There are different types of debate. Parliamentary type of formal debate is typically about current events or philosophy.
- Parliamentary type of formal debate is simply known to be a debate style that has two-on-two debate, between the affirmative team.
It is referred to as the Government or the Proposition, and it also has a negative team called the Opposition.
The part or role name played by the debater are borrowed from the British Parliament, wand its judge is called the Speaker.
Learn more from
brainly.com/question/6246202
Answer:
cash back, low interest rates
Explanation:
If Sally has nightmares and flashbacks due to a trauma she faced, this is known as p<span>ost traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Additional information:
P</span><span>ost traumatic stress disorder is a disorder that causes a victim who has experienced traumatic event, to experience flashbacks or anxiety of attacks of that scenario. PTSD is present when a victim has not yet fully recovered from the incident that took place in his or her life time. </span>
Answer:
b. rightward shift of aggregate demand and a leftward shift of aggregate supply.
Explanation:
The U.S. experience of strong economic growth, full employment, and price stability in the late 1990s and early 2000s can be explained by a rightward shift of aggregate demand and a rightward shift of aggregate supply.
Bolivar stood apart from his class in ideas, values and vision. Who else would be found in the midst of a campaign swinging in a hammock, reading the French philosophers? His liberal education, wide reading, and travels in Europe had broadened his horizons and opened his mind to the political thinkers of France and Britain. He read deeply in the works of Hobbes and Spinoza, Holbach and Hume; and the thought of Montesquieu and Rousseau left its imprint firmly on him and gave him a life-long devotion to reason, freedom and progress. But he was not a slave of the Enlightenment. British political virtues also attracted him. In his Angostura Address (1819) he recommended the British constitution as 'the most worthy to serve as a model for those who desire to enjoy the rights of man and all political happiness compatible with our fragile nature'. But he also affirmed his conviction that American constitutions must conform to American traditions, beliefs and conditions.
His basic aim was liberty, which he described as "the only object worth the sacrifice of man's life'. For Bolivar liberty did not simply mean freedom from the absolutist state of the eighteenth century, as it did for the Enlightenment, but freedom from a colonial power, to be followed by true independence under a liberal constitution. And with liberty he wanted equality – that is, legal equality – for all men, whatever their class, creed or colour. In principle he was a democrat and he believed that governments should be responsible to the people. 'Only the majority is sovereign', he wrote; 'he who takes the place of the people is a tyrant and his power is usurpation'. But Bolivar was not so idealistic as to imagine that South America was ready for pure democracy, or that the law could annul the inequalities imposed by nature and society. He spent his whole political life developing and modifying his principles, seeking the elusive mean between democracy and authority. In Bolivar the realist and idealist dwelt in uneasy rivalry.
