Talk:1AC
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
NPOV
[edit]This reads like an actual debate that took place for a class - might be salvagable provided references to "my partner and I" and whatnot were removed, but in its current form it is not appropiate for Wikipedia. StopTheFiling 23:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- This reads more like a how-to anyway. Perhaps it should go to VfD anyway. --Dmcdevit 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure what this is supposed to be about in the first place, which is why I didn't go that route right away-- however I'm thinking about doing just that. I'll wait and see if anything changes first. StopTheFiling 17:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) I see now, it's a how-to on a certain kind of debate style - what I said still stands though - I'll remove the neutrality notice and put some other notice there. StopTheFiling 17:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think this page should be deleted entirely. I tried to edit it down because of excess information about the format of a sample speech, but the existing policy debate page should cover it. There is also a problem because policy debate is not the only form of debate which uses the label 1AC. Would be easier just to gut it. Tfine80 18:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to book. An article on the 1AC shouldn't be used by novice debators to hone up their skills, just like an article on Basketball shouldn't be used by athletes to hone up their skills. If we want to write a wiki book on how to do policy debate, let's do it in wikibooks (seriously, I've been considering it for some time). Besides, 1AC is a slang of sorts, and should be treated as such. I think the article should say what a 1AC is, maybe give some history on it, explain different types (e.g. spreading vs. performance), explain format and style, and maybe give a few examples. That's just my idea. But whatever it does, it should strongly reference both LD and Policy debate, because they both have 1AC's. Staeiou 22:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HoCkEy_PUCK Remember that Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with adding information on slang topics. Encyclopedias can refrence slang topics because they are not limited strictly to words as dictionaries are. Leaving this article does no harm to anybody, and may be of help to upcoming debators (the reference to a sport is absurd in this manner; you don't research a sport, you play it, whereas you learn half of formalized debate by learning the rules). Kindly at least leave the original article intact. This article has been revised to the first revision to the original article. --HoCkEy_PUCK
Merge
[edit]I put a merge tag back on this page. Policy debate covers this issue both in detail, and in context. This page is a confusing mixture of detail, "how to", and example, and I think the comments noted in the history file are good evidence of that.
Additionally, I found this article while slugging it out in the Dead-end pages. Nothing links here, and a redirect to Policy debate would direct any interest to a more complete collection of information. Bookandcoffee 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)