Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/19/04 in Blog Entries

  1. 2 points
    "These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest." - MLK Jr.
  2. 1 point
    I know there is anti-blackness, orientalism, and myth of the model minority. But is there anything more geared towards middle eastern backgrounds? Have not found many authors on the lit
  3. 1 point
    This may have a purpose but I just dont know how it would be all that helpful but hey...
  4. 1 point
    My most recent Saturday tournament (Varsity CX at Paris North Lamar in East Texas) consisted of three debates in which neither competitors nor judges knew exactly what was going on. Why? Because every team I competed against read a complicated advocacy of which they could not explain paired with a RoB (Roll of the Ballot) framed specifically around their advocacy. The case debate was non-existent. My case was freaking drones. Now what is the problem with this? Its bad debate! If you can even call it debate. After one such round, I talked with my opponents. They told me they had been doing debate for three years (both were juniors) and that they did not understand what they had read- a psychoanalysis K. Confused, I asked why they had decided to run thee K, to which one replied "My coach said it would win, he talks about this type of stuff all the time but it goes a bit over our heads". And here we find the fault. Psychoanalysis is a complicated critical theory that is hard to grasp for even the most educated political scientists, philosophers, and physicians. So why, may I ask, do we put it in to the hands of high school students to discuss, debate, and overall butcher? My thesis is that winning has overshadowed education in what is supposed to be its one last stronghold. We write blocks and put them in to student's hands so that they win. Why? Why can we not prepare debaters to think? Teach students to respond to arguments in their way, in a logical way that makes sense to them? We must remember that it is our students who are supposed to be learning to form argumentation, not us. It seems that with the "Golden generation" of high school debaters growing up and coaching, they can't let go of the fact that its not about them anymore. This appears to be the case with judges as well. The fad of "doing work" has appeared. Filling gaps in argumentation with a judge's own knowledge or opinions is not the point of debate (YOU WILL ALWAYS BEAT THE CHILD YOU ARE JUDGING, don't worry-we know that. You don't have to prove it), a good educator should judge on whats given to them, no more and no less. Why do we tell our students they can't do something or that they must do something? "You must put uniqueness first in your disadvantage." "You can't run new arguments in the 2NC" "You must spread." "You can't spread" No, your regional biases and trends do not dictate what you MUST do in a debate round. The whole point of debate is to provide a structured round (speech length and order) while not limiting the student's creativity and argumentation i.e. if I can persuade the judge of it then I can do it. There are no rules in debate other than these (provided a few in certain circuits that dictate evidence rules and the like) and that is a good thing. It keeps debate what it is. Coaches and judges alike need to realize, debate is about the students and their education. Winning is a side-effect of good debates.
  5. 1 point
    Dear CXers, I am new to this website, and I am slowly learning the process of posting and blogging, so bear with me. My blog will be full of questions about evidence, the topic, tournaments, UIL, and other miscellaneous subjects. A myriad of discussion will occur here regarding these topics as well, and I hope this will be an easier, less crowded version of the forums-- which can be quite daunting due to the thousands of users posting! To start off my new blog, I'll reveal just a little information for all of you debaters out there-- I will be a junior in Texas this year, and both my partner and I have been debating since freshman year. My name is not really Sally Bowen, it is a combination of my partner's and my name. We are both girls. She does not have a cross-x account, and like I said, I recently created one amidst my summer boredom and passion for Cross Examination debate. We have been to state one time, but we did not do as well as we hoped-- so we are looking for help from all you other intelligent debators! I will be attending a camp this summer as well, so evidence exchange might be a great idea. Any other questions for me you can post as a comment, and I'll most likely answer. Be warned, while I strive to be a nice person (I am a Christian), I can be very sassy! Now on to more serious matters...let's discuss this years topic dealing with space exploration! I feel like counter plans and Kritiks will be rampant this year, due to the multitude of cases possible, and therefore lack of on-case arguments. Topicality will also play a major role, especially due to the ambiguity of space exploration! What a far-out topic...I wonder how much the recent NASA developments will shape the debate? No more shuttles?! I also am curious about the new space companies trying to take over NASA-- could they be possible DAs or CP agents? What are your thoughts about these developments? As far as affirmative goes, I find the excitement pretty inspiring this year. It kind of depends how you interpret the words of the resolution-- with the correct definitions, and beast argumentation skills, you could write some pretty squirrly cases and get away with it. For example, what about a case that merely develops better telescopes that are stationed on earth, but provide better pictures and information beyond the Earth's mesosphere? I wouldn't be so keen to try something like that, but I wonder if a judge would buy it? If you found a great definition of exploration that said it was the study of something, I feel like you could get by with it incredibly well, especially with the economy in such a state of distress, Obama clearly not giving the space program prominence, let alone the funds they need, and the status quo which leans more against space exploration. However, cooler case ideas would be to physically explore space, though the space agreements and space laws definitely suck a lot of the fun out of it. I'm sure that the DAs and impacts this year are going to be ridiculously crazy...the 2012 end of the world theory, alien invasions, space wars, etc. This topic will definitely be interesting, and what a cool year to be debating it in! I'm sure that the preparation this year will be vigorous, as there are so many different affirmative cases that could be developed, and lots of negative evidence to be written due to space being made up of "what ifs" and "unknowns." I think that a good, solid knowledge of space history would be beneficial for debating this year because the best debators are ones who can set their evidence aside and just talk to the judge-- as long as they know what they are saying and are correct in the knowledge, of course. I hate when people are like "this won't work because it's empirically denied." Really? Tell my why! I think that knowing previous episodes with space exploration and making timelines of important events will really help this year. Does anyone else have ideas about preparation for this years topic? Okay, well I think I have babbled long enough about the plethora of questions the resolution poses, and I've probably managed to bore many, many people in the process. Anyways, if you have any thoughts about the topic, evidence to share, ideas, or want to refute any of mine, just leave me a comment Happy debating!
  6. 1 point
    So I'm not sure if it's just me, but the fact that the sidebar-thing shows all recent blog posts seems a little weird. Hopefully this feature will be more utilized and will grow, and should that happen the showing of all recent posts could get very confusing very quickly. Perhaps it would make more sense to show recently active blogs? Or the feature could be done away with entirely and that way you would just see all of the blogs, but the most recently active ones could be on the top like how the forums are organized. Things done by the mods or heads of cross-x could be stickied to the top just like in threads. That could make the blogs more manageable and more intuitive. Also, I see some real potential for the blogs to grow with the more community-centered redesign. Cross-x has always been a community, but with the addition of Facebook-like options on personal profiles and a more overt placement of the blog option, I think the blogs could really take off. I know that I personally don't like visiting a ton of different websites, as I would prefer to have most of my things that I like to do or check in the same place. The convenience of the blog feature could be a driving factor to make people use it more, and it could grow into another way that the community of cross-x could be manifest within the site itself without needing external sites to follow, such as tumblr or blogspot. Am I the only one seeing real potential for this under-used feature of cross-x? What do you think would be a good way to organize blogs? What do you think the blog feature should be used for? I'm interested in what you're thinking about this, I know I only just recently figured out that this exists thanks to the cross-x remodel.
  7. 0 points
    "The hydroelectric plant is set into the current of the Rhine... The Rhine itself appears to be something at our command.. The word expresses here something more, and something more essential, than mere "stock." The word "standing-reserve" assumes the rank of an inclusive rubric... Whatever stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as an object... The words "setting--upon," "ordering," "standing-reserve," obtrude and accumulate in a dry, monotonous, and therefore oppressive way — this fact has its basis in what is now coming to utterance.†Martin Heidegger described in 1949 the idea of a “Technological Mindsetâ€. This critique of the technik mindset gave way the modern day policy debate critique. Many current debaters cannot grasp the nuances of the Heidegger argument. This has lead to a hate of the Heidegger critique. It has been run so badly Bill Batterman, 3NR creater and Woodword Coach, has stated in his JudgeWiki, “I have engaged in meditation on your K, it reveals itself to me, and it still sucks. work harder.†To rectify this problem you must learn the kritik from the ground up. Stop being lazy and stupid. Learn it. To begin with, you must understand Heidegger's idea of phenomenology. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “phenomenology†is described as, “the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.†The idea of phenomenology was created by German philosopher Husserl. Husserl was a professor at the University of Freiburg where Heidegger was a good friend and a student. Here had a revolutionary idea. Husserl thought that the being of things, the essence and what they are, is defined and found by the phenomenon in this world. These phenomenon are everything we sense. Our sights, feelings, smells. Everything that is observed by us is a phenomenon. Husserl stated that these phenomenon, these observations by the viewer, allow us to find the things true being. Yet, after the end of WWI Heidegger began to doubt Husserl's view that there was a true “Being†(A god in the sense of a absolute truth.) Because of this doubt, Heidegger began to redefine the view of phenomenology on the world. He described that there was no true “Being†to things, and that everyone's “Being†is based off people's subjective perception of phenomenon. He proposed that our perception changed the essence of people. Now I shall explain my awesome paint drawing showing a visual representation of phenomenology. A is being shown as the sun. It is shining onto B which is our orange. This casts a shadow (F) onto the wall which is E. Then sitting in front of wall C is our little Heidegger (D). The shadow is our perceptions within the word. Heidegger is us. Walls C and E are the world. The object is any object in the world. Lastly, the sun is our senses allowing for perception. Now our sense, the sun, sense this the object, the orange. This produces our perception of the object, the shadow. This process of our perceptions take place ON and IN the world, the walls C and E. We sit in and on the world like lil' Heidegger and observe our perceptions with our mind. These perceptions make us see the being of the object, in this case an orange. It is our perceptions, the shadow, that allow this object to become an orange. If we saw the characteristics of a dog, we would believe the essence was a dog. But because we perceived this way it is this way. Yay for paint. Now that we understand Heidegger's view on ontology, let us look at the kritik! Heidegger believed that the world today is seen in the “technological mindsetâ€. This mindset is when we begin to “order things aboutâ€. When a hydroelectric damn was put into the Rhine river, it was no longer seen as a river. It was now just a power source waiting for us to use it. This makes the river become a “Standing Reserve†waiting for human's to use it. It looses it's ontological status as an object because of it. It is no longer seen as an object or a river in any poetic or lived sense, but it's merely a resource for us to gather. Because humans began to become so attached to this mindset, they began to view everything in this light. Woods are now seen as waiting timber, mountains are seen as mineral deposits and even soldiers are seen as foot units and numbers to be calculated. Everyone begins to be seen as an object and we lose all of our relationships with other people. Zimmerman describes this in '94 as an “Ontological Damnation.†This card sucks. Don't read it. But what Zimmerman is meaning by this is that we'll reach a point where no one has an ontological relationship with anyone else. This makes it so we shall never again come back to a point where we will have ontology. Once we reach the point where everyone has this mindset, no one will be able to go back because they no longer see the value of people other than objectifying them, and we will, as the human species, get back to a point where we have a form of ontology. “Ontological Damnation... Hell on Earth... Masquerading in a material paradise.†In the context of a debate round, the kritik is simple. The Affirmative provides a plan which uses this technik mindset. As the negative you say this is bad. We should oppose this mindset so as we do not lose out ontological valuing of the Earth and People. It is the root cause of all their impacts and your impacts will out weight theirs (Go VtL). I can not stress enough. You don't care about technology. It rules. It rocks. You love it. You want to have sex with it. You want to bring it to your house, make love to it and be there in the morning to cook it breakfast and drive it to work. You concede technology rocks, in the sort of way that you want to rock it all night long. You are kritiking the technological mindset, not technology. There is a large difference. The technological mindset is order things about and making things “standing reservesâ€. Technology is not that. You kritik technik not technology. I can't stress this enough. One last thing I can't stress enough. Read the fucking literature. It will better your understanding so much. It will make everything make sense. It will make the terms become clear and every nuanced argument gold. Read the cards, read the literature. Hopefully now that you understand the basics of the Heidegger kritik you will be able to understand the picture at the top. For more fun and help go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger For questions: joncookdebate@gmail.com One last thing, he was totally a Nazi.
  8. 0 points
    Well, I've been working on the research for this year's high school debate topic Resolved: the USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. Personally, I do not believe that this resolution will work well. First of all, there is no inherent barrier, because this isn't the era of the space race; we have a space program in place. It's called NASA. Granted, we are discontinuing parts of it because of funding. Well, where are we going to get the funding for this space plan? sure every debater can be creative and come up with various taxes like the brick tax or the toilet paper tax.. but doesn't that defeat the purpose? Aren't we tired of the FG pushing more taxes on us? and yet we are teaching our debate students that if we need funding just tax the populace!
  9. -1 points
    On my aff, against the space debris dis ad and a EU counterplan.
  10. -1 points
    I found Dreyfus' critique of AI where he talks about artificial intelligence in relation to Heidegger. I was wondering if anyone had a card/source that says artificial intelligence is the epitome of calculative thought etc. It seems to me that AI defines everything as resources rather than respecting being in itself. I'm not really familiar with Heidegger/ontology so correct me if I don't know what I'm talking about. I just feel like this would put a cool spin on Artificial intelligence. Not that I'm building a case or anything.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...