Jump to content

FirebatMIV

Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Good

About FirebatMIV

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Name
    Rhino Zhang
  • School
    Yankton High School
  • Location
    Yankton, South Dakota, USA
  • Occupation
    Student
  1. FirebatMIV

    LD

    I believe that this is absolutely false and that empirical evidence often prove nothing than what has already occurred, and is frequently not indicative of what will happen. Moral and ethical thought is really framed in the idea of the norms that often govern are actions. It is up for the debater in question to prove that the empirical evidence is a reflection of the norms and not an exception to them. To assume that the correlation between the two is absolute is a great way to lose sight of the bigger picture, which, I think, is the general point of Jordan's post.
  2. FirebatMIV

    LD

    Jordan, I'm confused, are you saying that you would like to see more value clash or that you would like to see more value debate framed in the concepts of ethics and morality? I personally see nothing wrong with framing a value debate in terms of pragmatic arguments. I think you're trying to separate ethics from real world arguments when it is impossible to do. The real world implications and the ultimate feasibility/attainability of your core contentions should absolutely, I believe, factor in the decision the judge makes at the end of the round. I really don't see how we can successfully separate real-world implications for debates of ethics without exceeding the 45 minutes offered to us in every LD round. If you mean that you'd just love to see more actual value clash and not see debaters debate ONLY about the feasibility of the value, then I wholeheartedly agree. Definition debates and example wars are fun for no one and addressing the examples but not the idea is a great way to lose a round. I think part of the problem, though, are the types of topics we have been given. For a topic so steeped in legalism like eminent domain or felon voting rights, I really don't see much diversity of ethical thought. I'd love to be wrong, however.
  3. How many Justin Bells were there at this tournament, exactly?
  4. I hope you're better at running a tournament than you are at making jokes Brett.
  5. Headquarters? Are there actually headquarters this year? Years previous, people just sat in the commons or wandered the halls.
  6. I don't know about you Ben, but I believe the total pwnage award should have gone to Tony for his total pwnage of the names of all our LDers.
  7. DX -- 1. Jesse Goodwin (Washington) 2. Jeremy Simon (Aberdeen) 3. Lindsay Thompson (Roosevelt) 4. Jane Reasoner (Vermillion) 5. Courtlyn Hagman (Brookings) 6. Amanda Barton (Vermillion)
  8. Of course, all talk of curse abruptly ends when we go back to 2003, when Paul Storm won the tournament.
  9. Yes, they've been calling/emailing all of us. The tournament will have adequate # of judges.
  10. The fact that Hanson managed to succeed despite Dahle coaching him makes him deserving of much respect.
  11. Jiwen's last name is spelled Li, which is the Chinese spelling. As opposed to Lee, which is Korean.
  12. I see you managed to control yourself and not write on the margins. I guess even you were tired. Congrats to all, it was an exhausting weekend and I hope everyone made it home safe.
  13. Bryant, how did everyone else do?
  14. After working with Kallis for the better part of three years, I would say he's more like the hideously disfigured meatloaf that your grandma prepares. Sure, it looks wierd, scary and all-around horrible, but there's some good stuff in there.
  15. What are you trying to say Justin? Something wrong with college students on CX?
×
×
  • Create New...