Jump to content
ihsdebate

550pg PMF file!!

Recommended Posts

my guess is that the aff would claim the draft is necessary to fill the holes left by the loss of PMC's; without some method to increase normal troops our army would be understaffed, overstretched, etc. etc. blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my guess is that the aff would claim the draft is necessary to fill the holes left by the loss of PMC's; without some method to increase normal troops our army would be understaffed, overstretched, etc. etc. blah blah.

 

I was actually going to suffice an answer that says "yea, that's definitely an option."

 

Sev is right though. There are other answers: banning pmc's just means they move somewhere else to work and othe rpeople hire them, the crappy oversight by the US becomes even crappier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JMT25 -

 

its not about what case you are running, its about how it is constructed, whether the affirmative evidence gels together in such a way to make a tight wall which cannot be overcome. for example, my nameless case for this year BEGS a specific two neg arguments. in fact, i would be surprised if less than 95% of neg teams run both. additionally, i employ my all too insane feynman framework (revamped of course) which basically erodes all negative disad ground. if the neg makes answers to the framework AND runs either of the two arguments, the neg answers are 100% incompatible. the neg wont realize it... but they are. solvency answers disads. advantages turn disads. framework turns critiques. case theory turns everything.

 

debate is not about the evidence. its not about the analysis. its about the strategy you employ in the round and using the evidence and analysis as a means of expressing your strategy. in my favorite example, debate is like war. the team which chooses the battlefield will ALWAYS win the round. i design affs to steer the negative into predesigned traps. the negative will almost always run specific arguments. this means i can prepare better for those arguments. the neg will be thinking "oh. the statism critique is gonna whallop the aff" and i am sitting back thinking "you're such a fool. do you think i would put a card in the 1ac that says 'we increase statism' without having ridiculous turns to what you are going to run?" my cases are classic examples of steering the neg into specific arguments because they seem obvious and winnable. they dont realize their strat is flawed until they get spanked by the 2ac.

 

a good case is made not by the evidence or arguments - its made by the well defined and well constructed case theory which goes behind it.

 

 

 

travis-

 

true. i have not worked a camp. but i do see the results of camp and i am generally extremely disappointed. how is it that a team who competes locally in PA, which is no where in the vicinity of being a strong district (6 varsity policy teams total from three schools - they all qual to CFLs) can manage to place 14th at NFLs running inherency as their core neg strat? how is it that most of the best debaters i have EVER seen are debaters who sit back and pick apart the internal logic of evidence the opposing team runs?

 

this isnt to say my cases are flawless by any means. in fact, most of my cases share the exact same fatal flaw. but i find it incredibly humorous that every single one of them (except ban internet) have gone without the silver bullet being shot by ANY team in over a decade. this includes circuit teams and teams that have qual'd to TOC. why has debate managed to emphasize cutting volumes of BAD evidence in favor of teaching kids how to critically analyze an argument? i know more judges who are willing to vote for a team that facecrushes the other team on analysis than judges who will pick up the facecrushed team on volume of evidence they can spit out.

 

i totally sympathize with the position that every camp wants to put out files so they can say "look! you went home with forty positions! now its your job to develop them..." but you are missing two very important things here:

 

1) the files are filled with horrible errors which make the files worthless

2) you havent taught them how to develop the files and correct those problems

 

since you never point out the problems yourself, the kids leave camp believing that what they have is the standard they should attempt to have on their own. afterall, some of the best debaters in the country in previous years are lab instructors! how can they be approving of evidence which is so horribly bad? i know if i was a tenth grader that would be what i was thinking. i would be saying "but the revered coach XYZ thinks this is good stuff!"

 

so the kids leaving thinking its good, when its not. those who find out its bad either painfully in round or hopefully on their own are left without the skills to identify how to develop a well constructed argument. so effectively, they have gained NOTHING from camp but 2000 pages of kindling.

 

its okay to produce bad evidence. its NOT okay to defend bad evidence and NOT teach kids how to deal with bad evidence. i am okay with putting bad evidence in a file so it forces kids to go into the evidence and learn to pick out the good stuff from the bad, to figure out how to argue the bad evidence. thats a 100% legit way of teaching these skills. but you are actually PREVENTING this development by defending the arguments the camp produces are being good and that is unacceptable, IMO.

 

and debate camp shouldnt be about exposing kids to different arguments. they can do that by reading the evidence on their own. you give them a list of sources to look up in their own time, they can figure it out. they are bright students. debate camp should be about acquiring skills which they cannot receive on their own. they need the criticism of good debaters and the ability to watch good debaters in action in order to understand how good arguments are born.

 

dont take any of this personally, because I am sure you personally agree with me on a lot of this, as most coaches do. most coaches, however, say they "live in the real world"...

 

 

 

 

Shu-

spratlys solves more than cancer. it also cures heidi fleiss of the desire to pimp her friends. and thats worth the torture of hearing the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) the files are filled with horrible errors which make the files worthless

2) you havent taught them how to develop the files and correct those problems

 

i know we never finished discussing the file the other night, but still i ask the question: where are these horrible files that make it worthless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

this is my last post on this thread. i am not going to respond to a line by line response to the analytics because thats not my purpose. if you want to do it, go ahead. dont expect a response.

my purpose is to teach kids to think about what the opposing team is actually trying to say, and then seeing if their evidence matches the claims. and if there are holes in logic, what is the significance of those holes. you can disagree with my analysis all you want, and quite frankly, i dont care.

if any of you have a specific question addressed to me, please by all means ask.

 

 

 

PLAN FLAW

your plan talks about how PMF's are bad. you claim draft solves this - but you never actually eliminate the PMF's by kicking them out!

 

this means that INSTANTLY, all your arguments like 'PMFs cause abuse in prisons' stays and only gets worse. since your evidence will naturally claim you are at a 'tipping point' on all of these PMF related problems... well, guess what. you dont get rid of them, the PMFs stay and we fall off the cliff.

 

 

 

IRAQ ADVANTAGE

lets assume you are right when you say that if PMCs disappear, iraq falls into shambles because our soldiers have no support and cant fight the insurgency.

 

when your 1ac talks about how having a draft results in a withdrawl from iraq... what happens then? we dont even have the soldiers to fight the insurgency. what then? absolute chaos.

 

your own evidence turns the iraq advantage.

 

to my scanning of the blocks, there is not one iota of evidence which says that a draft between 18 and 30 will produce enough soldiers to actually solve for iraq.

 

the back up solvency by carter and glastris says:

A modernized draft would demand that the privileged participate. It would give all who serve a choice over how they serve. And it would provide the military, on a “just in time” basis, large numbers of deployable ground troops, particularly the peacekeepers we'll need to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both.

so the new recuirts (who didnt want to be in the military to begin with) get to CHOOSE how they serve. so how is that ANY different than the PMF's who can refuse to go into dangerous areas? i can CHOOSE to be a soldier in a role that doesnt go into dangerous areas... they can choose to not be soldiers with rifles in their hands. you DONT solve.

 

 

 

HEGEMONY ADVT

first, you dont meet the warrants of the khalilzad card. khalilzad recommends a number of vital steps. you dont do them.

 

second you use a draft to draft whom? people who shied away from military service in the first place. so you are telling me that these people are of the caliber to replace our motivated and highly skilled navy seals? do you trust me to join up with them in special ops? do *you* wanna see me with a gun? it wont be a pretty sight, i promise you that. cross apply the previous on how the draftee can choose his or her service.

 

more still - do you know the time it takes to become a special forces, or a highly trained soldier etc? you're talking at the barest minimum two-three years or more IF the soldiers are picked from basic training, to officer training to special ops without breaks. so in the intevening time, when you dont have more troops on the ground, the fighting is only getting worse and if there is more fighting, the PMF's leave and iraq is in shambles, our military gets defeated and it turns the advantage.

 

lastly, your evidence talks about how these horribly unregulated PMFs undermine the military - but you still dont eliminate them.

 

 

 

PROLIFERATION

Private military firms do NOT supply rogue states with weapons etc. Arms dealers do. We do not employ arms dealers in Iraq etc. You are not displacing gun runners. You are displacing janitors and cooks. Cooks are not the ones supplying the guerrilas of Nicaragua with Kalishnikovs and RPGs.

 

Furthermore, there is a fundamental discord between your evidence talking about prolif of small arms and the prolif of nuclear technology. The two are unrelated by evidence. I cant think of a single instance when an arms dealer dealt a nuke, nuclear material, or any nuclear secrets.

 

There is also ZERO evidence that terrorists have developed purchased or stolen a nuke, thus giving no weight to a terrorist nuclear scenario.

 

Thus you solve ZERO percent of prolif and zero nuclear impacts. your own block evidence corroborates this so you cant go to your blocks for help.

 

 

 

CIVIL MILITARY RELATIONS

okay yeah. this is especially bad. zero internal links in logic between link to impact. your only links in logic are through power tags. i dont even want to get into this one. it makes me disgusted.

 

 

 

"PMF's abuse prisoners. But we dont get rid of them!!!!"

Do you see gaping holes in logic now? Do you think these are minor things? The sad thing is that there were good chances that this case could have done well. But now there are going to be dozens of people writing ridiculous blocks to it. Analytical and evidence. Debaters now know where to search for evidence to expose the holes in the logic. Trust me, the evidence is out there to support all the analysis.

 

I'll leave it to the cross-x.com public to do a line by line if they want. I'll also leave it to you to discover a case specific, 100% rhetorically mutually exclusive counterplan which solves for every advantage except maybe Iraq if the aff succeeds in saying "troop numbers key to Iraq." Think about it... the plan is PMF's bad/draft good. What could possibly be rhetorically mutually exclusive here?

 

old school neg strat which wins more times than imaginable (only lost three or four neg rounds in two years):

1NC - off case plus case turns etc - basically all evidence (1NC must be fast)

2AC - answers it all

2NC - does case analysis like above. takes the remaining time to split the block.

1NR - picks up the remainder of the 1NC arguments.

1AR - effectively screwed. if the 1AR goes for the off case, they will lose by not having a case in the 2NR. thus the 1AR must go for the analytics first, which means that they will grossly undercover the off case and advantage turns and the neg will clean up in the 2NR.

 

i have rarely seen a team capable of doing a good job of both answering the analytics and answering the off case/solvency/advantage turn/case turn arguments all in the 1AR. its nearly impossible. and by rarely that means in thirteen years of debate as a debater and coach, that means a total of MAYBE five.

 

moral of the story - write a better aff and my 99.99% winning strat wont work!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses Ankur, I enjoy seeing the worthwhile commentary. At another time I would feel like responding, but as for now I will sit back and think of it and keep it to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMT25 -

 

travis-

 

true. i have not worked a camp. but i do see the results of camp and i am generally extremely disappointed. how is it that a team who competes locally in PA, which is no where in the vicinity of being a strong district (6 varsity policy teams total from three schools - they all qual to CFLs) can manage to place 14th at NFLs running inherency as their core neg strat? how is it that most of the best debaters i have EVER seen are debaters who sit back and pick apart the internal logic of evidence the opposing team runs?

 

this isnt to say my cases are flawless by any means. in fact, most of my cases share the exact same fatal flaw. but i find it incredibly humorous that every single one of them (except ban internet) have gone without the silver bullet being shot by ANY team in over a decade. this includes circuit teams and teams that have qual'd to TOC. why has debate managed to emphasize cutting volumes of BAD evidence in favor of teaching kids how to critically analyze an argument? i know more judges who are willing to vote for a team that facecrushes the other team on analysis than judges who will pick up the facecrushed team on volume of evidence they can spit out.

 

i totally sympathize with the position that every camp wants to put out files so they can say "look! you went home with forty positions! now its your job to develop them..." but you are missing two very important things here:

 

1) the files are filled with horrible errors which make the files worthless

2) you havent taught them how to develop the files and correct those problems

 

since you never point out the problems yourself, the kids leave camp believing that what they have is the standard they should attempt to have on their own. afterall, some of the best debaters in the country in previous years are lab instructors! how can they be approving of evidence which is so horribly bad? i know if i was a tenth grader that would be what i was thinking. i would be saying "but the revered coach XYZ thinks this is good stuff!"

 

so the kids leaving thinking its good, when its not. those who find out its bad either painfully in round or hopefully on their own are left without the skills to identify how to develop a well constructed argument. so effectively, they have gained NOTHING from camp but 2000 pages of kindling.

 

its okay to produce bad evidence. its NOT okay to defend bad evidence and NOT teach kids how to deal with bad evidence. i am okay with putting bad evidence in a file so it forces kids to go into the evidence and learn to pick out the good stuff from the bad, to figure out how to argue the bad evidence. thats a 100% legit way of teaching these skills. but you are actually PREVENTING this development by defending the arguments the camp produces are being good and that is unacceptable, IMO.

 

and debate camp shouldnt be about exposing kids to different arguments. they can do that by reading the evidence on their own. you give them a list of sources to look up in their own time, they can figure it out. they are bright students. debate camp should be about acquiring skills which they cannot receive on their own. they need the criticism of good debaters and the ability to watch good debaters in action in order to understand how good arguments are born.

 

dont take any of this personally, because I am sure you personally agree with me on a lot of this, as most coaches do. most coaches, however, say they "live in the real world"...

 

In interest of time and spending as little time on this site as possible, I'll focus on one particular thing you've said, as it seems to be a good summation of what you are saying:

 

'Its okay to produce bad evidence. its NOT okay to defend bad evidence and NOT teach kids how to deal with bad evidence.'

 

Look, again your ignorance as to what camps do is overwhelming. It's like you have this assumption that all we do is throw down a pile of books and then arrange what's left at the end of two weeks into a file and send kids on their way. You also seem to assume that lab leaders have the capability to ready every single piece of evidence and then approve or disapprove of it on their own before it goes into a file. These assumptions couldn't be more misplaced. There is a great deal of personal interaction in lectures, lab-time, practice debates, skills sessions, what have you. That's where we teach them how to refute, critically analyze and advance their own argumentation. I would urge you to get a better handle on what the fuck your talking about before criticizing a lot of people's hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course i mention that you shouldnt take this personally... but of course you do. classic.

 

I would urge you to get a better handle on what the fuck your talking about before criticizing a lot of people's hard work.

 

it doesnt matter whether i know what you are doing every miunute of camp. you are missing the important part here - i have a VERY good handle of what the results of your precious minutes are. there are only two cases to evaluate here:

 

if you ARE doing as i say, then you are clearly failing at accomplishing the task at hand... and you need to rework your methods of instruction so you are actually getting across to the students.

if you ARENT doing what i am saying, then you are producing PPT debaters who have not yet learned how to make a coherent argument.

 

if i give a chemistry exam to your students and they fail the test what does it mean? either you didnt teach them chemistry or you tried and failed. do i need to know what you did in the classroom to know what a mile long lsit of F's mean? so which is it? are you failing or are your objectives sorely misplaced? does my knowing what you do in your hours as an instructor have ANY BEARING ON MY OBSERVATIONS OF THE RESULTS OF SAID INSTRUCTION? stop trying to C.Y.A. and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TYPES OF DEBATERS YOU ARE PRODUCING.

 

 

 

In interest of time and spending as little time on this site as possible, I'll focus on one particular thing you've said, as it seems to be a good summation of what you are saying:

 

'Its okay to produce bad evidence. its NOT okay to defend bad evidence and NOT teach kids how to deal with bad evidence.'

 

Look, again your ignorance as to what camps do is overwhelming. It's like you have this assumption that all we do is throw down a pile of books and then arrange what's left at the end of two weeks into a file and send kids on their way. You also seem to assume that lab leaders have the capability to ready every single piece of evidence and then approve or disapprove of it on their own before it goes into a file. These assumptions couldn't be more misplaced.

 

so what you are telling me is that what i did above in twenty minutes of cursory examination is what you teach kids to do? if you did so, then why would the kids be cutting the evidence as such? why would they not be cutting BETTER files that end up getting put in the files for distribution? why is it that year after year, i see the same exact debaters in different labs at sometimes different camps cutting the SAME garbage. have they learned nothing?

 

the results speak for themselves. even if the camp leader doesnt read the entire 550 page file, simply by reading the 15 page FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE you could figure it out. you mean to tell me that a lab leader is TOO busy to read a 1AC their lab cuts? what is the lab leader doing that they cant read the 1ac in ten minutes? you have ten minutes to kill sitting on the john!

 

 

 

There is a great deal of personal interaction in lectures, lab-time, practice debates, skills sessions, what have you. That's where we teach them how to refute, critically analyze and advance their own argumentation.

 

then it is clear you are failing. there is a difference between a good debater and a good teacher. i once had this chemistry teacher - brilliant woman who knew more about chemistry than i could possibly learn in ten lifetimes - but she couldnt teach in a manner which could help me, or the rest of the class for that matter, understand. she failed at teaching, even though she felt she was doing us a great service by imparting all her chemistry knowledge on us.

 

i am 110% sure that you are a good debater. in fact, if you and i faced off, i have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you would beat me handily. i might be, and always have been, a terrible debater - but i am a GOOD coach and educator and my track record speaks for itself. instead of accepting constructive criticism saying you need to focus more on teaching kids how to expose the sorts of flaws i saw above, how to exploit them and defend against them, you take things personally.

 

travis, i have seen you on here for years, and respect you as a person and a debater. but you need to recognize that what you are doing isnt working... and every time you defend the problems, you are effectively perpetuating them. what you are doing is the rough equivalent of me saying "you sent our troops into iraq without body armor!" and you saying "well. soldiers die. its a part of war. thats okay." you are justifying bad education.

 

all my beefs with camp arent with the students. its with the lab instructors, coaches, and directors who clearly have NO PLANS ON CORRECTING THE PROBLEMS THE REST OF THE WORLD SEES. and again, this is not aimed at YOU specifically... when i say you in the rest of the post, i am implying all debate instructors at camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How should someone differentiate 'good' and 'bad' education? I thought Travis did a pretty good teaching me at camp last year. His files were a useful starting point, and as my partner and I evolved, we modified them. It's not "bad education" that our files weren't perfect - it's a lesson that even good debaters, like Travis, are imperfect. No national champion (that I know of) has ever made it through the entire year unscathed.

 

Good debate is research based. Some are better than researching than others, but everyone would like to see the product of their labor placed in a file. If YOU don't think someone's work is quality, YOU sort it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were wondering, I had nothing to do with producing or writing the file at hand, so I find it particularly difficult for me to take this 'personally.'

 

Group all of your 'shitty files indict your educative process and prove you are a bad teacher' arguments. I don't know of any other way to say this, but that's just fucking retarded. I would like you to tell me if you believe it is reasonable to expect lab leaders to produce highly polished, argumentation experts with just two or three weeks of time every summer. Especially when you consider the very diverse experience and interest levels of the debaters involved. That's something only a coach can do, working with the same students throughout an entire year, or over the course of a debaters career. Considering I am an active debater, and a coach, and an annual lab instructor, I have some idea of the different types of pressures and limitations involved in all the things at hand. The standard you establish is like asking a student to write and defend a doctorate dissertation after spending two weeks just getting a grasp on the issues at hand. I think you have a serious problem in remembering that, whatever your frustrations may be with judging bad debate after bad debate, that these are high school kids we're talking about, oftentimes only 14 or 15. So come off it man. Good lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you were wondering, I had nothing to do with producing or writing the file at hand, so I find it particularly difficult for me to take this 'personally.'

 

Group all of your 'shitty files indict your educative process and prove you are a bad teacher' arguments. I don't know of any other way to say this, but that's just fucking retarded. I would like you to tell me if you believe it is reasonable to expect lab leaders to produce highly polished, argumentation experts with just two or three weeks of time every summer. Especially when you consider the very diverse experience and interest levels of the debaters involved. That's something only a coach can do, working with the same students throughout an entire year, or over the course of a debaters career. Considering I am an active debater, and a coach, and an annual lab instructor, I have some idea of the different types of pressures and limitations involved in all the things at hand. The standard you establish is like asking a student to write and defend a doctorate dissertation after spending two weeks just getting a grasp on the issues at hand. I think you have a serious problem in remembering that, whatever your frustrations may be with judging bad debate after bad debate, that these are high school kids we're talking about, oftentimes only 14 or 15. So come off it man. Good lord.

 

 

well you certainly do have a point about there being time limiations at camp. maybe it is a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...