Jump to content

Dr. Fox On Socks

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dr. Fox On Socks last won the day on July 6 2012

Dr. Fox On Socks had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3928 Excellent

About Dr. Fox On Socks

  • Rank
    In Clocks On Lox
  • Birthday December 1

Profile Information

  • Name
    Coach Ian
  • School
    Real World
  • Biography
    This sentence is false.
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Law-ly things

Recent Profile Visitors

22267 profile views
  1. Relevant Onion: http://www.theonion.com/graphic/bernie-sanders-campaign-myth-vs-fact-52460
  2. Back to OP's request. Here my problem: When I need significant maintenance on my car (more than an oil change / tire rotation type of thing), it's a pain to schedule it with a repair shop. Most aren't open Sundays (or much after business hours during the week), which means I usually have to take time off of work, or arrange complicated ride-sharing with friends, or hope that the dealership gives me a loaner car in order to get mine repaired. So ... fix that.
  3. Well, to be fair, all of those things are true AND YET he still trails Clinton in polling among non-whites. Whether blacks (or any other group) should vote for him is a very different question than whether they will vote for him. Edit: This is not to say that such a vote is irrational either. For example, even if you align 100% with Bernie, if you have serious doubts about his ability to win in the general election, then our system strongly encourages you to consider voting for the candidate you most closely align with who you don't have those doubts about (the "lesser of two evils" in that you'd still prefer them to any nominee from the other major party). Elections are weird.
  4. He was arrested protesting segregation and was part of the March on Washington. Now he's advocating for wealth-equalizing policies that (whether they are net beneficial to the whole country or not) are calculated to raise the standard of living for the poorest tranche of Americans (who are overwhelmingly black and Latino). On top of that, he's advocating for wholesale changes to the way politics is done in the country to reduce the power of rich (mostly) white men. What more does the man have to do to win black voters?
  5. I deleted some posts; remember this is the Other Debates forum, and the following rule still applies:
  6. Once you've wrapped your head around the above answer, check out the Critiques forum to dive deeper down the rabbit hole...
  7. I'm locking this, here's the two-step solution to avoid that: Step 1: Look through this forum to make sure that what you want hasn't already been done. There are quite a few LD-focused threads you can jump in on. Step 2: If there is no existing thread to use, then be more precise with what you want to talk about here. During the competition season, there are threads for each LD topic, so most ev trades and topic-specific ideas are discussed there. Obviously, there is no active topic thread right now because there is no active topic. If you do start a new thread, don't make a "placeholder" where you expect others to add content, you need to start by adding content yourself. Organize an evidence trade, post an idea of your own to be agreed or disagree with, ask a question ... do something other than "hey, y'all can post stuff here, if you wanna." The very existence of this forum tells them that clearly enough. Because this forum doesn't just have LD stuff, it's important to keep it as uncluttered as possible. This thread, which has a vague scope and a first post that provides zero substance of its own, is clutter. Locked now, and will be hidden soon.
  8. Whether or not it's common, prep before Cross-x is allowed. And (in Ohio, at least) there's no rule prohibiting taking prep before an opponent's speech (again, not common, and probably not wise in most cases either, but allowed).
  9. I'd be much more inclined to believe this was a genuine user if it wasn't the 5th or 6th account created in recent days to make its first post on Cross-x a short endorsement of Champion Briefs. It's a reasonable assumption that this marketing blitz is the CB people's work. So ... take that for what it's worth. The above is the best review that the (likely) authors can give their own product. Also, I skimmed the free brief they posted (Nats 2012). It wasn't horrible, but it also doesn't contain any non-obvious evidence or ideas. Also, many of the arguments are weak, rely on ad homeniem attack, lack significance, or are non-topical. As it stands right now, the only teams that would buy Champion Briefs are those who are too lazy to do real prep work. Those teams will lose, badly, to teams that do put in the pre-round work. Champion Briefs kids, rather than spamming this site with ineffective ads, spend this off-season improving your product. Do research on your competitors and the demands of the market. Even if you can get some novices to buy your product a few times, if they don't see results, or gain skills that surpass the quality of the brief, they won't buy anymore. Organize your content better so it is easier to customize for in-round use, work on avoiding redundancy or contradiction in your topic analyses, and flex your research muscles so that you include more specialty sources (Lexis, academic journals, books, and other things that your customers can't easily get by running the same Google search you did), and make sure to proofread and eliminate sloppy mistakes (e.g. it's not "Lexis Nexus"). For the next few weeks, unless the Admins tell me otherwise, I'm going to delete any Champions Brief promotional posts in my forums by accounts with less than 10 posts and created after 15 June 2012 unless it's actually by one of the Briefs' authors.
  10. In other news, the Supreme Court held today that you're all wrong. Carry on.
  11. Every PF brief I've seen in the last five years relies heavily on readily-available information from major news organizations, think tanks, easily-googlable journals, and "me". Buying PF evidence may be a good way to save time and avoid getting research experience, but you're not going to find any hidden bombshells that will totally pwn the other team.
  12. Not quite. The complete clause says "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." (Underlining mine) So the federal Congress can determine what effect (if any) a same-sex marriage from one state must have in another state. In the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Congress did just that and used its power under this clause to say that states did not have to honor out-of-state same-sex unions. So, states may honor out-of-state unions, but are not constitutionally required to under Full Faith and Credit. I'd argue the opposite is true. When the United States was founded, slavery was the norm. Even though it wasn't as popular in the northern states as the southern ones, it was still generally legal and not seen a human rights violation in most of the country (indeed, most of the world). The experiment was in abolishing slavery, and that experiment (decades after it began) was ultimately successful. There remain many civil rights issues for which federal law is silent or that are left largely to the states, including welfare, educational equality, capital punishment, voting registration and process, labor union powers and membership, professional licensure, parental rights and responsibilities, and marriage. Is it possible to declare same-sex marriage successful in the few states that have experimented with it so far? The experiment is less than a decade old and the largest state to try it (California) reversed course less than six months later. Since 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to try it, only five more states have joined the experiment and kept with it. But 39 states have laws (statutes or constitutional provisions) banning same-sex marriage entirely. That's more than a 6-to-1 ratio of states that do not want to try the experiment to states that are participating. Hardly a roaring success that warrants federal intervention so far. Congress too can, and has, made significant contributions to "establishing and enforcing basic civil rights and freedoms across the whole country" (see, e.g., the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act). Also, recall that it was Congress, not the Supreme Court, that got the ball rolling on outlawing slavery; the Court had upheld slavery prior to the 13th Amendment. I don't think I need to defend anti-miscegenation laws in order to remain consistent. Note that the Supreme Court upheld anti-miscegenation laws the first time it heard a challenge in Pace v. Alabama, 106 US 583 (1883). It wasn't until 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, that the Court changed gears and joined what was by then the majority of states that had already outlawed race-based marriage bans (only 16 states still had such laws by the time of the Loving decision and even fewer enforced them seriously). The Court sided with more than a 2-to-1 majority of states then; is it really time to declare the same-sex marriage experiment complete when six of every seven states remain against your position?
  13. In our federalist system, why can't we let the states experiment when it comes to large changes in social policy? The whole point of having 50 different states is to honor the choices of the citizens of those states to be governed in the manner they wish to be governed. States experiment all the time: New York and Illinois have significant home-rule laws allowing their major cities to decide many policies that cities and towns elsewhere cannot; California and Colorado are testing out medical marijuana legalization; Massachusetts was a pioneer in health care policy testing out an individual mandate; North Carolina and Virginia have tried spurring economic growth by liming the influence of labor unions with "right-to-work" policies; and so on. Why not let the few states that have made attempts to recognize same-sex relationships continue with their efforts? The great part about 50 different laboratories to test policies in is that a policy which fails doesn't cause much harm in other states. If same-sex marriage is a good policy, then the experimenting states will see benefits that will (a) encourage people and businesses to move there and ( encourage policymakers in other states to join the experiment to reap the same benefits. If same-sex marriage turns out to be bad policy, then the damage from the experiment will be limited, rather than nationwide. Even President Obama said the states should decide on their own.
  14. You misspelled "misspelled" and Hawai'ian.
  15. I assume the OP is asking for help with the event "Radio Broadcasting," which is an event I've heard of, but most states (including mine) don't compete in it. So I'm not entirety sure what is being asked for.
  • Create New...