Jump to content

robllawrence

Member
  • Content Count

    1232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by robllawrence

  1. They will be bringing only a dictionary and a federalism file from 1996. They will still go undefeated.
  2. Well, they aren't usually arguing time travel. Generally speaking, CFs were run on the negative as a way of refuting the resolution, so they were in a hypothesis testing paradigm. They got their start, at least from my memory of them, in CEDA (Value/quasi-policy topics circa 1995.) The way they worked was, as the negative you could argue any warrant that refuted the resolution as "disproving the resolution" (look into counterwarrants and whole res for more on this.) Counterfactuals were a way of saying if we HAD done this, then the resolution would be irrelevant/untrue. So, an example on space might be to say if we had joined with the Soviets instead of competing, we'd have space colonies by now and your ISS aff would be irrelevant. And they usually do it in a somewhat kritiky kind of way like that, (competition vs cooperation etc) because they can argue root cause of your harms. (We have a space debris problem because we outsourced space ex to private companies in the 60s. Corporations don't care about the environment. If we had done it ourselves, your space debris problem would be moot.) They also argue that anything NOT the resolution is neg ground, so they CAN say as a counter resolution "The US should HAVE..." In other words, the reason the resolution is untrue is that we should have done X in the past instead. Answers are on paradigm (policy best, timeframe equivalence is fair ground, parametrics, bidirectionality negates hypotesting, etc.) This argument really does assume a different type of resolution than the ones used in HS debate.
  3. Yes. Counterfactual is a "but for x, this would have happened" proposition. I lost a round in college on a welfare topic that argued without welfare in the 30s, we would have lost WWII. It was weird to argue concentration camps in Brooklyn impacts.
  4. There are bottles of booze on top of the fridge and my cast iron skillet is on the stove. It's official, I'm moved in!

  5. I've got a great idea for a FB app. Sign up for it and it automatically adds all your FB fans to your Google + account.

  6. Facebook is getting cluttery. Remember when everyone was on Myspace and then it got all glittery and filled with games and apps....What happened again?

  7. No new posts in SW for 3 weeks? Tournament season is right around the corner, surely someone has something to talk about. Anyone writing any cool new positions? Anyone looking for that one specific card? Anyone have some great novices they want to throw props to?
  8. I see your point, but I think I'll just sit back and let people from her own party do the lynching. When you support a mixed race guy for president, you probably shouldn't be the one pointing out interracial relationships as a way of scoring political points. If THEY think this is a problem and is a reason she shouldn't represent them, that is their choice. I have a PILE of reasons I don't want her.
  9. In terms of IR, Realism is pretty well linked to economics theory. So says Waltz, Morganthau and Keohane. It comes from the game theory of cost/benefit as applied to states (with the assumption that states act as a unitary rational actor...like a single person rather than a collective of government officials.) In simple terms, it's the assumption that we can predict a state's behavior by seeing what is in their interests. And things like ideology are irrelevant except as ways to justify that behavior. (Nation A invades a country to spread Communism, Nation B invades to "liberate", but in actuality they both did it because there was something in it for them...a natural resource, a strategic shipping port, etc.) By the way, the early realists like Hans Morganthau were more interested in "national interest" and moral considerations than the neorealists, like Waltz, who view realism as an inevitable outgrowth of the will/desire to survive, thus neither moral nor immoral. Most of the IR stories in debate are actually talking about neorealism, (also called structural realism because of the belief that the structure of an anarchaic international order creates statist motivations) not classical realism. Neorealism is basically this: States will try to maximize the differences in power between themselves and their weaker competitors. States will try to minimize the differences in power between themselves and their stronger competitors. States will make alliances to balance power between themselves and their competitors. Outside of the debate world (where some of the more radical IR theories reign) the main objection to Neorealism has been "Institutionalism", which is where the Globalization theories developed. These guys basically agree with the tenets of neorealism, except that they say there are some times when national interests of different nations coincide (Non proliferation, environmental issues, etc) and when that happens, nations may put aside their own sovereignty in favor of a global solution. Between the end of the cold war and 9/11, this was the theory in vogue...that we were moving towards grand institutions like the UN and WTO and away from state actors. Since 9/11, it has taken a backseat somewhat as nations have returned to more unipolar actions. Some modern theorists have also posited that states may soon take a backseat to multi national corporations and non state actors (like Al Qaeda) rather than institutions.
  10. Someone made a funny. I just got an email newsletter from Rep Joe Wilson ® South Carolina. Alright who's the smartass that signed me up for the "You Lie" guy?

  11. Broke 100 and still 30 points down in fantasy football. 2 WR left...cmon roddy.

  12. So much drama in the LBC.

  13. Again, I have a great idea for a business that requires some basic programming skills that I don't have.

  14. Hmm. Not sure I agree. She was a local sports reporter and former pageant winner who had sex with a college athlete. Where's the story in that?
  15. Well I'm not sure she was advocating abstinence only when she was a sports reporter. And as for dog whistles and such, isn't calling her out for an interracial relationship just doing the same thing? There should be PLENTY of things to say about her without this. If anything, this distracts from the real stuff.
  16. OK, German food next Wednesday. Who's in?

  17. I can't stand this annoying hag, but I don't like it when people make issues out of legal personal behavior. She broke no law, she didn't even have an extra marital affair...this is only a story because of race.
  18. Ok. Going in to Fantasy Football week 2 with a 3 point projected deficit. However, both of our teams have a really high point projection (118-115.) Would it be wrong of me to hope for a minor (one game) injury for Adrian?

  19. Everyone who is on Farmville, Cityville, or any other game: I'm got a big back yard with flowers and tomato plants. You all should give me a "something real." Like a cow. Or at least a new basil plant or something. Hey, if you can beg so can I.

  20. not official yet, but I think I just won my first fantasy football matchup.

  21. Claremore bluegrass & chili cook off. And EXPO. And tractor pull. It's hillbilly heaven.

  22. 2 players, still 20 points up in fantasy football. Rodgers projected to get 22 points this game...he already has 19. :)

  23. My ESPN Fantasy Football team (The Poo Flinging Monkeys), tell me what you think. I'll list them as a comment.

  24. My fantasy team: One Cleric Two Wizards Two Elves Wait. Shit. Can we have a do over?
×
×
  • Create New...