from the point of view of an outsider. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

GA comment

It seems from this article that policy debating only takes place in the US. Is this in fact the case? The geographical scope of policy debating should probably be discussed in the lead, as it is important in definining the term. MLilburne 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The activity described in this article only takes place in the U.S. If there is debating in other countries, it is totally different and does not go by this name. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This should, I think, be made clear in the lead.MLilburne 21:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This debate style is unique to the United States. Most other countries debate in other styles, look up the article entitled debate to learn more about the other styles and debate around the world.Xtopher 05:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article failed the GA noms for the following reason:

  • There are too many bulleted lists, please see Wikipedia:Embedded list for more details.
  • Please cite inline references using footnotes.
  • Please cleanup this article and remove the cleanup tag.

Feel free to renominate this article when all problems have been addressed. Tarret 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sample card section

why is this still here? I thought we got rid of it Earendilmm 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The peer review stated we should remove it. I'll go about doing that now.Theloneman 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the drills link, and noticed that it should link to the 0402 article, not 0302. Confirm?

Speed in wpm

I think "350-400 wpm" is too low of an average for the "national circuit" - I'm universally considered slow in comparison to national circuit debaters and I can handle 350 wpm at http://spreeder.com/ with minimal difficulty - 75.17.149.251 (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to change it unless you can get any evidence backing you up. And 350 wpm is in fact very fast, although it depends on whether you're talking about high school or college. I have heard that rates faster than 450 wpm are extremely rare, so perhaps you could up the maximum to 450, but I wouldn't do so without some evidence to cite.Eebster the Great (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flow.jpg

Image:Flow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?

Is the image under 'flow' a flow at all? It looks nothing like a spreadsheet or paper flow- in fact, looking up the author, it's just a summary image from someone's project! --138.88.133.164 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

5 stock issues?

I am in a homeschool debate club (so it may be different than other rules) but there are only 4 stock issues; topicality, inherency, significance, and solvency. The harms kind of fall under inherency and significance, but don't get counted as a stock issue in and of itself. Is it just me or is it actually not a stock issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.63.239 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically in Policy, harms are considered a stock issue long before significance. Significance is just a way of saying that your harms matter over the status quo, but as stated in the article, generally ANY advantage over the status quo is considered significant. So yes, harms are a stock issue. They should NOT be included with inherency, which simply states that the problem is unsolvable in the status quo, and it should not be included with significance because, frankly, you have to explain what the harms are before considering if they're significant. And by the way, it isn't a matter of rules, because there are no stated "rules" as to what defines a stock issue, it's just a matter of debate theory.Eebster the Great (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The note that what defines a stock issue is debate theory, not rules, is important. In my time as a debator, and now as a judge, I've always thought of four stock issues (topicality, inherency, solvency, and harms), with significance being an implied part of why the harms warrant a plan. In Michigan, where I am from, coaches, debators, and judges alike all generally accept these four stock issues, though I'm not sure if this is true past my state (but I suspect it's quite likely). JGonzo (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Framework

I think there should be a section, or entire page, devoted to framework debate. It's an essential part of high level policy debate these days and deserves a concise, informative explanation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/1 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Paradigms

Perhaps I've been away too long.

In the 1970's "policy maker" meant one was arguing as if one was a real policy maker, such as a legislator, and a win would become law.

Hypothesis testing meant one recognized we were students in cheap suits, arguing interesting topics, but not law makers.

The hard-core policy-maker school was Georgetown; the hypothesis testing school was Northwestern.

I'm suprised inherency arguments have lost favor. How long can one argue topicailty? How long should judges listen to such stuff? Once upon a time when 1AC presented a non-topical case, 1NC would demur and let the judge decide.

Professor Chemerinsky gave one of the best lectures I ever heard, about inherency, in the late 1970's. There was a standing ovation, which is unusual for a techninal talk. Perhaps Dr. Zarefsky has a recording. 2.718281828plus (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In a lecture from Roger Solt, I learned about the various paradigms in greater depth. The policy maker paradigm does treat debate as if we were really to create a policy, but not in a fantasy sense, just in the sense that this is the best way to determine which policy is best, which is the point of debate in the policy maker paradigm. Thus policy makers focus on the plan rather than the resolution, and as a result topical CPs are allowed and theory debates center around abuse rather than logic. I'm pretty sure this is still the most prevalent paradigm in high school and college.
The hypothesis testing paradigm is really rare now, but was somewhat popular in the late 60s and early 70s. Hypothesis testers treat debate as a logical excersize to determine the truth of the resolution. Thus hypothesis testers focus on the resolution rather than the plan (which is just a means of testing the resolution), and thus topical CPs are not allowed, but alternative justification (conditional) affs might be. I have never actually debated in a hypothesis testing paradigm, or even seen a judge sheet that listed him/her as a hypothesis tester. Eebster the Great (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But for some reason, thirty years later, I still think people with part-time jobs and flammable suits (myself included) shouldn't be making policy. Many debaters I faced (the Georgetown crowd especially) argued they were actual policy makers, within the the limits of the debate. I don't recall too many judges caring one way or another paradigms; most cared about argument and evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.718281828plus (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speed

I removed the following from the speed section:

The fastest speaking debaters in the nation speak at around 6-8 words per second. An average speed debater on the national circuit will speak around 350 to 400 words per minute.

It references words per minute, which in turn referenced this article. Therefore, there was no real citation. It also conflicts with a cited statement on the words per minute page. Ajonlime (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have readded this. I've provided two citations. Here are more (this list also includes the ones that I did cite):
[1] says 450 wpm
[2] says 400-500 wpm
[3] says 500-600 wpm
[4] says 350-400 wpm
[5] says 400-500 wpm
[6] says 540 wpm
[7] says 350-400 wpm
The variation may possibly be explained away by the fact that some schools are larger than others. Statistically speaking, the 5 fastest debaters at a school of 50,000 are going to be faster than the 5 fastest speakers at a school of 2,000. TerraFrost 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed Controversy

I changed the following line from the speed section:

With the notable exception of certain regions, most of the debate community has come to the consensus that, since the debates are held for the debaters, whether an outsider can understand the style is a moot point.

to this:

However, with the notable exception of certain regions, most debates no longer include outside perspective as a criterion for judging the debate itself.

I'm still not entirely satisfied with the line, so perhaps it should be removed, but it is definitely an improvement. It's impossible to prove that the debate community has come to a consensus on a theory issue still sometimes used in debates.

I think the whole section needs some reform, since it summarizes relatively complex arguments in the debate in a few lines. Obviously speed is no longer an issue in debate generally speaking, but it is sufficiently notable to entitle it to a real discussion of both sides. On the other hand, if the arguments aren't going to be fully explained here, perhaps a summary isn't needed at all. After all, speed is not the only, nor the most common, procedural or rhetorical "real" issue in debate. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs more background

As an Australian who is somewhat aware of the British tradition of debating, this article was almost incomprehensible.

Reading the history section, it appeared that debating in the US sprang from the same tradition as the debating I know of, but it's completely unclear if a "policy debate" sits within the US mainstream, is one of several schools of debating, or is an obscure offshoot.

Generally speaking, the article is also full of jargon and seems to have been written for those already in the know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.162.238 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is a valuable article because there aren't many outside sources about the history or nature of this style of debate, but somebody with knowledge needs to edit it with an eye to making it more understandable to outsiders. It would be great if this debate style were put in the context of others, such as Lincoln-Douglas (assuming that still exists) in the US, and whatever is going on in other countries. I would be bold here, without worrying about whether people will say it's original research. If what you put in is uncontroversially true, eventually somebody will find a source for it.65.87.181.198 (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

db8

why does db8 redirect here?

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Policy_debate/Archive_1&oldid=602612093"