Jump to content
zetazetadelta

Tell Me What Blocks You Need And I'll Make Them.

Recommended Posts

Hubris,

 

Its an argument about the limits of knowledge.  Human created knowledge will always be an asymtopic relationship to Truth.

 

This also aligns or rather dovetails with a Biblical interpretation of who God is:

1) We see reality "though a glass darkly" (ie imperfectly)

2) God is the God of mystery

 

So thats 3 applications of the theory.  This makes a more extensive argument about Godel's incompleteness Theorem:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo - good work thus far - from quick scrolling, I didn't see these cards in your block, but they should be (well one of them should be in the 2AC, your pick). The consult CP is really, really bad foreign policy, and most def. would kill heg:

 

Says the guy called "Needs More Consult Japan"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hubris,

 

Its an argument about the limits of knowledge.  Human created knowledge will always be an asymtopic relationship to Truth.

 

This also aligns or rather dovetails with a Biblical interpretation of who God is:

1) We see reality "though a glass darkly" (ie imperfectly)

2) God is the God of mystery

 

So thats 3 applications of the theory.  This makes a more extensive argument about Godel's incompleteness Theorem:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

 

Frankly I have a hard time seeing you as an impartial, uninvolved commentator. In the website in your signature - http://creativefusionmedia.wordpress.com/ - you advertise as a "Christian SEO and Social Media Agency". 

 

Not saying that this affects the legitimacy of your arguments, but I don't think you'll be able to do much convincing coming from such a partial perspective.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I have a hard time seeing you as an impartial, uninvolved commentator. In the website in your signature - http://creativefusionmedia.wordpress.com/ - you advertise as a "Christian SEO and Social Media Agency". 

 

Not saying that this affects the legitimacy of your arguments, but I don't think you'll be able to do much convincing coming from such a partial perspective.

I'm just going to mention this here -- one inherently has a religious belief (unless you've been completely unexposed, which is very difficult growing up in America). I'm an Atheist -- so I'm inherently biased against it, Nathan_debate is christian, so he is probably biased in favor. It's a hard thing to get a completely unbiased commentator on something like this.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yo - good work thus far - from quick scrolling, I didn't see these cards in your block, but they should be (well one of them should be in the 2AC, your pick). The consult CP is really, really bad foreign policy, and most def. would kill heg:

 

Ok thanks I'll update that block later tonight if I have time. 

 

By the way I saw that your K answers file has the same Barry cards that I cut for the O3 block on here. Just so there's no confusion, I didn't steal those from your file and it's coincidence that we cut the same text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're still doing this. I'd love a block against Racism Advantages. 
Mostly solvency related stuff, as well as "Discourse doesn't solve" evidence. 

Thanks in advance! You've been amazing by doing all of this for free! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're still doing this. I'd love a block against Racism Advantages. 

Mostly solvency related stuff, as well as "Discourse doesn't solve" evidence. 

 

Thanks in advance! You've been amazing by doing all of this for free! 

I'm still doing it, just very very busy between my internship and some other stuff. Things will be slow, but I'll try to continue to do good research, even if there's less of it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surface transpo with nano particle - nano particulation di sad (darpa and stuff)

 

hip hop, fare free mass transit
 
cable propelled transit systems
 
highways
 
active transportation (bike and walking paths)
 
cyberattack protection
 
invest in roundabouts
 
increase investment for job access and reverse commute act
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 41 pos rep on your post. That has to be the highest-repped post on cross-x. Congrats and thanks for what you're doing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kant made some compelling arguments for God's existence, or why we need to believe that God exists.  See the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Pure Reason and Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to do the same thing hudsonattar is doing, except with policy-ish stuff, since I'm not that apt in kritikal literature/theory. If anyone has policy-ish requests, put them below and I'll try to do some stuff too!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

surface transpo with nano particle - nano particulation di sad (darpa and stuff)

 

hip hop, fare free mass transit
 
cable propelled transit systems
 
highways
 
active transportation (bike and walking paths)
 
cyberattack protection
 
invest in roundabouts
 
increase investment for job access and reverse commute act

 

Sorry, won't be cutting more stuff that's solely applicable to the TI topic.

 

Also I don't know what you're asking for... "highways"? You want me to make a block for "highways"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyway you could block out generic answers to a Mexico initiation CP? For example if there's a case that has the US initiate some project with Mexico and the Neg runs a CP where Mexico initiates the project instead and runs Politics as a NB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyway you could block out generic answers to a Mexico initiation CP? For example if there's a case that has the US initiate some project with Mexico and the Neg runs a CP where Mexico initiates the project instead and runs Politics as a NB. 

Yeah sure I'll make a block, but that's pretty simple to beat.

 

I think that is a debate you have to win with either your case, theory, probability, or presumption, so I'm not sure there is much of a block to be had.

 

With your case - prove that Mexico initiation doesn't solve. Maybe you have an Obama credibility advantage, or an SP advantage, and U.S. initiative is key.

 

With theory - you could argue that this is abusive because there's no litbase (too small an issue), not a real policy consideration. That it detracts from substantial debate over the merit of the plan. You can also make the argument that this CP falls under normal means, maybe? When I hit a cheaty CP like this I normally run two or three theory violations: "Topical PICs bad", "Pedantic CPs bad", "Int'l Fiat bad", "PTX NB CPs w/o solvency advocate bad", and "CPs need solvency advocate" are all good ideas here.

 

With probability - this is the issue that will probably win you 90% of debates against gimmick CPs. If there's a 1% risk Mexico doesn't initiate then you should vote for the plan, because any chance of NW from the plan's impact scenarios outweighs the NB (read mag O/W prob card, Bostrom I think). So there's three parts to winning with probability here, I think: one card that says Mexico won't initiate (weak state or whatever; I'll find a card and post it later), impact defense on PTX, and Bostrom.

 

With presumption - if you terminate the PTX DA then the judge should vote for the plan because the CP no longer has a NB. Tie goes to the runner.

 

There's probably some weird perm argument you could make (seems as if "perm:do the cp" may have found a victim, you'd have to win that the CP is normal means) but as a general rule of thumb I stay away from divergent perm theory because it's dangerous.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone wanted some high magnitude, low probability cards before, so here ya go:

 

We should focus on high magnitude impacts, it’s currently ignored and that amplifies the risk

Hanson 7

“Catastrophe, Social Collapse, and Human Extinction†By Robin Hanson Department of Economics at George Mason University August 2007 http://hanson.gmu.edu/collapse.pdf

But for still other types of disasters, such as ï¬res, hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, and plagues, most of the expected harm may be in the infrequent but largest events, which would hurt a large fraction of the world. So if we are willing to invest at all in preventing or preparing for these type of events, it seems we should invest the most in preventing and prepare for these largest events. (Of course this conclusion is muted if there are other beneï¬ts of preparing for smaller events, beneï¬ts which do not similarly apply to preparing for large events.) For some types of events, such as wars or plagues, large events often arise from small events that go wrong, and so preparing for and preventing small events may in fact be the best way to prevent large events. But often there are conflicts between preparing for small versus large events. For example, the best response to a small ï¬re in a large building is to stay put until told to move, but at the World Trade Center many learned the hard way that this is bad advice for a large ï¬re. Also, allowing nations to have nuclear weapons can discourage small wars, but encourage large ones. Similarly, the usual advice for an earthquake is to “duck and cover†under a desk or doorway. This is good advice for small earthquakes, where the main risk is being hit by items falling from the walls or ceiling. But some claim that in a large earthquake where the building collapses, hiding under a desk will most likely get you flattened under that desk; in this case the best place is said to be pressed against the bottom of something incompressible like ï¬le cabinets full of paper (Copp, 2000). Unfortunately, our political systems may reward preparing for the most common situations, rather than the greatest expected damage situations.

Specifically for policymaking we should focus on low probability high magnitude impacts – the role of government

Levi 13

“Energy Independence and Other Myths: A Q&A With Michael Levi, Author of The Power Surge†Michael Levi; David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, Washington Post; May 06, 2013 http://science.time.com/2013/05/06/energy-independence-and-other-myths-a-qa-with-michael-levi-author-of-power-surge/#ixzz2SeFJ1Ekx

Before I started spending my time on energy and climate, I spent most of it working on national-security issues. I wrote a book on nuclear terrorism. In that world you think about risks. When people give me the median projections of what will happen on climate change, some of them scare me, and some wouldn’t push me to put climate change on top of the list. What really worries me are the lower probability but higher-consequence outcomes. There are some people who say we can’t focus on those events, but to me, that is the job of government. It is not to optimize society. It is to protect people against big risks that they can’t handle themselves. And climate change is one of those big risks. I’m not in the camp that if you don’t follow my plan, we’ll all die, but I do believe this is a top-tier issue. And not because of the certainties but because of the risks.

Focus on high probability impacts caused the BP oil spill and the housing bubble

Leonhardt 10

“Spillonomics: Underestimating Risk†DAVID LEONHARDT June 1, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06fob-wwln-t.html?_r=0

For all the criticism BP executives may deserve, they are far from the only people to struggle with such low-probability, high-cost events. Nearly everyone does. “These are precisely the kinds of events that are hard for us as humans to get our hands around and react to rationally,†Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard, says. We make two basic — and opposite — types of mistakes. When an event is difficult to imagine, we tend to underestimate its likelihood. This is the proverbial black swan. Most of the people running Deepwater Horizon probably never had a rig explode on them. So they assumed it would not happen, at least not to them.¶ Similarly, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan liked to argue, not so long ago, that the national real estate market was not in a bubble because it had never been in one before. Wall Street traders took the same view and built mathematical models that did not allow for the possibility that house prices would decline. And many home buyers signed up for unaffordable mortgages, believing they could refinance or sell the house once its price rose. That’s what house prices did, it seemed.¶ On the other hand, when an unlikely event is all too easy to imagine, we often go in the opposite direction and overestimate the odds. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans canceled plane trips and took to the road. There were no terrorist attacks in this country in 2002, yet the additional driving apparently led to an increase in traffic fatalities.¶ When the stakes are high enough, it falls to government to help its citizens avoid these entirely human errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also make the argument that this CP falls under normal means, maybe? When I hit a cheaty CP like this I normally run two or three theory violations: "Topical PICs bad", "Pedantic CPs bad", "Int'l Fiat bad", "PTX NB CPs w/o solvency advocate bad", and "CPs need solvency advocate" are all good ideas here."

 

Could you elaborate more on each of these theory arguments? Maybe post shells?

And what is a solvency advocate and normal means?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A solvency advocate is someone who says exactly what the plan/counterplan text says, basically he's an advocate for the wording of the counterplan text. The reason some people read theory about this is to keep counterplans grounded in the literature to prevent teams from going "Qatar should invest in Mexican energy", which probably has no actual evidence to back it up, but you could find "Qatar has money to invest" and "Mexico needs investment money". Basically requiring a solvency advocate prevents teams from making up their own policies that no one can research.

 

Normal means is the concept that we can ignore certain aspects of plan passage, because we can assume they happen as that's how a policy normally happens. ie. the plan text doesn't have to specify congress should pass the bill and then get it signed by the president, we can assume that happens. 

 

Topical PICs theory says that the neg steals aff ground by having a counterplan that fits under the resolution. This goes back to the theory that affs affirm the resolution and negs negate. An aff team can argue this leads to better education as we learn about multiple sides of the topic, rather than having the neg just use aff lit.

 

International fiat is using fiat to control actors/agents outside the United States. ie. Instead of the USfg investing in Mexican infrastructure, China should. Aff teams argue that the negative should not be able to fiat international actors, because it falls outside the policymaker framework. Basically, no single policymaker (the judge) would be in the position to make that choice. No single actor controls the United States and other countries and by presenting the choice hurts our education. It also undermines fairness, because the negative can choose thousands of nations/organizations to do the plan outside the United States and that massively expands the research burden for the aff.

 

I haven't heard of pedantic CP theory, though.

  • Upvote 2

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...

×
×
  • Create New...