(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Good effort Ali
Good first effort Ali. Notice how your argument title is longer than the rest on the page. One of the more difficult and, I suppose, artistic element of framing arguments is shortening the argument title to roughly six words or so - no more than one line on the splitscreen. So, you wrote as the argument title:
"A nuclear test ban is intrinsic for stopping the R&D process, and eventually stopping the development of nuclear weapons."
This is good reasoning, but here's how I'd shorten it to its MOST pithy form:
"Nuclear test ban halts R&D and development of nuclear weapons."
You see the difference?
Think of article titles as the titles to articles in newspapers. They are incredibly short and even sometimes cut corners on grammar for the sake of pithiness.
NOW, you see how the title I just offered in replacement of your title is equivalent to another argument title on the pro side of the article. Have a look. You'll see "A test ban would make it harder to develop nuclear weapons." This is the same argument. So, I'm going to show you how to merge arguments next. But, first, just let me know that you understand what I mean with above comment.
Best -- Brooks Lindsay 23:15, 15 June 2009 (CDT)
I've posted your contribution on the site notice (appearing at the top of every page on the site), so that our roughly 5,000 daily visitors can see your work. In general, I try to post strong contributions of any kind throughout the day to the sitenotice, and the main page. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 23:34, 15 June 2009 (CDT)
Merged your latest argument/quotation into Argument: World can better leverage rogue states after ratifying CTBT. Let me know that this works with you. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 11:07, 22 June 2009 (CDT)
Hey. Just wanted to say good work on this article. I've seen and reviewed your contributions. I've just been incredibly busy, and have been traveling through Scotland in the last two weeks, so haven't been as productive as usual on Debatepedia. But... I'm back in the saddle again now. -- Brooks Lindsay 05:20, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
Good contributions to the Pluto debate article. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:35, 2 August 2009 (CDT)
Funding for space exploration
Good contribution there. And from the Economist. Love it. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:01, 5 August 2009 (CDT)
I posted your great two arguments on this debate, on the site notice and main page. Good stuff. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:53, 13 August 2009 (CDT)
Good efforts on Debate: Mandatory calorie counts on menus. Can you find more articles that argue that calorie counts are expensive and costly for restaurants to implement. The section and argument already exists if you can add to it. And, I've given you administrator status - you'll see new tabs at the top of the page. Congrats! -- Brooks Lindsay 19:50, 19 August 2009 (CDT)