Political Polarization Debate Discussion

Each case must have at least 8 “cards” in total (4 in the aff portion and 4 in the neg portion).You must use 6 different sources in your case. The sources MUST be quality academic sources. (I have provided some sources for you in Files)Topic: The United States should regulate political content on social media platforms.Your Case will have two parts:AffirmativeNegativeYou will break these up into 4 parts:-The Intro and Conclusion portions should include the normal parts (AG, Thesis, Preview/Review, Clincher).-The Body portion includes two piecesFirst, you will have a scripted speech and should be planned out to be 2-3 minutes long.Second, the refutation part will be a collection of evidence that you will use to refute your opponent’s claims.Case formatting:Your case should be a properly formatted outline. The Body will have two roman numerals in your outline. Under that you will have 2-5 Capital letters as sub-points. Below I will provide guidance on the parts of the outline. Affirmative (Negative) Intro BodyI. Advantages (Disadvantages) A. Advantage 1 (Disadvantage 1) 1. Tagline stating the claim and a brief description of the evidence you will read with proper ADP (Link) Full citation info (8pt)Block Quote from the article with 6-8 bolded sentences to read. (10pt) A summary and analysis of the info and how it relates to the debate and the argument you are making 2. Solvency (Impact) B. Advantage 2 (Disadvantage 2) 1. Harm/Impact (Link) 2. Solvency (Impact) II. Refutations A. Refutation 1 B. Refutation 2 C. Refutation 3One sub-point would look something like this:A. Despite the relative effectiveness of drones in meeting the first level goals of the US, they fail in thwarting terrorism. They have been proven in places like Pakistan to increase anti-US sentiments and fail to prevent terrorism. As an expert in International Security and Intelligence, S. Hall described in a winter issue of the Journal of Strategic Security in Winter 2014:[“Help Wanted: American Drone Program Needs Multifaceted Support to be Effective,” Drone technology has allowed more accurate targeting of individuals, better reconnaissance collection, and protected troops; Drones have also killed innocent civilians, destroyed villages, raised levels of anti-American sentiment while failing to reduce terrorism in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Despite a decade of drone campaigns to counter anti-American efforts, the hostility against the United States in these areas has increased and groups such as ISIL have emerged. This has to raise the question, “do air-only campaigns really work to combat terrorism?” The answer is no and it can be demonstrated by analyzing the weaknesses of the U.S. drone program in Pakistan. For the last decade, the United States has engaged in a drone campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) to combat terrorist groups that pepper the region. Despite the deaths of terrorist leaders and years of destruction, terrorism is still a pervasive problem in Pakistan and anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high. In this debate, you are likely to hear repeated claims of the effectiveness of drones in gathering technology and striking opponents without the loss of life. But if that action has been proven to not stop terrorism and increase anger toward the US, how can we consider drones beneficial? Parts further explained:Taglines: Under each main point of the outline, you will use “taglines” or topic sentences that state the claim you are making with each particular sub-point (sub-point A above). Your brief tagline plus the ADP for the source will allow you to transition into the evidence and warrant.Full Citation: In size 8 font you should include the relevant info you aren’t saying in the speech. This would include title of the article, the DOI link, and any other info that would be in a properly formatted works cited section but isn’t being said out loud in the oral citation (ADP).Evidence: Then you will include a piece of evidence, known as a “card.” This should be in size 10 font and indented like a block quote. You should also highlight or bold the sentences you will read. You should read 6-10 sentences from the source. Remember it is unethical to cite out of context or change the meaning of the author. Here is a video showing how to cut a card. It is like a long block quote with underlining and bolding to indicate the parts you will read in the debate. I want to remind you that commercial websites, pro-industry websites, biased .org, and some .gov sites are not academic and not effective at persuading an audience. Elevate the information beyond simplified paragraphs about the topic and read something effective and persuasive. A sample case outline on a previous topic is provided in Files to assist you. ActionsA rough example of what the body of the case would look like when assembled (without indentations):Aff Case StructureI. AdvantagesA. This should be the title of the advantage.1. Under the first subpoint you should provide evidence of the existence of an existing harm in the status quo. You should provide evidence with the Author, Date, and Publication:(CARD HERE) Following the card you should briefly speak about the evidence and the warrant for the claim. You may choose to emphasize the quality of the source or further explain elements not discussed in the card. 2. Under the second subpoint you should read evidence about the impact of significance or severity of the harm and what might happen if we don’t fix it. Please provide the ADP for the card:(CARD HERE)This is called an impact. You will want to use the impact in the rebuttals to outweigh any disadvantages read against you. 3. Under the third subpoint you should read a piece of evidence that proves your plan will solve the harm. Include the ADP for the source:(CARD HERE)This evidence will speak to the workability of the aff plan and specifically discuss how it will fix the harm of point 1 and avoid the impact of point 2.II. Refutations: You should prepare cards that will respond to the arguments you think the negative will make. This could include attacks on their disadvantages or evidence to support the workability of the Aff. A. This should be the first refutation including the tagline, ADP, card, and summary.B. This should be the second refutation. C. Third RefutationNeg Case StructureI. DisadvantgaesA. This should be the title of the disadvantage.1. Under the first subpoint you should provide evidence that the affirmative plan will cause a harm to occur. You should provide evidence with the Author, Date, and Publication:(CARD HERE) Following the card you should briefly speak about the evidence and the warrant for the claim. You may choose to emphasize the quality of the source or further explain elements not discussed in the card. 2. Under the second subpoint you should read evidence about the significance or severity of the harm and what might happen if we do the plan. Please provide the ADP for the card:(CARD HERE)This is called an impact. You will want to use the impact in the rebuttals to outweigh any advantages read by the aff. B. Disadvantage 2/Workability1. II. Refutations: You should prepare cards that will respond to the arguments you think the negative will make. This could include attacks on their disadvantages or evidence to support the workability of the Aff. A. This should be the first refutation including the tagline, ADP, card, and summary.B. This should be the second refutation. C. Third Refutation