Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hiphoppopotamus

Nebraska Memories 06-07

Recommended Posts

Our block to it was great we never ended up using it but we had 5 points on it how vaccines are evil, spread disease and fail at life. Also for no apparent reason we have a psychics aff and neg in our tubs. I found a card that said that they will take over national security telepathically and have nuclear wars with each other leading to extinction, coolest card ever.

 

why don't you all just have the round and stop fantasizing?

 

was you "psychics" evidence written about the x-men comic series? because it sounds like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the psychoanalyst haters should delve into it a bit more (maybe you have, and that's cool, but I'd wager most have not). There is a tendancy to over-emphasize the less accepted Freudian concepts like the Oedipal Complex and "Penis Envy" and not give psychoanalysis credit where it is due. Psychoanalysts brought quite a bit to the table in terms of modern psychology. They identified virtually all human defense mechanisms like repression, projection, displacement, regression and rationalization for one. Freud's views on personality and decision-making (his conception of the id, ego, and super-ego) are also still fairly well regarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psychoanalysis deserves credit for revolutionizing psychology. as such, you all should read/study pyschoanalysis since it is used in nearly every social science. make up your own minds. that said...

 

however, I'm on the rather extreme end of the haters, in that i won't even grant it credit for being explanatory. i mean, it is explanatory but i don't find it to be decisively so. i have a problem with it essentially because it seems far, far too subjective and arbitrary in it's conclusions to be making truth claims, claims to expert understandings of the human mind, or telling people what to do or think. what i mean to say is that one can apply differing, even contradictory psychoanalytical interpretations to the same action of the exact same psychoanalytical interpretation to "opposite" actions. IE two people who love smoking may be diagnosed with different problems and the person who has loves someone too needily and the person who hates someone violently may both be daignosed with the same problem. similarly, it is impossible to disprove a psychoanalytical analysis. it makes no predictions, only observations (confirmed by previous observations and conjectures, a rather uncientific method) so it can't be disproved that way. further, even if the subject explicitly denies any part of the analysis the theory has built in defenses against that - repression, regression, etc. what do we do with a theory that can't make predictions, can't be disproved, and can't verify it's claims outside the assertions of it's own premises? well, personally i don't give it much more credit than the horoscopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell? Is it talk like the 14th century day and no one told me?

 

Maybe the kid is just a douche who uses shitty grammar.

 

 

All the psychoanalyst haters should delve into it a bit more (maybe you have, and that's cool, but I'd wager most have not). There is a tendancy to over-emphasize the less accepted Freudian concepts like the Oedipal Complex and "Penis Envy" and not give psychoanalysis credit where it is due. Psychoanalysts brought quite a bit to the table in terms of modern psychology. They identified virtually all human defense mechanisms like repression, projection, displacement, regression and rationalization for one. Freud's views on personality and decision-making (his conception of the id, ego, and super-ego) are also still fairly well regarded.

 

I agree with dylan in that psychoanalysis has had a radically altering effect on psychology and has revolutionized the way we see things in general today, but I take more of a Deleuzoguattarian approach on psychoanalysis--I think it tends to complete the circle (the cure becomes the symptom) and I tend to believe in the inherent goodness of desire. That's just me though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest debator123
Well, you stated you won the tournament, which is why I said I couldnt of debated you. This is because the tournament was powered. They only broke teams that were 4-1 or 5-0. Now, you said we debated you round 4, our record going into round 4 was 1-2, meaning your record was also 1-2. So even if you won that round, and were now 2-2 and then won the rest of your rounds, you would end up 3-2 and couldnt of broke, since they only went to finals. That is why I originally stated that we couldnt of debated you if you had in fact won the tournament.

Also, I find it strange that you remember what round you debated us, and what you ran in that round. I dont remember what any of the debaters in SD rounds ran, because they were shitty rounds and I have seen better rounds as a novice. Your judging pool is rather lacking and compared to our judges, have the intelligence of a shoe. If you were to come to NE I can guarantee that you would get issued a legit loss every round.

 

On another side note, I believe that we were actually Neg that round, did you debate JV? If so then you debated our 1st year debaters running firecorps, who also would have had a record that made it impossible for you to break if you had the same record.

 

Ok first of all, the tournament didn't break to finals, it was just 5 rounds. So way to sound like you know what you're talkin about. It was jv, i don't know if varsity broke to them or not. I also enjoyed you degrading our judges which probalbly was uncalled for and a complete sidenote to what i was talking about. Yes it was jv so it was you who jumped to conclusions and tried to sound intelligent, i believe it may be you who is equivalent to a shoe. And i'm sure if i came to debate in NE i would be issued a legitimate loss, if i was the losing team. Was that supposed to be some veiled insult at a judge or something because of losing a round?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pointing out the fact that compared to NE judges...SoDak judges seem to be over lower quality and therefore more easier persuaded by shitty arguments than NE judges. I wasn't there this year, but it was the same way last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest debator123
i believe it was called for.

 

well if i had asked for your opinion i would care about your post, but since i didn't ask i don't care.

nice state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest debator123

and you all have successfully blown a simple burn completely out of proportion. Just have better JV teams and it wouldn't happen again:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a show of ability of our teams....it's a lack of qualified judges in your circuit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest debator123
It's not a show of ability of our teams....it's a lack of qualified judges in your circuit.

 

Well our judge that round was a former qual iin policy and and extremely capable judge. and if you had been in that round the team was awful and the 2a was a complete tool who didn't know what topicality was. and who runs FIRECORP seriously could you run a worse aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I know both the debaters. I know that they both know T better than anyone I know. Firecorps is topical. I don't care if they were a qualer from SD, having em come to Nebraska and try to qual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dylan, that little rant up there actually reminded me of a quote I think you might like.

 

"We are arguing like a man who should say, 'If there were an invisible cat in that chair, the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it.'"

 

C.S. Lewis remarking on Freud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psychoanalysis deserves credit for revolutionizing psychology. as such, you all should read/study pyschoanalysis since it is used in nearly every social science. make up your own minds. that said...

 

however, I'm on the rather extreme end of the haters, in that i won't even grant it credit for being explanatory. i mean, it is explanatory but i don't find it to be decisively so. i have a problem with it essentially because it seems far, far too subjective and arbitrary in it's conclusions to be making truth claims, claims to expert understandings of the human mind, or telling people what to do or think.

 

While I haven't studied much by way of clinical methods in psychology, I think I can answer a bit of this. The subjectivity in psychoanalysis is recognized and this is why there are very, very few psychologists who strictly use psychoanalysis. Most psychologists use several perspectives, and most put an emphasis on behavioral psychology which is much more scientific. But, a lot can't be explained directly through behavior and correlations between behavior and their underlying motives must be made and that is when psychoanalysis has to be used. That said, when using psychoanalysis, psychologists are very careful of what they say to a patient, and will not typically make rash judgements but rather wait for patterns of behavior and corresponding attitudes to emerge before making a hypothesis. Which brings me to "truth claims." They really don't make these, like I said, the subjectivity is embraced. Even in studies that show a 90% correlation rate between an attitude and behavior they will never ever refer to it as a "cause," only a documentable correlation, which, I feel, is an accurate label.

 

what i mean to say is that one can apply differing, even contradictory psychoanalytical interpretations to the same action of the exact same psychoanalytical interpretation to "opposite" actions. IE two people who love smoking may be diagnosed with different problems and the person who has loves someone too needily and the person who hates someone violently may both be daignosed with the same problem.

 

Yes. Psychoanalysis does allow for opposite behavior meaning the same thing, but it's sort of true. Think of two young boys both obcessing over a girl in their class. One might try to impress her by acting arrogant and mean to others or even the girl herself (a defense mechanism known as reaction formation) and another might bury her with kindness (ingratiation), these are polar opposite approaches designed to achieve the same objective and both stem from a similar obcession with the same girl. So, yeah, vastly different actions can mean the same thing. But the difficulty comes when an uninvolved party (psychologist) tries to determine what those actions means, and that goes back to what I was saying about taking extreme caution before making any sort of judgment like that. I really doubt if that girl were to undergo psychoanalytic therapy she would say "this boy is really mean to me all the time" and the therapist would conclude "it's because he's obcessed with you" without a LOT more information (to develop some sort of behavioral pattern with which such a diagnosis would be based).

 

I might get to the rest of this later, depending on how quickly I get my english presentation done. I realize it probably appears as though I'm some all out psychoanalysis advocate, but I'm not at this point. I just think it has some relevence and I thought it was being characterized earlier in the thread in a poor and unintelligible matter with virtually no warrants. And, I'm sort of confused with what you're getting at here. Is your point that defense mechanisms don't actually exist and thus psychoanalysts haven't contributed anything useful or beneficial to psychology, or is it only that defense mechanisms can be applied by psychologists on patients in such a way so that their erroneous hypotheses can be protected? If you are saying the later of the two, I'm not really in disagreement with you, that certainly could be done. However, that certain psychologists might be overconfident in their analyses and could use defense mechanisms to defend a particular inaccurate assement doesn't erase the fact that psychoanalysts identified these important concepts that actually can be applied to people's thoughts and behaviors. Wow, okay now I'm seriously going to start working on my presentation. Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know much about behavioral psych (even enough to know for sure what that term describes) so i'm not going to take issue with it.

 

But, a lot can't be explained directly through behavior and correlations between behavior and their underlying motives must be made and that is when psychoanalysis has to be used. That said, when using psychoanalysis, psychologists are very careful of what they say to a patient, and will not typically make rash judgements but rather wait for patterns of behavior and corresponding attitudes to emerge before making a hypothesis. Which brings me to "truth claims." They really don't make these, like I said, the subjectivity is embraced. Even in studies that show a 90% correlation rate between an attitude and behavior they will never ever refer to it as a "cause," only a documentable correlation, which, I feel, is an accurate label.

 

if that's how psychoanalysis is actually presented to patients in practice, i suppose thats the best way to present it if you're going to present it. i still don't understand why a doctrine that's clearly striving to be scientific would embrace something so grossly unscientific, even to fill in the gaps of their understanding. it'd be like astronomers using astrology to fill in the gaps in their understanding of the stars.

 

since i've only asserted that it's unscientific in the above paragraph, i suppose i ought to mention i'm basing that assertion on an assumption that a science makes predictions that could be disproven through verification (not just describes something present as a verification of the theory; the prediction is important. refer to alex's quote for an illustration of why). it's also important that the prediction be something that could be disproven. it's not a scientific hypothesis unless there is some result possible that oculd disprove the theory. in psychoanalysis, there's no "outcome" (behavior) that would disrupt the hypothesis that are made, if they are made.

 

who cares if it's unscientific? well, it just seems like something that presents itself as a science, that's what i meant by claims to expertise (especially given prescription of drugs). if it's not trying to claim to be a science, i think it gets FAR too much respect from people by and large when compared to other psuedo-sciences (astrology, etc).

 

 

 

Yes. Psychoanalysis does allow for opposite behavior meaning the same thing, but it's sort of true. Think of two young boys both obcessing over a girl in their class. One might try to impress her by acting arrogant and mean to others or even the girl herself (a defense mechanism known as reaction formation) and another might bury her with kindness (ingratiation), these are polar opposite approaches designed to achieve the same objective and both stem from a similar obcession with the same girl. So, yeah, vastly different actions can mean the same thing. But the difficulty comes when an uninvolved party (psychologist) tries to determine what those actions means, and that goes back to what I was saying about taking extreme caution before making any sort of judgment like that. I really doubt if that girl were to undergo psychoanalytic therapy she would say "this boy is really mean to me all the time" and the therapist would conclude "it's because he's obcessed with you" without a LOT more information (to develop some sort of behavioral pattern with which such a diagnosis would be based).

 

the critical element in your example is that you've provided us with information that is absolutely unavailable to the psychologist - the motive of the boys. in fact, the motive of the boys is exactly what the psychologists would be hypothesizing about. it might be possible for one motivation to produce contradictory actions in different subjects, but since it is equally possible that that proposition could be incorrect (that one of the boys might just hate that girl.) i can't understand how psychology claims to decide between those two options. i find it typically relies on it's (psychology's) past observations, but if those observations make the same assumption i'm calling into question here, then why are they valid things to be relied upon? to illustrate - there's a famous story where freud is giving a speech in europe, and he's smoking one of his trademark cigars. during the course of his speech he of course makes reference to phallic symbols and oral fixation, etc. the question is asked "but dr. freud, what about your cigar?" to which freud responds "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." point being, sometimes the premises of psychoanalytical theory don't actually describe reality. is that true for any of the other science's "laws"? i don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, short answer: a spending disad. :P

 

Except more fun! :-P And I like fun things.

 

Also, Those cards about vaccines being evil would have been REALLY fun to debate. We should have hit you guys... because i definately would have run it.

 

Thirdly... I say we change the subject of the weird angry discussion that I skimmed and got bored reading. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to respond once more and then you can do the same if you so choose, but then I'll be letting it get back to Nebraska memories. I realize I disrupted the topic initially and take full credit for it. But anyways...

 

 

if that's how psychoanalysis is actually presented to patients in practice, i suppose thats the best way to present it if you're going to present it. i still don't understand why a doctrine that's clearly striving to be scientific would embrace something so grossly unscientific, even to fill in the gaps of their understanding. it'd be like astronomers using astrology to fill in the gaps in their understanding of the stars. since i've only asserted that it's unscientific in the above paragraph, i suppose i ought to mention i'm basing that assertion on an assumption that a science makes predictions that could be disproven through verification (not just describes something present as a verification of the theory; the prediction is important. refer to alex's quote for an illustration of why). it's also important that the prediction be something that could be disproven. it's not a scientific hypothesis unless there is some result possible that oculd disprove the theory. in psychoanalysis, there's no "outcome" (behavior) that would disrupt the hypothesis that are made, if they are made.

 

That's the thing. Much of psychoanalysis isn't embraced. You'll be hard pressed to find many die-hard Freudians who are leaders of the psychological community today. Especially not in clinical psychology. However, most psychologists will recognize that at least some behavior is influenced by unconscious forces and will not just skip over that alltogether, which is the alternative. So, what they do is attempt to find out, if they can, through behavioral patterns and corresponding attitudes what it is that might be underlying the problem. Then, using their professional training and experience, decide if the patterns (if any) they've found are strong enough to say the A correlates to B.

 

For an easy example, let's say we have a guy named Bill and he is court ordered to see a psychologist because he's gotten in 8 fights, all with black people and anger management failed to produce change in him the last 3 times he appeared in court. He admits that he has only fought black people and is a racist now, but before "had no problem with black people." But, he insists that each time the fight occured because he was provoked. He goes on and it turns out his recent bout was over his ex-girlfriend of 3 years past dating this black man. He saw them at the movie theatre and her new boyfriend introduced himself. He claims to have taken this action to be "rubbing it in [his] face." The provoking action. He responded as such, things escalated, and they fought. So the therapist asks if he's had more recent girlfriends and he says he has had one and, when asked, he also says that he has more feelings for the more recent one. He'd met her new boyfriend elsewhere but when he introduced himself he felt he did it "more respectfully," so there wasn't a confrontation. This boyfriend was white. The other 7 fights were over other petty things that he construed to be provokative.

 

Now to ignore this man's unconscious level, to me, seems absurd. You will do him no service by only looking at what he is telling you and not psychoanalysing his racist actions to have probably stemmed from his bigoted attitudes towards African Americans. That's how psychoanalysis can be used in practice. Now... granted it isn't a scientific assessment. It can't be proven. He can say, "no that isn't what started the fights," and that is unprovable as well. But it seems evident that action A was most-likely a related to Attitude B whether he admits to previously having held that attitude or not. This is why we don't need absolutes to provide insight. While it can't be proven absolutely that this guy WAS a racist prior to his fights and that this attitude influenced his behavior, it is better to make conclusions from the evidence supplied (if the evidence is ample) than to ignore it completely, which is what you'd need to do in order to avoid psychoanalysis alltogether.

 

Also, in the case of someone making a shallow assessment, a second opinion could show the first to be unreasonably made. As could more evidence. Like I said, Psychologists are very careful when making judgements based on psychoanalysis, but sometimes it is necessary to use it.

 

who cares if it's unscientific? well, it just seems like something that presents itself as a science, that's what i meant by claims to expertise (especially given prescription of drugs). if it's not trying to claim to be a science, i think it gets FAR too much respect from people by and large when compared to other psuedo-sciences (astrology, etc).

 

I feel I've answered the "scientific validity question" above, so I'll just talk about drugs. Drugs aren't prescribed by psychologists, only by Psychiatrists who have MD's and are supposed to use biological and chemical medical assessments to prescribe drugs. Psychoanalysis shouldn't be the basis for prescribing drugs, and I'm fairly sure that psychiatrists don't use it as such.

 

 

the critical element in your example is that you've provided us with information that is absolutely unavailable to the psychologist - the motive of the boys. in fact, the motive of the boys is exactly what the psychologists would be hypothesizing about. it might be possible for one motivation to produce contradictory actions in different subjects, but since it is equally possible that that proposition could be incorrect (that one of the boys might just hate that girl.) i can't understand how psychology claims to decide between those two options. i find it typically relies on it's (psychology's) past observations, but if those observations make the same assumption i'm calling into question here, then why are they valid things to be relied upon?

 

For sake of efficiency, I'll concede you the prior example and just stick to my new one because I feel it is both a more pertenent and realistic topic of discussion for a psychologist and patient.

 

to illustrate - there's a famous story where freud is giving a speech in europe, and he's smoking one of his trademark cigars. during the course of his speech he of course makes reference to phallic symbols and oral fixation, etc. the question is asked "but dr. freud, what about your cigar?" to which freud responds "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." point being, sometimes the premises of psychoanalytical theory don't actually describe reality. is that true for any of the other science's "laws"? i don't think so.

 

I'm not going to defend the phallic obcession and I think it is important to distinguish it from his ideas that I'm talking about elsewhere. From my first post I mentioned that his really controversial ideas are over emphasised and this is how. Freud is famous to the general public for saying that boys secretly want to fuck their moms and view their dads as competition, also that we're drawn to things that look like cocks, but amongst psychologists he is famous for discovering the "unconscious" and writing many things about it. It is possible to separate his ideas and evaluate them individually rather than lump them all together and throw it out. Simply because the phallic obcession appears (and probably is) unfounded doesn't mean that everything relating to psychoanalysis is bull shit. Lastly, you talk about scientific "laws," but a psychoanalytic evaluation would never be considered a law. That would be fairly arrogant, however I feel my example provided the justification for why we don't need "laws" and can and should make judgments when given ample information to do so. L8ro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also enjoyed you degrading our judges which probalbly was uncalled for and a complete sidenote to what i was talking about. Yes it was jv so it was you who jumped to conclusions and tried to sound intelligent, i believe it may be you who is equivalent to a shoe. And i'm sure if i came to debate in NE i would be issued a legitimate loss, if i was the losing team. Was that supposed to be some veiled insult at a judge or something because of losing a round?

 

Okay first of all, why was it uncalled for? you're the one posting in the Nebraska Memories thread how you "beat the shit out of them in SD"...so maybe you should go back to the South Dakota thread and stop trying to persuade everyone here that you are better than everyone else. We don't care.

Second, Zack has already told you that it was impossible for you to have hit them...maybe you missed that? Also, you were competing JV which then you would have debated their novice team...which Zack has also said was impossible since the rounds were powered. So either you debated them, or you were talking yourself up by saying you "won the tournament."

Thirdly, Curtis has explained how NE judges and SD judges differ. Therefore we have different ways of debating and an entirely different judging pool. Most of our judges have experience in debate, like it alot faster, and like good arguments. Here it isn't how you perform an argument, it is how good your argument is. Also, you shouldn't go around posting in other states thread and provoke/offending them by calling them, "equivalent to a shoe."

Fourthly, Zack was trying to say..(even though it wasn't the clearest) that we have a different judging pool. All he was trying to say is if you came to NE you would have legitimately lost, unlike SD where they look for certain things and dislike certain arguments. I think he was talking about judges in SD voting on dumb things, instead of what was actually happening in the round.

Finally, I reiterate that you should not attack people in there own thread. You will provoke them into saying something mean and it will turn into a petty argument...which will probably result in a name-calling argument. Let's keep that from happening, okay?

 

Good job on winning a South Dakota tournament and beating 2 novices from Norfolk. I applaud you, congrads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll pass on the opportunity to make a draft joke;) and on the final rebuttal in our psych debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what's really fun? THE DRAFT.(_8^(|)

 

It's what I hear these days. :-P

 

I think everyone in the military should have international DANCE OFFS instead of... you know... wars and whatnot. :) Then it would be marvelous.

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...