Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Edgehopper last won the day on May 4 2016

Edgehopper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

397 Excellent

About Edgehopper

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    PCS Joslin (coach)
  • Location
    Northbrook, IL, USA
  • Interests
    Chess, Golf, Debate
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Eh, they were all wrong about uniqueness in the first place--none of the links ever happened, and Trump won. That doesn't imply we can't predict outcomes from presidential policies, but it does imply that predicting close elections in any more than a broadly probabilistic way is pretty much impossible.
  2. The impacts are good; the brink/link isn't. It's nearly impossible for Trump to win at this point based on the electoral college map--he has to win NC, FL, OH, and PA. It's very hard to show that any policy Aff this year would swing enough votes in PA to swing the state.
  3. Last year, I started having my kids prep a canned 2AC extensions block--not an overview, but a prepared block to extend case efficiently and with transitions so that the extensions were part of a summary of the case to remind the judge what the Aff was about. This was particularly designed for rounds where Neg had no real on-case. With a K Aff, especially if it's tricky to understand or uses some nuanced tricks to deal with typical answers, I'd find that kind of prepared 2AC extension block even more useful as a judge. Take the minute or so that you should be using to extend case and make it really valuable by explaining the argument in your own words and telling the judge how the evidence fits together to make your point.
  4. What area? If you're somewhere with a UDL, a good place to start is by contacting that UDL's organizers--UDL schools are often desperate for assistant coaches with debate experience.
  5. I have a friend formerly in the NSA who suggested, in all seriousness, "Invade Cuba" for the Latin America topic two years ago.
  6. Edgehopper

    Cap lit

    Hayek, Friedman, McCloskey, Rand... Oh, you meant anti-cap?
  7. For what you need, Google Scholar should work just as well. Use Case Law, select Pennsylvania Courts, search for "lemon law."
  8. I heard from one judge (who was my old debate coach) that Neg was ahead going into the 2NR, but made a big mistake going for case and dropping T and the DA. Even with NSDA Finals judges, it's very hard to win a round as Neg with no real offense.
  9. CX: Condo: 1. How are my multiple positions different from your multiple advantages and harms scenarios? 2. How are you forced into contradictory answers. 3. What offense weren't you able to read out of fear of contradictions? 4. How do either of my Ks contradict any other of my arguments? CP: 1. Do your perms include the IP protections and agricultural quotas in the TPP? 2. Your Connors card specifically talks about trade deals and TPP, not unilateral free trade, right? 3. Your extinction card is an impact to the Trump DA, right? Trump DA: 1. Your Bernstein card says the 4th thing Hillary can do to lose the election is fumble on trade, yes? Cronyism: 1. Your Baker '15 card ends with an Obama quote saying that the TPP imposes labor and environmental regulations on foreign countries, correct? 2. Isn't Spicer talking about cronyism within corporations, not cronyism between corporations and governments? Intra-organization cronyism rather than inter-organization? 3. How does the Stein '08 card not link to the Aff plan? Innovation: 1. How does the Alt Banking '15 card not link to the Aff plan?
  10. You don't need the dirty/filthy aspect to justify human superiority, and I doubt most humans do in practice. In fact, humans tend to avoid eating animals they see as unclean or dirty (e.g., kosher/halal restrictions, Western revulsion at eating insects). Beyond that, the basic question of whether anthropocentrism is correct depends on your moral axioms and assumptions. There is a perfectly self-consistent set of moral values that concludes that animal life is morally equivalent to human life and equally worthy of protection. There are also perfectly self-consistent sets of moral values that justify placing humans above animals. If the consequences of your axioms leads you to results you find repulsive, then either you have to live with that or change your axioms.
  11. Well, even assuming as little anthropocentrism as possible, there's no way to equate factory farming to the Holocaust. The purpose of farming is utilitarian, to use animals for food in a way that values efficiency over reduction in animal suffering. The Holocaust intended to cause suffering and death for the sake of suffering and death. The goal of factory farming is to eat cows, not to exterminate them. Rnivium's history is wrong here in comparing chattel slavery: Chattel slavery long predates the American version, and had its origins in making efficient use of war captives. The racial prejudice aspects of slavery were in large part an attempt to reconcile Enlightenment values with the economic benefits of slavery, which could only be done by assuming that the enslaved races, largely black and Native American, were inferior and subhuman. If you assume animals are morally equal to humans, that's the right comparison; we started eating animals because that's what we as animals do, we developed a philosophy that provided moral worth to animals alongside industrial farming techniques that made acquiring meat much cheaper, and justified it by saying animal life had no moral value to weigh against the benefits of factory farming. But, to actually get as far as equating factory farming to chattel slavery, you'd have to argue that animals, or at least farmed animals, have equal moral standing and an equal right to life and freedom from suffering as humans, and the instinctive recoil at saying that black slaves were the same as chickens and pigs should tell you something. It's tough to make the argument that there's anything wrong with owning animals or with eating animals without rejecting the natural world; humans are omnivores, we evolved to eat meat, and we evolved to use and work with animals (e.g., domestication of dogs, horses, oxen, etc.). There's a reason most people think PETA is insane when they take their philosophy to a logical conclusion and claim that pet ownership is wrong--there are way too many very happy and loved dogs and cats to take the claim that ownership is automatically abuse seriously. So if there's a wrong from factory farming, it's in the balance of allowing excess animal suffering for increased efficiency, not in killing animals for food (usually more efficiently than pre-industrial farming--the idea that Native Americans "used every part of the buffalo" while we somehow just throw out large chunks of dead animal is nonsense on stilts refuted by any visit to a modern meat processing plant). That's an issue of balance more than the categorical wrong of slavery or genocide. And the wrong of slavery is primarily in ownership of people being wrong, so the comparison doesn't work. If factory farming is equivalent to chattel slavery, then pet ownership is equivalent to owning well-educated and cared for house slaves and is just as wrong.
  12. I had too much trouble cutting the off case down enough to get the analytical solvency in, but it'll probably come in with the CP debate in the 2NC.
  13. Sorry for the delay - here's a 1NC. 4 off. 1NC vmanAA738 vs. Edgehopper.docx
  • Create New...