Jump to content

Ankur

Member
  • Content Count

    7132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Everything posted by Ankur

  1. its always flattering to see others using my arguments... the reason that the magic wand approach is superior is because the other interpretations permit the affirmative to spike out of links as the right to define the process of plan passage must necessarily be exclusive to the affirmative. by establishing a clear brightline that neither team can draw conclusions from the plan passage process, it creates predictable argument ground.
  2. As I am likely the oldest remaining active (sort of) member of the cross-x community, I can fill in some details. The timeline of cross-x.com roughly goes as follows: Early years dominated by folks with lengthy debate-specific discourse. Significant growth occurred when Phil Kerpen bought the site from Oren Cass and launched evidence purchasing, specifically the Thursday File (weekly politics disad). With the explosion in highschool users came unfettered trolls and immaturity. The old timers like myself tried our best to refocus the site but it was a losing battle. At some point, during a website upgrade a large percentage of threads were lost. With that, the old timers left one by one. A great deal of our work was gone and most of us were already college graduates in the real world with no time nor desire to try and resurrect things from the ashes. There was another brief boost with virtual debates and when two other guys bought the site. But each was marred by competitors stealing page views. 3NR, etc. And now its a ghost of what it once was. I lurk sometimes just to see if any old timers are around. But they are done.
  3. The dollar's slide is about way more than Trump, and everyone should take notice Yahoo Finance Myles Udland Yahoo Finance September 18, 2017 2:152:22 The drop in the U.S. dollar has been one of the defining trades in financial markets this year. After rallying following the election of Donald Trump in November 2016 and hitting a 13-year high that same month, the dollar has been slammed this year, logging its worst year since 1986 against major currencies as of September 5, according to Bespoke Investment Group. The most popular explanations for this year’s dollar decline revolve around two key players in Washington, D.C. — Donald Trump and Federal Reserve. As Yahoo Finance’s Nicole Sinclair outlined last week, Trump’s failure to deliver on his major policy initiatives has in part led to a softening of the dollar. Hopes for fiscal stimulus (and in turn faster economic growth), and fears of more restrictive trade policies, both boosted the dollar’s outlook earlier in the year. Neither have materialized. Then there is the Federal Reserve, which is no longer alone among major central banks in tightening — or preparing to tighten — monetary policy. The Bank of Canada has raised rates twice, the European Central Bank is jawboning towards the end of its asset purchase program, and the Bank of England has suggested rate hikes could take place later this year. The transition from dollar to yuan has begun But in a note to clients out Monday, Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, cast doubt on the veracity of arguments that a re-synchronization of global monetary policy is to blame for the dollar’s bad year. Instead, Weinberg points east to China, citing the growing role of the world’s second largest economy on the global stage, and in particular the oil markets. And the most basic tenant of the global economy Weinberg sees being undermined is the dollar’s primacy as the currency used to facilitate international trade. Weinberg notes that as of June, Russia accepts yuan — rather than dollars — as payment for oil sales to China. Russia now has 25% of China’s oil import market, up from 15% earlier this year. The significance here is that Russia has been rewarded by China, the world’s largest oil importer, for using its local currency rather than dollars to complete these transactions. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has also been courted by China to break an arrangement under which Aramco, its state-run oil producer, prices oil only in U.S. dollars, Weinberg notes. “The prospect of the world’s largest importers and exporters of oil pricing and trading crude in yuan is a big dollar-negative,” Weinberg writes. “If oil trade moves to yuan, it will mean a potential loss of $800 billion per year in U.S. dollar transactions, and a similar reduction of $800 billion in re-cycling of petro-surpluses into U.S. dollar assets. That is not a pretty picture for either the dollar or U.S. securities in the longer term.” To parse some of this language, most international trade is currently facilitated using U.S. dollars. Which means that it behooves big players in trade — like, for example Aramco — to hold lots of dollar-denominated assets, like Treasury securities. Aramco can then sell Treasuries for cash if it needs the liquidity or can use the proceeds of a deal to buy Treasuries in case it needs the liquidity down the line. This is a simple outline of what is meant when the dollar is spoken of as the world’s reserve currency. And it is this move away from the dollar as the main facilitator of international commerce that Weinberg sees as driving the value of the greenback lower this year. “[The dollar’s decline] is not about interest rates,” Weinberg writes. “It is, instead, anticipation of the dollar being dethroned as the world’s reserve and transactions currency. To our eye, this transition has already begun.” =============== I saw this and found it very intriguing as building towards a dollar crash argument.
  4. Necroposting because I can. I lurk. Sometimes.
  5. Competition is NOT "is the CP a good idea/the perm is not". If someone taught you that, that's terribly incorrect. Competition is a test of whether the judge can evaluate the counterplan as an alternative to the plan. The whole point of a permutation (e.g. do both) was to show that the two policies are not mutually exclusive ergo no reason to reject the aff when there is no tradeoff. Essentially, you first test the CP, and if it is exclusive, THEN you evaluate whether it's a better policy option. Fast forward some time later, and people get cute with their interpretation. They claim that the tradeoff (above) is the net benefits disad. But this is not real competition - it's artificial because you CAN do both (its called the CP). The interp the negative brings is that the aff is implicit "do not consult" because it was not explicitly stated in plan. Well it was also not explicitly stated in plan that the copy signed by Trump would be printed on 70% recycled content paper, and environmental leadership begins with the president and environmental leadership key to all leadership and without US leadership nuke war results... would you say such is "legitimate"? Process arguments are inherently infinitely regressive. There is no limit the level of detail one can demand in the "implementation" of policy. There is no way to establish a brightline as to what is and is not legitimate vs what is and is not abuse. That's why my interpretation is superior. It DOES set a brightline. Lastly, ever wonder why if you run nothing but disads against an aff you don't have to issue a competitiveness argument? Because the default negative policy option is the status quo which is guaranteed to be competitive with the aff which is a deviation from the status quo. If your interpretation is better, then one needs to have a competition "test" with a disad only strategy as well, no? Because it's about whether it's a "desirable policy option", no?
  6. First, the perm DOES function in consult. There are two worlds with consult: agent consulted says yes/agent consulted says no. If the agent consulted says yes, then the CP is plan plus. If the agent consulted says no, the CP is plan minus. In a world where plan plus is legitimized, the negative can run any Neg Policy Option (NPO) with zero relevance to the aff or resolution as long as the combination of plan and counterplan is worse than the counterplan alone. The plan can be educate inner city kids and CP is Spark-cities (limited nuke war in cities). This is infinitely abusive to the aff as it would need to prepare against not just non-topical policy options but ANY irrelevant policy option. In a world in which plan minus is legitimate, the Neg also has the option of countering the aff education policy with "decommission nukes but do NOT do plan". Again, infinitely abusive for the same reason. Consult counter plans justify all manner of bad behavior in debate. Second, you can't look to effects of policy to determine competitiveness any more than you can look to effects of plan to determine topicality. All the same reasoning applies.
  7. Competition via net benefits is artificial at best and a bastardization of logic at worst.
  8. Consult counterplans AREN'T competitive. Find a better strategy.
  9. Competition in methods other than direct plan comparison are inherently problematic. They permit all manner of bad logic. There is no aspect of a consult counterplan which is "competitive" with the plan.
  10. Well, not exactly. Analysts based their conclusions on polls or data. The data was flawed because the people being polled were less likely to reveal their true intentions to a human pollster. This lie created bad data. It's not so much a great analytic as much as it gives credence to good data and drawing conclusions based on better information. You have a great analytic of why to prefer your evidence over an opponent's.
  11. Didn't see this until now. There has been an explosion in the number of journals as the cost of publishing is low and the subscription fees are high which provides great financial incentives to the publisher. They have also recognized that there are more graduate school and more researchers than ever before - all of whom need space for publication. It's currently a perfect storm of bad incentives. If people stop subscribing to hokey journals, the whole problem disappears.
  12. Focus less on speed and more on clarity and word economy. I can promise you that a slurred speech at 400 WPM is infinitely worse than a clear speech at half that speed. Fix your clarity, stumbles, and word economy - three things far simpler and more practical - and you will be able to win rounds handily at a conversational speed.
  13. Nonsense. Just because you don't evaluate *every* possible non-linear alternative doesn't mean anything. This is where Rescher comes in. Furthermore, why would it matter, from a framework perspective that the Aff on evaluates A and B but not C? The idea behind the framework or K is that one engages non-linear thinking... not the degree to which one is non-linear. Again, no. If you want to run a disad, you just have to restructure it such that it has multiple impact scenarios which have a tradeoff in probability. Adding a policy impact in linear thinking to the framework IS linear thinking. This is why when I first made this a "thing" in debate about 15 years ago that my implication was a question of honesty/integrity. Its appeal was to effectively create a new rule governing behavior in the round... no different than saying the other team loses for stealing my evidence (I am a dinosaur... flashing didn't exist then)
  14. Ankur

    Framework

    A framework is simply a method by which the judge should evaluate the round and under which the debaters should be obliged to operate. It should be used selectively in situations which require the judge to abandon standard reasoning in order to properly weigh your arguments against that of your opponents.
  15. The ICJ just ruled overwhelmingly in favor of Philippines against China over the Spratly islands. Predictably, China does not recognize the ruling.
  16. Ankur

    Brexit

    I am going to keep this short and sweet (by my incredibly poor word economy standards) mostly because I really don't have the time and I am just reiterating things at this point.... ... I don't expect people to believe me that a functionally 100% case specific response is not as difficult as it is often portrayed to be. I assure you, and others, it's not - as long as you start out that way. Think of all the time you spend writing front lines, and preempts, and trying to learn fifteen different critique authors writing such dense incomprehensible prose, practicing speed drills, and developing strategy, learning what arguments to kick and theory. You don't need any of it for a case juggernaut. It's hard to conceptualize something which you can't fathom. Perhaps I lack the ability to describe the method or effectiveness... but I promise - it CAN be done, done well, and in less time than debaters think it will take... it just requires an emphasis on such methodology across all 4 years. It is not something which pays immediate dividends and the initial burden IS high.
  17. Ankur

    Brexit

    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.
  18. Ankur

    Brexit

    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.
  19. Ankur

    Brexit

    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.
  20. Ankur

    Brexit

    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.
  21. Ankur

    Brexit

    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
  22. Ankur

    Brexit

    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.
  23. Ankur

    Brexit

    Brexit will not cause an immediate collapse in anything. First, it is a non-binding referendum. Second, Britain may use the threat of impending referendum backed exit as leverage for concessions from the EU which can help folks wanting to leave to flip sides. 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. Fourth, if the question is about the stability of the EU, as long as it has Germany it can still exist. Your argument is that China forces Germany to exit which WILL collapse the EU - Brexit is a great threshold argument. Fifth, a better argument is that Brexit voters are channeling the same anger that Trump supporters are and this makes a Trump victory more likely (insert global thermonuclear war). Sixth, Russia doesn't care about Britain - it's not a large trading partner for them and Britain doesn't need what Russia is selling. An interesting argument might be the double whammy of a fed rate hike crushing the pound. So if you have China do X which forces Yellen, you can cause a flood of capital out of UK and into the US due to the uncertainty created by Brexit.
  24. Defend yourself against a completely irrelevant case from 8 resolutions ago? Really?
  25. Anyone who digs time cube is unworthy
×
×
  • Create New...