Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nvalley

MOSSA... Bring it on!

Recommended Posts

This is Neal Valley, one of the coaches at East Lansing High Skool.

 

I am challenging all to a coaches throw-down!!! Jackson and I desire some competition for the title of strongest warrior in the world of Michigan coaches. Although, that could certainly be modified to "Michigan and Ohio" if Mr. Musynski were to put his hat into the ring.

 

And I would paraphrase the rest of malgor's post to edebate, but either one of two things would happen, a. no one would get the reference and it would no longer be funny (to me), or b. I would get called out on it and it would be infinitely embarrassing.

 

Consider the above paragraph a warrior's footnote. A recognition of other warriors' strength and commitment.

 

As it is, I am throwing down the gauntlet. It is a buffet in the historical sense of the word. Let us duel. In the ring of words and public opinion.

 

For those who are too timid, I will provide you with some intel so that you can confront us, our affirmative may contain a card quoting the inimitable Michel Foucault. At the very least it may reference it. There, get your blocks a rolling, and fight! Fight for your futures!

 

And, come to MOSSA this weekend and challenge us. It will be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which teams have signed up for MOSSA?

Northview is sending 2 teams

Kyle Smith and Claire Powers

Alex Janke and partner to be named later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is Neal Valley, one of the coaches at East Lansing High Skool.

 

I am challenging all to a coaches throw-down!!! Jackson and I desire some competition for the title of strongest warrior in the world of Michigan coaches. Although, that could certainly be modified to "Michigan and Ohio" if Mr. Musynski were to put his hat into the ring.

 

And I would paraphrase the rest of malgor's post to edebate, but either one of two things would happen, a. no one would get the reference and it would no longer be funny (to me), or b. I would get called out on it and it would be infinitely embarrassing.

 

Consider the above paragraph a warrior's footnote. A recognition of other warriors' strength and commitment.

 

As it is, I am throwing down the gauntlet. It is a buffet in the historical sense of the word. Let us duel. In the ring of words and public opinion.

 

For those who are too timid, I will provide you with some intel so that you can confront us, our affirmative may contain a card quoting the inimitable Michel Foucault. At the very least it may reference it. There, get your blocks a rolling, and fight! Fight for your futures!

 

And, come to MOSSA this weekend and challenge us. It will be fun.

 

You can consider that gauntlet picked up and used to smack you across the face in an entirely cavalier manner.

 

Andy and I accept your challenge and will bring both the noise and the funk.

 

We had considered retiring from MOSSA competition as tournament champions. It now appears that we will be retiring as twopeat champions.

 

We will be prepared to negate your French Foolishness with some good old fashioned English Knightry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A glove slap in a little old face will get you satisfaction.

Glove slap ba-a-beee.... (Glove slap, baby)

Glove slap, baby, glove slap!

Glove slap, I don't take crap!

Glove slap, shut your big yap...

 

It's on like Diddy Kong.

 

We will counter your evidence with perhaps no evidence of our own, and if we do have any, you can bet it won't be from this (or last) century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratz. Couldn't make it work to be there this year. I guess the clone armies performative aff has to stay at home.

 

Next year though, I'm bringin the ruckus!

 

Have fun everyone..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lousy weather...low turnout...it was still good times. My 3 favorite quotes:

 

1. (Me, responding to the 'disad' that Pete and I have 2 Billion illegitimate children and refuse to pay child support) "Well, at least I'm getting laid. But seriously, look at me, and be honest - would you do me? (silence) I didn't think so."

 

4: (Pete, extending that argument) "Seriously, he's repugnant!"

 

C: Ellen: "Hey Andy, thanks the trouble of driving out here" Me: "Ellen, if you could guarantee me a win and top speaker, I'd drive to Florida for it."

 

Still needed more Muszynski though, IMO.

 

Two-peat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete dug up some of our old MOSSA greatest hits...here's the 1AC from the Ocean Policy topic from a few years back. Enjoy!

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” This statement is as true today as it was when issued by Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1776. Because we believe that our government has become destructive of the ends for which it was created, we stand resolved that the United States Federal Government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources.

 

Jefferson's words are an echo of the natural rights philosophy espoused by John Locke in his second treatise of civil government of 1690, where he stated that, “To understand political power aright…we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.”

 

Good evening. My name is Pete Battey, and along with Andrew Brown, we are 2_fun_guys_gr. We begin our defense of the resolution by discussing the origins and purposes of government in our AFFIRMATIVE OVERVIEW.

· One. We believe that the rights of people are inherent to them and not granted or created by some government decree. Rather, all people have the ‘negative’ rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are those that people exercise in a world without government, or the state of nature. Some may argue that the state of nature is a mythical construct Locke used to justify his stance on rights. We disagree, pointing to the period of the American Revolution as an example of a state of nature. When the founding generation threw off the shackles of English oppression, they began to live in a state of nature, unencumbered by British tyranny.

· Two. Because a life without laws or police could be unpleasant and violent, the founders immediately decided to create a new government. The process by which a just government is created is that of a social contract, when people agree to set up a system of rules. In so doing, the people surrender some of their natural rights to protect other rights they deem more important. For example, a modicum of taxation, and thus a forfeiture of property, is required to undertake the just task of administering and enforcing the laws.

· Three. The conclusion that we draw from this is that the purpose of government is to protect as many negative rights of the people as possible, and not to unnecessarily intrude upon their liberty or property. Defined, negative rights are ‘freedom from’ rights, such as freedom from needless taxation, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Certainly, no form of positive rights can be justified under such a system, as they would necessarily involve mass coercion and impingement upon more sacred negative rights.

 

Our defense of the resolution turns next to an examination of the current state of affairs, the status quo, in our CONTENTION OF INHERENCY. The Federal Government has used the Environmental Protection Agency and other groups to impose their will on the people of the United States.

· One. The fundamental problem with existing environmental laws is that they embody a command-and-control, government knows best mentality. By this, we mean that the government has decided how to go about protecting the environment and what disciplinary power it will use to force private citizens to do its bidding.

· Two. We can conclude that there is no substantial effort underway to change the current regulatory nature of the government solution with regard to environmental issues concerning the protection of marine natural resources.

 

We will next examine the various failings of the current system in our CONTENTION OF HARM. We believe that government regulations are simply incapable of effectively protecting the environment.

· One. It should be apparent to all that the reason this resolution exists is because the ocean is being polluted and its resources depleted at an alarming rate. All of this has occurred under the regime of command-and-control environmental regulations. If this type of regulation worked, we wouldn't be debating this topic.

· Two. Government regulations are clumsy and slow. There is no end to the range of private activities that could have an effect on the environment. These changes occur quickly and unexpectedly, before any federal regulator could hope to understand and act upon them.

· Three. The adversarial process of environmental regulation blocks any real change. Environmental regulations are imposed by Congress, which is heavily influenced by all manner of political action committees. It is big businesses and corporate interests that have the money to exert their will on the politicians to ensure that environmental regulations serve to protect their interests, or at least minimize intrusion. Thus, the process of imposing a regulation is a contest between the environmental activists and corporate giants.

· Four. When the government finally manages to wade through this conflicted bureaucratic nightmare of their own design, there aren't any financial or enforcement resources left to actually regulate with. At the end of the day, numerous pieces of environmental legislation remain unimplemented and the rest are lackadaisically enforced.

· Five. The government has a vested interest in supporting environmental destruction. Because politicians are democratically elected, they have an incentive to placate their constituents. Time and again, the government has chosen to protect jobs in failing industries more than the environment. As a result, for example, every year the government pays over $1 billion in subsidies to non-profitable fishing enterprises to keep them afloat. This encourages inefficient and environmentally destructive behavior.

 

What are we to do? How can we act in a way that is consistent with the legitimate purposes of government and protect the environment at the same time? How can we use the zealous desire of environmentalists as well as the profit motive of the free market to protect resources? Fortunately, there is an answer, so Andrew and I present the following PLAN.

 

The President will initiate and Congress will approve appropriate legislation to implement the following mandates: All existing oceanic environmental regulations and subsidies will be repealed. The ocean with the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States will be divided into parcels of approximately one square mile apiece and auctioned by the Federal Government. Only residents of the United States and United States Corporations will be eligible to purchase this ocean property. Owners of ocean property will be prevented from restricting existing navigation rights. Individuals or corporations that own improvements in or on the ocean will be granted ownership of that section of ocean. Funding, enforcement, and implementation will be through normal means.

 

The free market model has failed on numerous occasions when used to manage the environment. This occurs because of externalities, considerations that affect the market model but are not accounted for. We address these issues on our CONTENTION OF SOLVENCY.

· One. Pollution and resource depletion are excellent examples of externalities. Setting up a strong system of property rights will serve to internalize these externalities because people who use the ocean will bear the economic cost of their pollution. For example, if Exxon isn't careful while drilling for oil, they will spill it and it will drift into somebody else’s section of ocean. At this point, the owner of the adjacent ocean property can sue Exxon for trespass and nuisance, having been responsible for an intrusion onto their property. Recent technological advances and GPS systems ensure that such spills can be easily tracked. Armed with strongly defined property rights, people will actively work to protect the quality of their water from intrusive pollutants.

· Two. We solve the tragedy of the commons with respect to fishing. Currently, every fisher has an economic incentive to catch as many fish as possible as quickly as possible. If they fail to do so, another fisher will just come in and take what's left. When fishers own ocean property, they can act responsibly to ensure that the stock maintains a healthy size, ensuring future profits, sure with the knowledge that they will be protected.

· Three. The Coase Theorem. As outlined by Ronald Coase in 1960, it shows exactly how a property rights regime guarantees efficient protection of marine natural resources. Coase won the 1991 Nobel Prize in economics for explaining that in a world with minimal transaction costs, the socially efficient outcome for the use of a particular piece of property will occur if tradable property rights exist, no matter who possesses those property rights. This means that if the use of a piece of ocean property can be sold or traded, the agency that values it the most will exercise the use of it.

o Subpoint A. If the Sierra Club wants to protect the ocean more than McDonald's wants to grab fishwich's, they will do so by buying it. We understand that transaction costs can never be completely eliminated, so we use an auction to ensure that each ocean parcel starts under the control of the group that values it the most.

o Subpoint B. If McDonald’s owns a piece of the ocean that the Sierra club views as valuable, the Sierra club can tender a sustainable fishing contract to McDonald’s to ensure the long-term viability of the fish stocks in that area.

o Subpoint C. If the Sierra Club owns that piece of the ocean, they can tender a contract to McDonald’s allowing limited fishing.

o Subpoint D. Coase makes the point that whichever way the law interprets the property rights, as long as these rights are well defined, society's resources will be used most efficiently by just letting private agents work out these problems on their own, free from government intervention, to their own mutual benefit.

 

In conclusion, we believe that stating, ‘we should protect all marine natural resources’ is a hollow promise, obviously unfulfilled by years of governmental over-regulation. Instead, we contend that all marine natural resources should have an owner standing behind them to protect them from unimpeded exploitation. I hope that my speech has been interesting and educational, and that you learned a little bit about the nature of government and the free market. I'm ready for cross-examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...