Added: 3 years ago
From: brickmemorialjsa
Views: 2,501
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (5)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • She is a good speaker indeed, but she didn't pull me over to her side with her speech. Her big points against the affirmative was that what gives the U.S. the moral ground to impose these sanctions and ppl will not be able to buy shares so they will not receive the economic benefit. Previous speech got me when he said that these privatized oil companies are investing in terrorism as it is and capitalism is the feeder to democracy. China is living proof of that as the 1st speaker mentioned.

  • The give you about a hundred reason why the government should not protect enterprises and the corporations. The Government will then eventually encourage a Duopoly, which will then black out outside consumers. An encouragement of government protection will lead to organized crime. And you're wrong about the oil. The government doesn't control the oil, it's through the companies and the companies are what are ruining the world. The Government should protect american soil, an land. Land is precise

  • THANK U FOR NOT SPREADING!!!!

  • Is this a rebuttal?! you didn't address the resolution or the case topic at all! nor any contentions! You're a great speaker, no doubt about it and you had great points, but there wasn't structure to your speech.

  • OPP should have attached "disadds" to GOV plan. For example, oil producing countries that have been sanctioned could retalieate by initiating an oil embargo that would demolish the US economy. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-74 is proof that America is OPEC's bitch.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more