Jump to content

birdwing7

Member
  • Content Count

    2128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by birdwing7

  1. Thanks, Duane. That looks like an excellent resource. Nathan: I don't see competitiveness and heg as particularly perception based. Either the U.S. is more competitive based on productivity (or whatever) or its not. Maybe soft power is perception based. I also don't think next year's disadvantages are particularly contrived. I mean, spending is a real issue for space development, right?
  2. Generally, I agree with you James. But the case Duane mentions may not have that long a time frame. We already have the satellite technology, right? Duane, were there any links mentioned in the presentation?
  3. Actually, there was another married couple as well. The Tutzauers from Southwestern were the 11th seed in elimination rounds in the 1981 NDT. I hope for success for the new owners of Cross-x.com.
  4. John Mearsheimer's new article, Imperial by Design, was interesting. http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/imperial-by-design-4576?page=1
  5. Nate Silver had an interesting post regarding Pawlenty and Thune. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/2012-contenders-to-bet-against/
  6. For those who debated (or coached) on prior space topics, how does the affirmative get past time frame arguments on disadvantages?
  7. Why do you say we still exist after we die? Empirical evidence? Religion? I'm also puzzled by the statement that neg wins on presumption. I've always thought of presumption lying with the team that advocates less change. It's hard to imagine a greater change than advocacy of human extinction.
  8. Congratulations to Utah teams (particularly Juan Diego) for their showing at the Meadows tournament.
  9. I don't understand that. I'm only going to die once. Why should I value the death of others? Shouldn't I assume that they also want to go on living as long as they can? And why should I make the decision that they should cease to live: self-determination is good.
  10. Death is inevitable, but it's timing is not. Can't I value death when the time comes and still value life up to that moment?
  11. I'm not familiar with that round, but the activity still seems vibrant to me. Of course, it's only anecdotal, but I would say we have more competitive teams in my area now than we had a few years ago.
  12. Why would talking fast trade off with conciseness? The best debaters I have heard are fast (and clear), and have tremendous word economy. And, do you really think that going slower, by itself would make debate more accessible to the public? If debaters spoke more slowly, people might understand the arguments made. Then the audience would really think we're all crazy. I imagine someone has done empirical research, but I've been hearing that debate was doomed since at least 1978. So far, the predictions have not borne out.
  13. Duane, I have a lot of sympathy for the views you've expressed. Let me quarrel a little with one point. I agree it is hard to ask a student taking 5 AP classes to spend 20 hours a week on debate, but I'm not sure that is the entire target population. I think debate offers the most benefit to students who have native intelligence, but aren't taking 5 AP classes. I'm sure we agree the structure of which AP classes are emblematic does not work for all students, including some very intelligent ones. I think we've all seen students shine in debate whose success could not be predicted by other academic success. So, I guess a problem arises, in part, when you have some smart kids who are willing to commit a large percentage of their free time to the activity. Not surprisingly, with good coaching, they are likely to succeed.
  14. I think that would be very difficult to achieve (even if one wanted to). Absent a consensus, debaters who like the current practice of debate would gravitate to tournaments who supply "fast" judges. And my guess is, those tournaments would be considered the prestigious tournaments. Personally, I don't want to increase the variety of judges. I want as much predictability as possible in the judging pool. But I acknowledge others view it differently.
  15. I think that's my point. "Wanted, debate judges. Success at national tournaments disqualifies you."
  16. I debated in the '70s and '80s. Debate was fast. That's when CEDA was started, as an alternative to policy debate. Even if you think speed is killing debate, how would you stop it?
  17. What are the characteristics of a program where debaters are excited about cross-x debate, and what are the characteristics of a program where debaters lose interest in it?
  18. James (and others), I've been reading articles about how someone (probably Israel or an Israeli/US configuration) has developed malware called Stuxnet to derail Iran's nuclear program. Some think it has already been deployed; others that it is imminent. I'm trying to think how this could be spun. 1. Cyber warfare will stop Iranian prolif, means no case impact. 1a. The capability to use malware will deter proliferation. 2. Continued steps by Iran to proliferate will lead to an Israeli cyber attack. Once the cyber warfare threshold is crossed, there's no going back. Cyberwar is really bad. How would you spin it? Here are links, by the way: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-24/stuxnet-computer-worm-may-be-aimed-at-iran-nuclear-sites-researcher-says.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0921/Stuxnet-malware-is-weapon-out-to-destroy-Iran-s-Bushehr-nuclear-plant http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20017201-245.html
  19. I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor about Stuxnet, which made the cyber security topic seem much more interesting than I would have thought.
  20. This article was pretty interesting on Turkey being key to stopping Iranian proliferation. It probably doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before, but it is September of 2010. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=41213
  21. 1. That's the affirmative's problem, how? 2. "Only" ptx, cplan, Ks and t? That sounds like a lot to me. How many argument combinations does an affirmative have to give before it becomes topical? 3. I don't think you've read the literature (and I've only scratched the surface), so neither of us knows whether there are valid case arguments or disadvantages. What you're really saying, I think, is that no camp put out a negative strategy on this case. I don't see how that's a legitimate ground argument. Again, it would have to play out in a round, but I don't think it's that hard a sell for the affirmative.
  22. I agree, negative's would argue topicality against this case. They have to argue something, after all. Maybe it's just me, but the topicality arguments seem winnable for the affirmative.
  23. I haven't done a lot of research, and haven't written a case, but it looks like there are several articles. Here are a few: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165307.html http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/07/army_environmental.html http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/america-leaves-iraq-toxic-legacy-dumped-hazardous-materials http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471987464&rss=newswire
  24. It seems different to me. We bring in a weapons system. It has a radioactive or otherwise toxic by-product, which we leave in-country, causing environmental problems. Taking it with us seems to me like decreasing our military presence in a way that removing cigarettes does not. But, hey, I'm not a big topicality guy. I would listen to topicality arguments in favor of a case that bans distribution of cigarettes to troops in one of the topic specific countries.
×
×
  • Create New...