Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Britain voted to leave the EU....

 

I guess I want to just talk implications/effects of this vote as well as any effect on the China topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think also there could be some sort of EU instability DA b/c PM Cameron is resigning, the EU is weakening, and Russia/China might decide to get aggressive and make a power grab for control of Europe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, even if Britain does want to leave, the timeframe of such is years - not days or months. Thus your timeframe on the argument is horrendous.

 

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Are you thinking they would be renegotiating trade and border agreements and such independently before abandoning the current ones? I had assumed they were leaving as soon as possible, and would end all agreements after becoming independent, then create whatever new ones they wanted from scratch. Your way makes more sense, but the motivation for leaving doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

Also, do you do financial investment stuff in your spare time? If so, did you buy anything today? I am too poor to invest anything yet, but some people on Reddit were speculating that today would be a good day to buy options, while others were expecting margins to be higher and advising people to wait a while.

 

The implications of the Brexit for NATO seem potentially useful to debaters. Here's the first result on Google for "brexit nato", and it raises some interesting ideas: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-24/how-the-brexit-vote-could-impact-nato-and-defense-policy. Combine this with Trump's recent noise about NATO. And I don't know how exactly, but anything hugely important the US does with China is going to effect NATO via Russia's reaction. So this might be worth looking into. Also this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-brexit-britain-should-stay/

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brexit will actually do nothing other than show that people are racist and participate in constructing brown people as threats... parliament will never approve of britain leaving the eu which means everything is fine bc it was still a non-binding referendum 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Are you thinking they would be renegotiating trade and border agreements and such independently before abandoning the current ones? I had assumed they were leaving as soon as possible, and would end all agreements after becoming independent, then create whatever new ones they wanted from scratch. Your way makes more sense, but the motivation for leaving doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

Also, do you do financial investment stuff in your spare time? If so, did you buy anything today? I am too poor to invest anything yet, but some people on Reddit were speculating that today would be a good day to buy options, while others were expecting margins to be higher and advising people to wait a while.

 

The implications of the Brexit for NATO seem potentially useful to debaters. Here's the first result on Google for "brexit nato", and it raises some interesting ideas: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-24/how-the-brexit-vote-could-impact-nato-and-defense-policy. Combine this with Trump's recent noise about NATO. And I don't know how exactly, but anything hugely important the US does with China is going to effect NATO via Russia's reaction. So this might be worth looking into. Also this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-brexit-britain-should-stay/

@chaos

because the market was generally in a free-fall i moved money out of the play that I had in oil w/chevron and I split the money between a gold etf (GDX) and pfizer- gold is a good defensive play when there is significant market volatility to protect your principle and I decided to move into pfizer because the drug market shouldn't be affected that greatly by brexit- no matter what people will still need the medicines

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Are you thinking they would be renegotiating trade and border agreements and such independently before abandoning the current ones? I had assumed they were leaving as soon as possible, and would end all agreements after becoming independent, then create whatever new ones they wanted from scratch. Your way makes more sense, but the motivation for leaving doesn't make much sense to me either.

Also, do you do financial investment stuff in your spare time? If so, did you buy anything today? I am too poor to invest anything yet, but some people on Reddit were speculating that today would be a good day to buy options, while others were expecting margins to be higher and advising people to wait a while.

The implications of the Brexit for NATO seem potentially useful to debaters. Here's the first result on Google for "brexit nato", and it raises some interesting ideas: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-24/how-the-brexit-vote-could-impact-nato-and-defense-policy. Combine this with Trump's recent noise about NATO. And I don't know how exactly, but anything hugely important the US does with China is going to effect NATO via Russia's reaction. So this might be worth looking into. Also this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-brexit-britain-should-stay/

As far as the timeframe goes... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/europe/brexit-steps-to-leave-eu/

 

As far as the implications go, the market reaction yesterday was just initial panicking. Nothing of material substance has changed between yesterday and today. The economic ramifications will take that long as well. It's not as if farmers instantly lose their EU subsidies. So the shake up, if it actually happens, will take some time. The problem is that the stock market *hates* uncertainty like this - because business hates uncertainty. So for the next two years or so, the stock valuations of British companies will move lower until a better picture emerges of what the effects are. Just think about it like a regular investor... would you invest in a British company right now? No? Why not? Because you don't know how the company can be valued.

 

And yes, I do actively invest. But my first piece of advice is NEVER invest in stocks, even options - even if it looks like a sure thing - until you set up your financial future. The first step anyone should ever do is set up a 6-9 month emergency fund which should cover your costs if you lose your job or whatnot. You should also have your insurance up to date - life, home, auto, health. Then participate in employer sponsored 401k if offered - if they match your investment, it is literally FREE money to you which is the most risk free return you can get. If you have done that, THEN you can start looking at investments. Come back to me when you have your ducks in a row. We should talk then if you're genuinely interested in learning how the big boys seem to always be ahead of the curve all the time.

 

As far as the comments from the other poster, yes, defensive stocks are great. Gold is a solid defensive play. I personally like real estate trusts as they offer cash flow which gives me flexibility to continue scooping up equities when things hit bottom. Other defensive companies are healthcare are consumer products (e.g. proctor and gamble). But when you invest in those companies, with respect to the current crisis, you have to look at their currency exposure.

Edited by Ankur
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the timeframe goes... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/24/europe/brexit-steps-to-leave-eu/

 

As far as the implications go, the market reaction yesterday was just initial panicking. Nothing of material substance has changed between yesterday and today. The economic ramifications will take that long as well. It's not as if farmers instantly lose their EU subsidies. So the shake up, if it actually happens, will take some time. The problem is that the stock market *hates* uncertainty like this - because business hates uncertainty. So for the next two years or so, the stock valuations of British companies will move lower until a better picture emerges of what the effects are. Just think about it like a regular investor... would you invest in a British company right now? No? Why not? Because you don't know how the company can be valued.

 

And yes, I do actively invest. But my first piece of advice is NEVER invest in stocks, even options - even if it looks like a sure thing - until you set up your financial future. The first step anyone should ever do is set up a 6-9 month emergency fund which should cover your costs if you lose your job or whatnot. You should also have your insurance up to date - life, home, auto, health. Then participate in employer sponsored 401k if offered - if they match your investment, it is literally FREE money to you which is the most risk free return you can get. If you have done that, THEN you can start looking at investments. Come back to me when you have your ducks in a row. We should talk then if you're genuinely interested in learning how the big boys seem to always be ahead of the curve all the time.

 

As far as the comments from the other poster, yes, defensive stocks are great. Gold is a solid defensive play. I personally like real estate trusts as they offer cash flow which gives me flexibility to continue scooping up equities when things hit bottom. Other defensive companies are healthcare are consumer products (e.g. proctor and gamble). But when you invest in those companies, with respect to the current crisis, you have to look at their currency exposure.

You could do some killer lectures about how the economy works at debate camps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could do some killer lectures about how the economy works at debate camps.

Probably. Heck, I'd do it for free (just give me a cot and a Dr pepper). But in the world of debate, I am a dinosaur. My brand of debating hasn't existed now for a solid decade.... and I don't see it coming back. So that's a little demotivational for me

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ankur said, while the EU is pushing for the UK to leave as soon as possible, there's still a 2-year process in which trade treaties and such (I'm not too educated on the topic) are rewritten. 

Edit: Yeah, nvm just look at the article s/he posted.

Edited by LeKritiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably. Heck, I'd do it for free (just give me a cot and a Dr pepper). But in the world of debate, I am a dinosaur. My brand of debating hasn't existed now for a solid decade.... and I don't see it coming back. So that's a little demotivational for me

You should contact some debate camps, the education on econ alone would be well worth it. Also, just out of curiosity what was the kind of debate you did compared to what we do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact some debate camps, the education on econ alone would be well worth it. Also, just out of curiosity what was the kind of debate you did compared to what we do now?

If camps want me to lecture, they will reach out to me. If they are a coach older than 30 and were ever regular viewers of this site, they know who I am.

 

My style was an old fashioned schoolyard brawl of case debate. One did not run a disad unless the link was the Aff plan. See the following link for a great example of what I mean by what I did... because "case debate" today is a different timid animal compared to what it was when I was doing it.

 

https://www.cross-x.com/topic/54157-is-a-huge-case-neg-really-necessary/?view=findpost&p=864465&hl=%2Bcase

 

And if you want to see examples of what my partner the 2n did, send me a PM with an email address. I'll send you an example of a case I dissected a few years back as an example of what we did.

 

I assure you, case debate with a dissection of the 1ac by the 2n is functionally impossible to beat.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you, case debate with a dissection of the 1ac by the 2n is functionally impossible to beat.

 

I had been under the vague impression that 1ACs nowadays are lower quality, and generally stretching the evidence more, than they used to. Is this accurate?

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been under the vague impression that 1ACs nowadays are lower quality, and generally stretching the evidence more, than they used to. Is this accurate?

It's not just 1ACs - it's all evidence. To be fair the big issue isn't the evidence, it's what the evidence is intended to convey. Most published articles, especially peer reviewed material is fine - it's how debaters use it to their end which makes the difference. Power tagging is horrific in debate today. When I was a debater, depending on the judge you were in front of, being called out on power tagging could earn you an instant loss. Today, it's just part of the game. Integrity has gone the way of the dodo.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just 1ACs - it's all evidence. To be fair the big issue isn't the evidence, it's what the evidence is intended to convey. Most published articles, especially peer reviewed material is fine - it's how debaters use it to their end which makes the difference. Power tagging is horrific in debate today. When I was a debater, depending on the judge you were in front of, being called out on power tagging could earn you an instant loss. Today, it's just part of the game. Integrity has gone the way of the dodo.

Not if they pull that in front of me - power-tagged evidence is a voting issue for me : ^ ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been under the vague impression that 1ACs nowadays are lower quality, and generally stretching the evidence more, than they used to. Is this accurate?

People also suck at cutting cards. My personal theory is that it's so easy to find evidence (open evidence/wiki open source/etc.) that there's little incentive to get good at research but that's pure conjecture. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ankur - are you serious about being willing to give econ lectures if transport costs are paid? I know several camps that would reach out to you pretty quick. Are you down to give that lesson to non-policy camps too? Robust case analysis is essentially what happens in circuit PF these days, so you may find yourself at home.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. I'd love to do it if it worked with my schedule. My summer this year is pretty stacked, but there is always future years. Before I had a wife and child, I had another love, and its name was policy debate... we had good memories, fleeting though they may be.

Edited by Ankur
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just 1ACs - it's all evidence. To be fair the big issue isn't the evidence, it's what the evidence is intended to convey. Most published articles, especially peer reviewed material is fine - it's how debaters use it to their end which makes the difference. Power tagging is horrific in debate today. When I was a debater, depending on the judge you were in front of, being called out on power tagging could earn you an instant loss. Today, it's just part of the game. Integrity has gone the way of the dodo.

 

I think Solvency and Inherency will almost always be pushed to the back burner in debates because now debate is so much more focused on multiple off-case arguments. In addition when solvency is applied, it's usually applied in the context of a counter advocacy, for example: "The Affirmative does not have the power to influence the private sector so default to the counter-plan as a necessity to solve."

 

As mld said in the other thread, the reason for this conjunction of solvency with other arguments is that case debates are so difficult to win in terms of modern judging. Almost every experienced judge will vote on a good counter advocacy or a disadvantage that outweighs, but may falter when voting for the Status Quo.

 

Also, it's so much easier to study the philosophy of a kritik you like instead of researching arguments against 20+ Affirmatives that I can definitely see why debate has changed. I said in another post that a college debater I know remarked that policy debate is almost nonexistent for small teams in the college circuit. The reason is what I just said. Prepping against insanely good college teams is difficult as it is and researching the enormous amount of Aff material as a small team is almost impossible.

 

Offense is honestly just easier and 2A's know that if they tear down offense and make counter-arguments, they'll win the debate. Answering every claim, like you said, is super difficult to do following a 13-minute speech and there's simply not enough time.

 

EDIT: I now realize this should probably go on the other forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it really depends on what your focus is. Let me ask you, does every critique debater throw out their cap file every year and start from scratch? No. It just requires updating. In the same way, you can develop a very robust collection of case files. Its not as if debate impacts really change from year to year. It's a huge hurdle if you start from scratch. It's not a huge hurdle if you started that way from the beginning.

 

And you are right - judges don't typically vote for inherency... or solvency. They don't because they belong to a school of thought which is intellectually void of all logic and reason. Debate has shifted to off case because of an obsession with "new" shiny objects - nerd sex appeal. It didn't shift that way because they are better arguments. I can assure you that the link "your plan uses the USFG; this upsets federalism" is not a better argument. A touch hyperbole, I know, but you get the point

 

Quite frankly, I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it once more - if a judge is unwilling or even openly unlikely to vote for inherency, then he or she has no more business judging debate than a judge who won't vote for a critique.

  • 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...