Jump to content

Sonic-Jihad

Member
  • Content Count

    551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Sonic-Jihad last won the day on May 15 2007

Sonic-Jihad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

475 Excellent

About Sonic-Jihad

  • Rank
    The Inferno
  • Birthday 10/28/1985

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rob
  • School
    Emory
  • Biography
    I am totally cute
  • Location
    Atlanta
  • Interests
    The Ladies
  • Occupation
    Being awsome!

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Rob Mills 0
  1. This list of people is like bananas. I was always so jealous of the Badger's subforum
  2. I think this thread is worth re-reading every now and again.
  3. I'm not even sure if acceptance dates have passed, but if anyone would like to talk about Emory, feel free to hit me up in a PM.
  4. It is...amazing. I prefer X-Box, if only for the controller.
  5. Personally my list goes something like this: 1. Russia 2. NPT 3. Ag 4-7. I'd think about not debating.
  6. In Being and Time, Heidegger says that he "links back to his own criticism." Personally, I find this thread to be the perfect example of why critiques should not be read in debate.
  7. 1. Ag 2. Arms Control 3. Russia 4. Latin America Every other topic sounds horrific.
  8. Your tactic is as follows: When I say "what you said before is wrong" you say "I already answered this". You are, without question, the biggest waste of time on the internet.
  9. This is all I care to deal with. You have hardly "dealt" with any of the arguments I've made thus far. You just say the same mindless, poorly articulated drivel over and over again. I am answering the above quoted argument in two ways, and already did in my last post. Perhaps you missed it because I'm efficient! First argument: No impact/Impact Turn There is no risk that speed decreases education. It can introduce more arguments into a debate, it can also increase the depth of discussion on particular issues. In both cases, education is increased. Speaking slowly accesses neither the potential for "more objections" or the potential for more highly articulated arguments. Since time-limits are the only formal limiting factor on what can be said in a speech, there is only a risk that speaking more quickly increases the quality of arguments. Yes, it can increase the quantity of arguments as well. However, if we do not speek quickly we are forced to have either a) shallow discussions on a few issues or an in-depth discussion on one issue. With speed we can have a) shallow discussions on a large number of issues, mid-depth discussions on several issues or c) in-depth discussions on two issues. In every case, education is increased. Arguing that speed decreases argumentative quality is the most backward argument I've ever read. Next: Impact Turn Speaking quickly forces you to think critically at a much more rapid rate - two links: First - introducing more arguments into the debate means that prep-time must be more intelligently used. Since, as we've argued, time is finite a debater must make more strategic choices in order to maximize their argumentative success and efficiency. Second - having to think up more shit faster as you're talkin' makes you think faster. End of story. To be honest, most of your objections to speed are tired and sophomoric. Your best argument is that it makes it harder for people to get into the activity, it makes it harder for folks to judge, and it makes it harder for observers to observe. These arguments don't really have a huge impact. It's hard for folks to jump right into to College level basketball...but they do it through hard work and determination. It's hard for a judge to jump into judging ice skating when there is so much happening at a fast rate. It's hard for observers to understand exactly what's going in Tiger Woods' head at a golf tournament, without a commentator telling them what he's thinking. Yes - being good at debating/judging/observing takes fucking time and work! Holy shit, people aren't handed everything on a silver platter! I'm now upset that I even opened this thread. The only thing it's done is made me frustrated at your arrogance and ignorance. You want to talk slow and pretty? There are other activities for you! In the words of Chris Crocker: "LEAVE. SPEED. ALONE!"
  10. This is, quite literally, one of the stupidest things I've read this year. I'll answer it anyway: Slashing the judging pool: Probably true, but people can be trained to listen to speaking at a rapid rate. Indeed, the news is delivered at a pace much faster than standard conversational speed. Eliminating Observers: There's no impact to this argument. But people have to train themselves to be able to observe the finer aspects of most sports. I can watch a Basketball game, but I have no clue what is going on or why things are strategic etc. If I watched it a lot and invested time into understanding what was going on, then I'd be much better off. Rid Debate of Speaking Persuasion: Aristotle is the most qualified source on this subject, and concludes sophistry bad. You can gain public speaking skills in other forums, but debate trains you to be an excellent analytical and critical thinker on your feet. Speed uniquely increases these qualities because it forces much faster cognition, and allows for a larger breadth/depth of argumentation which directly contributes to that learning. Speed = Unfair Advantage: Some folks are smarter than other folks, does that mean they shouldn't be able to debate because they gain an unfair advantage? The speed advantage can easily be overcome. Nick Miller, a debate for Emory and one of the top 16 college teams for the past two years, is the slowest debater on the planet. Yes, his slowness does present a problem for him and his partner, but he has come up with ways of getting around it. So, we've got a no-impact and education impact turn
  11. See, this is why I suck. I didn't really mean for that post to be mean...it just kinda was. I had just lost at Trivia at Mellow Mushroom, plus I was kinda tired. My apologies for being a dick. That said, I think what bothered me was that you think asking Towson to confront their privilege was racist. To me it doesn't appear that they have, but not in the ways you described. My point with the example I gave earlier wasn't to say that bad shit happens to whitey too, but to suggest that privilege doesn't necessarily correlate to the shit people say that has gone wrong in their lives. For example, I've never debated Dayvon, but I've debated Deven at least once. I think he's a good debater and a great speaker. When I debated him, he debated for Louisville. At the time, it didn't feel like he understood what it was like to be a white being confronted by a non-white about race. There is privilege in that situation, I guess Foucault would call it power, but is nonetheless there. Obviously we were coming to that question with very different presuppositions, which lead to a pretty significant misunderstanding. Again, I apologize for being a douche. I don't think you're misinformed, because I don't know very much about you. There's a reason why I only quoted one of the three things at the beginning of your post, as well as only one section of your post at all.
×
×
  • Create New...