Automatic evidence cutter

[Ryan Marcus 71]

this. do this.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you want or what you mean by this request... although yes, it does sound much simpler then what I'm doing. Process the first and last phrase of what? For what purpose? It seems like this could be interesting.

 

I'm sorry if you take offense to my desire to charge a dollar -- I'd like to point out that my program has half as many flaws as Windows Vista, which sold for a bunch more than a dollar.

 

I'll admit, at its current point, it is more of a tech demo or a toy than a super-useful project. However, as I think the more recent video shows (linked on the webpage), this is going to turn into something much much more than a simple card cutter.

 

Who knows... maybe I'll adopt the Minecraft theory... charge a dollar for the first version, then two for the next version... probably not though. That seems a little evil.

 

Why would a camp pay a few hundred dollars for posting a link on a wiki? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

I'd like to thank everyone who has donated, some in very generous amounts, and some more in the amount of a single dollar. From contributions, we've raised enough money to cover our transportation costs to the California State University Northridge tournament. I'd personally like to thank everyone who has helped make this happen.

[Antonucci23 410]

I'm not entirely sure what you want or what you mean by this request... although yes, it does sound much simpler then what I'm doing. Process the first and last phrase of what? For what purpose? It seems like this could be interesting.

 

Look at this page:

 

http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Northwestern++++Ryan+Beiermeister+%26+Layne+Kirshon+Neg

 

All of the cards include a first phrase and last phrase in quotations, instead of the full text of the card.

 

For example, you'll see that the Solomon & Eden card says...

 

"Increasing levels of skilled migration from less-developed to developed countries has been driven by a variety of factors, usually "

AND "attempt to deal with what is the very definition of an unsustainable process."

 

...instead of including the full text of the card.

 

That means someone has to go to each article to replicate the cards. While most researchers read original articles, the brute labor of replication overall is an enormous, stupid time sink.

 

Robots exist to solve enormous stupid time sinks, ideally. Caselist replication is an ideal task for a robot.

 

Therefore, a robot that (however imperfectly) filled in the middle text automatically, would change everything.

 

A 60% accuracy rate is probably sufficient to turn an ideological argument into a tech fait accompli.

 

I'm sorry if you take offense to my desire to charge a dollar -- I'd like to point out that my program has half as many flaws as Windows Vista, which sold for a bunch more than a dollar.

 

No one is offended at all, as far as I can tell. You could probably just make more money a different way.

 

If you want to charge a million dollars, go for it. It's a free market. I'm suggesting an alternate route, which you can take or leave.

 

I'll admit, at its current point, it is more of a tech demo or a toy than a super-useful project. However, as I think the more recent video shows (linked on the webpage), this is going to turn into something much much more than a simple card cutter.

 

Who knows... maybe I'll adopt the Minecraft theory... charge a dollar for the first version, then two for the next version... probably not though. That seems a little evil.

 

It's not that these proprietary models are evil. They're just relative failures.

 

Why would a camp pay a few hundred dollars for posting a link on a wiki? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Because everyone will go to the camp's website. It's very good advertising.

 

The banner ads you see above cost a good deal of money. They produce far fewer page views than an exclusive posting of a free new debate software package.

 

It is impractical to sell interesting but incomplete ideas as product. It's much more logical to sell them as advertising.

[jwright 379]

It's a "disservice"? Really? Is one dollar going to set someone back that much? Sure, it's not a polished, finished product, he openly admits that. But also consider that he's not trying to make big commercial gains off the product yet, just raise a little money for his debate team.

 

See Antonucci's post. I meant that the fee is a disservice to the product itself, not to the user. I think most are more inclined to just donate to the debate team.

[robllawrence 972]

It's been awhile since I added anything to my links section, but this one is worth it...had to think for a minute to remember the admin password. I don't know if anyone is even still using my page except a few UIL coaches, but maybe I can send a few your way. Or at least help with Google SEO.

[Chaos 2587]

If you could write a program to autofile the autocut evidence that'd be awesome. Maybe you could sync it with virtual tub in some way?

[robllawrence 972]

While you're at it, could you make a program that will write my IARs?

[Ryan Marcus 71]

While you're at it, could you make a program that will write my IARs?

 

for (Offense o : partner2AC) {
 if (o.wasDropped() || o.badlyAnswered()) {
     Speech.extend(o)
 }
}

if (Speech.timeLeft()) {
  for (Defense d : partner2AC) {
     if (d.wasDropped || d.badlyAnswered()) {
         Speech.extend(d);
     }
  }
}

if (Speech.timeLeft()) {
  Speech.laughAtNegBlock();
}

 

 

Probably not the best 1ARs you could give. Impact calculus, dropped theory, and other such essentials in the next version.

[anon746 18]

for (Offense o : partner2AC) {
 if (o.wasDropped() || o.badlyAnswered()) {
     Speech.extend(o)
 }
}

if (Speech.timeLeft()) {
  for (Defense d : partner2AC) {
     if (d.wasDropped || d.badlyAnswered()) {
         Speech.extend(d);
     }
  }
}

if (Speech.timeLeft()) {
  Speech.laughAtNegBlock();
}

 

 

i lol'd

[robllawrence 972]

This could be one of the nerdiest things I've ever laughed at. I love it.

[Ryan Marcus 71]

Shameless bump because I updated the first post with a new feature and video.

[Unico 100]

1. Where could i get the most recent updated software?

2. Is there an estimated date of release for the windows version?

[...Hi... 586]

I downloaded the java, restarted, dowloaded the cutter for my 10 free cuts, but my access to the zip folder was denied. What could be the problem?

[...Hi... 586]

I downloaded the java, restarted, dowloaded the cutter for my 10 free cuts, but my access to the zip folder was denied. What could be the problem?

disregard

[Ryan Marcus 71]

1. Where could i get the most recent updated software?

2. Is there an estimated date of release for the windows version?

 

There is a Windows version now. There's a link in the first post. A few of the features I've discussed in the video are not yet in the release version.

 

disregard

 

Done.

[codyarmstrong 114]

This is amazing...just out of curiosity, why cant it cut zizek? haha

[TheStreet 406]

i'm just wondering what prevents the program from cutting straw mans? i.e. like nearly every Bataille indict card (which wasn't auto cut... just me telling err body that fact)

 

 

also fuck skynet debate

[Ryan Marcus 71]

i'm just wondering what prevents the program from cutting straw mans? i.e. like nearly every Bataille indict card (which wasn't auto cut... just me telling err body that fact)

 

 

also fuck skynet debate

 

Not quite sure what you're intending to get across here. Is there a specific style of argument you think my program is unable to handle? As long as the words are logically connected using standard and grammatically correct English, it should be no problem.

 

More than likely, you're using a sub-optimal tag. Feel free to email me the card/tag combination that isn't working for you and I'll do my best to either help you out or improve the code.

 

I'm actually working on a "deep blue" of debate using my auto cutter and a language called Prolog -- sadly, it won't be able to hear spreading, but I might set it loose on a virtual debate at some point!

[TheStreet 406]

Not quite sure what you're intending to get across here. Is there a specific style of argument you think my program is unable to handle? As long as the words are logically connected using standard and grammatically correct English, it should be no problem.

 

More than likely, you're using a sub-optimal tag. Feel free to email me the card/tag combination that isn't working for you and I'll do my best to either help you out or improve the code.

 

I'm actually working on a "deep blue" of debate using my auto cutter and a language called Prolog -- sadly, it won't be able to hear spreading, but I might set it loose on a virtual debate at some point!

i was just wondering what prevents it from cutting the wrong part of an article i.e. underlining the part were the author is referring to the opposing argument that they are not really justifying

[TLF 2147483647]

I'm actually working on a "deep blue" of debate

 

why?

[Ryan Marcus 71]

i was just wondering what prevents it from cutting the wrong part of an article i.e. underlining the part were the author is referring to the opposing argument that they are not really justifying

 

Ah! Well, that's actually pretty simple.

 

Look at this argument:

 

(1) Men are mortal

(2) Socrates is a man

------

© Socrates is moral

 

This argument could be presented like this:

Alll men are mortal, and Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is moral.

 

Since your tag for this would likely contain "Socrates is mortal," my program using grammatical parsing to determine what sentences are relevant. In order to do this, it breaks each sentence down into a more basic form that is kinda like this:

 

Fragment 1: man -> mortal

Fragment 2: socrates -> man

Fragment 3: socrates -> mortal

 

Since your tag contains the relevant objects (mortal and socrates), the program selects the fragments that are relevant. Consider this form of the argument:

 

Alll men are mortal, and Socrates is a man. Football is an awesome sport. Therefore, Socrates is moral.

 

We get:

Fragment 1: man -> mortal

Fragment 2: socrates -> man

Fragment 3: football -> awesome sport

Fragment 4: socrates -> mortal

 

Since you've given the program no indication that you care about football or awesome sports, and since there aren't any relevant fragments related to football or awesome sports, fragment 3 doesn't get cut.

 

@ TLF: Because I secretly want the entire debate community to slowly decay into technocratic babble over who has the better card cutting algorithm so that I can root out all those smart bastards who were able to beat me in high school!

 

More likely, because I'm a computer science major, pretty damn nerdy, and come on, you've got to admit, it'd be pretty cool to debate a computer. You could throw a DA at it and see what cutting-age AI thinks would be a good response.

 

Logic is what we do, and computers happen to be really good at logic. Think of a (fairly bad) winner's win argument:

 

Winner's win because getting bills passed creates political momentum which allows for more bills to be passed.Therefore, Obama passing the plan will allow Obama to pass KORUS>

 

A computer can interpret that as:

 

X(passing bills) => Y passing through momentum

Obama(passing the plan) => Obama passing KORUS

 

And with a few near-millisecond transactions, come up with:

 

Obama(passing the plan) => momentum => KORUS passing

 

This may seem mundane to us, but the power in combining (permuting) those two statements is truly phenomenal. Now we can use a standard cost/benefit algorithm, and a computer can instantly have questions like:

 

Is KORUS passing good?

Is momentum good?

Is Obama passing the plan good?

 

A computer can then, using my cutting and Google News stuff, find and cut cards relevant to each of these questions, pick the best ones, and stick them in a file. You've got to admit that's kinda cool.

 

People seem to think that there's an art behind logos -- there isn't. There can be creative arguments, but that's nothing you couldn't come up with through brute force. Computers are pretty good at brute force.

 

What a computer will not be able to do (at least in our lifetimes) is grasp the concept of pathos. That's where the "art" part of debate, in my opinion really is.

 

Thanks,

 

Ryan Marcus

[TLF 2147483647]

and come on, you've got to admit, it'd be pretty cool to debate a computer. You could throw a DA at it and see what cutting-age AI thinks would be a good response.

 

don't be so presumptuous. i'm about as interested what your computer thinks of a disad as i am what my wallpaper thinks of jane eyre.

 

People seem to think that there's an art behind logos -- there isn't. There can be creative arguments, but that's nothing you couldn't come up with through brute force. Computers are pretty good at brute force.

 

What a computer will not be able to do (at least in our lifetimes) is grasp the concept of pathos. That's where the "art" part of debate, in my opinion really is.

 

i don't know what this thing is that you call debate but is devoid of pathos, but i'm sure your computer is really good at it. i just don't think we need to be doing much more experimentation in "brute force" debate. seems like we humans have that covered pretty well.

[Rebecca Black 14]

can this program be applied to songwriting?

[Ryan Marcus 71]

don't be so presumptuous. i'm about as interested what your computer thinks of a disad as i am what my wallpaper thinks of jane eyre.

That's just the thing though -- code I write can generate an opinion about a DA, but your wallpaper can't think about "jane eyre." I'm not saying that some computer program can evaluate if a DA is good (although it might be able to see if one is bad), I'm just saying it is really interesting that computational linguistics and software are getting to the point where computers can "think" about something like a DA at all!

 

 

i don't know what this thing is that you call debate but is devoid of pathos, but i'm sure your computer is really good at it. i just don't think we need to be doing much more experimentation in "brute force" debate. seems like we humans have that covered pretty well.

 

Actually, it's pretty terrible at it at the moment... but this isn't an experiment in "brute force" debate, this is an experiment in computer AI. I just think policy debate is a really cool platform for it. To each his own, I suppose.

[aburo 156]

People seem to think that there's an art behind logos -- there isn't. There can be creative arguments, but that's nothing you couldn't come up with through brute force. Computers are pretty good at brute force.

 

What a computer will not be able to do (at least in our lifetimes) is grasp the concept of pathos. That's where the "art" part of debate, in my opinion really is.

 

While you're right that computers are good at the "A to B to C" kind of logic, debate has a lot more to do with human-to-human communication in general than simply with logos. Obviously a computer can understand simple logical patterns, but it's how that logic is communicated to a judge that wins a debate. The intricacies of language are so difficult for computers that it took IBM five years to develop a computer that could give several-word answers on Jeopardy (not to say that Watson wasn't impressive). How do you expect a computer to answer cross-examination questions or understand answers? But since Deep Blue has evolved into Watson, this "Deep Blue for debate" might be the next step after all because of all the challenges it poses.

 

Also, I somewhat doubt your program as it is now can truly understand the language used in the modern media. As I said earlier, it doesn't seem to be very good at making complete sentences yet or actually recognizing the best parts of a card. Nonetheless, I think it's a really interesting project, Ryan.

[Ryan Marcus 71]

While you're right that computers are good at the "A to B to C" kind of logic, debate has a lot more to do with human-to-human communication in general than simply with logos. Obviously a computer can understand simple logical patterns, but it's how that logic is communicated to a judge that wins a debate. The intricacies of language are so difficult for computers that it took IBM five years to develop a computer that could give several-word answers on Jeopardy (not to say that Watson wasn't impressive). How do you expect a computer to answer cross-examination questions or understand answers? But since Deep Blue has evolved into Watson, this "Deep Blue for debate" might be the next step after all because of all the challenges it poses.

For sure -- computers aren't able (yet!) to read a judges facial expression when making an argument, or come close to comprehending spreading. But their damn good at the logos part. And I don't know if I'd look towards Watson as an example of language comprehension -- there are actually better examples. Watson's biggest restriction was that it had to be able to listen to a specific question and give a specific answer. Language analysis in general doesn't require the same level of precision. Ex:

 

Watson hears "The first color in the color spectrum" and must come up with "What is red?"

 

A language analyzer can here "the first color of the color spectrum," and can come up with "red, orange, yellow, green, blue..." The difference is that while Watson was required to give one answer, a analyzer can come up with "fuzzy" answers, preferably with an associated probability.

 

Relating this back to debate, a computer would hear: "South Korea free trade agreement will pass, your plan kills South Korea free trade agreement, South Korea free trade agreement is good." A debate computer, unlike Watson, doesn't need to come up with the hyper-specific, one-word-is-one-chance answer. it does, however, need to assign arguments to premises (which is easy, given punctuation / taglines:

 

(A) South Korea free trade agreement will pass

( Your plan kills South Korea free trade agreement

© South Korea free trade agreement is good

(D) You lose (we assume this premise)

 

From parsing these premises, we also gain (read: assume) the logical structure:

 

A -> B -> C -> D

 

From here, we can permute all the possible responses very easily:

 

~ is not, -> is implication, => is therefore

 

~A: ~B -> ~C -> ~D

~A AND ~B: (~B -> ~C -> ~D) AND (~C -> ~D) =>~D

~A AND ~C: (~B -> ~C -> ~D) AND (~D) => ~D

~B AND ~C: (~C -> ~D) AND (~D) => ~D

~A AND ~B and ~C: (~B -> ~C -> D) AND (~C -> ~D) AND (~D) => D

~C: ~D => ~D

etc. (notice how the logic makes the non-unique double turn OK but a unique double turn not ok? Cool how logic works...)

 

We can also analyze each of these logical setups to determine the "strength" of each argument. That's where the fuzzy logic comes in -- it is possible to "rate" a card (however imperfectly) from 0 to 1, and then determine which strategy uses the "best" cards. So it is certainly possible... not that it would be good, and it certainly wouldn't be able to beat a team who was paying attention, but it could still be pretty awesome.

 

Also, I somewhat doubt your program as it is now can truly understand the language used in the modern media. As I said earlier, it doesn't seem to be very good at making complete sentences yet or actually recognizing the best parts of a card.

No, I definitely haven't claimed to have created a language parser capable of determining logical arguments in terms of theory, Ks, Ts, or basically anything but a very, very cut-and-dry politics shell. I'm still working with symbolic tag lines (i.e., the tags I'm feeding it are things like "plan -> unpopular -> no political capital").

 

Nonetheless, I think it's a really interesting project, Ryan.

 

I thought so too! Thanks Arik.