Jump to content

Dr. Fox On Socks

Member
  • Content Count

    6168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Everything posted by Dr. Fox On Socks

  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.
  16. My 1NC is eight minutes accusing you of being a murderer, child molester, arsonist, liar, and 2,150 other bad things. Your 2AC responds by flatly denying almost all of them, but omits (for some reason) the kidnapping accusation. That means, for purposes of the round, you admit to being a kidnapper? It's not "intervention" for the judge to reject that philosophy. Nor is judge "intervention" necessarily bad. You've stated a theory argument, but there's no automatic reason that drops and concessions should be treated the same. I can argue just as easily that they should not be treated identically in the round and, if I win that theory argument, they won't be... Also, "lay judge" does not equal "bad judge". http://www.cross-x.com/topic/48935-whats-the-problem-with-lay-judges/page__view__findpost__p__814070
  17. You are misinterpreting. There is a significant difference between "I don't have time to respond to that argument" (or the other drop variants, e.g. "I don't think that argument is serious / significant / feminist enough to debate in this round") compared to "I agree with that argument." If I accuse you of being a child molester and you refuse to dignify my accusation with a response, that doesn't mean you admit to molesting children. Now, you can make the theory argument that drops should be treated the same as concessions in-round due to the specific qualities of competitive debate rounds, but that does not mean the two acts are the same thing. Also, making the theory argument doesn't make it so; you have to win that theory argument first...
  18. Honey Maid makes the best S'mores ... there is no debate on this. Also, use milk chocolate, not dark. I made that mistake once.
  19. CFL or NCFL is the National Catholic Forensics League (google it). It is similar to the NFL, in that it is an umbrella organization for high school speech and debate, but smaller and more catholic. NCFL hosts a tournament every year (much as NFL does); that tournament is often called CFL's, NCFL's, or CatNats (Catholic Nationals). Much as NFL Nats attracts congress competitors from all over the nation, with differing styles of competition, CatNats does the same.
  20. Another question, while I'm at it. This member appears to have taken the pledge and met all the stated criteria to be permitted to see this file. The account was created a few hours ago and has made one post. Conversely, I am a high school debate coach (including LD) now in my 11th year in the speech and debate community and I have been a cx.com member since 2002. I am genuinely interested in learning more about the ideas purportedly contained in the file, but I will not take the pledge before I see the file (and I probably won't even after simply because I no longer compete, but I will definitely share it with my LDers if I think it is quality material). So the question: assuming you only show the file to one of us, are you going to go with the pledge-taker? Who is really in a better position to spread your message/movement?
  21. I never said you had to post everything in the file, but compare what you say you're disclosing (or going to disclose via OpenCaselist) and what the OP said. All the information the OP gave is that it's a critique, it's on the theme "we will not be silenced," and you have to pledge support if you want to learn any more. My comments were directed to the OP, obviously my opinion can change if the underlying facts change. However, I assume based on what you're now going to disclose that even you agree the OP gave insufficient information to demand a pledge of support? That debate is a game doesn't mean it is not also many other good things (see every sappy sports movie for examples of games being empowering, motivating, spirit-lifting, etc.) But that's not responsive to my point. My point was that, based on StrawserM's statements, the proponents of this movement are complaining about the rules of the game being too fair. Specifically I said "As long as winning the ballot is your preferred method of spreading the message (or at least is necessary to achieving your preferred method), then you have to accept that whoever your in-round opponent is will attempt to deny you the win." That's a true statement, when you engage in a competitive activity and try to win, your opponent(s) will try to stop you. It doesn't matter whether your chosen refuge from an abusive home is debate, chess, or basketball, if it's a competitive activity, your opponent will generally play just as hard as you do in an attempt to win. So when StrawserM said "there are people out there who will win at any cost. Those people will just take the case and write blocks for it." My response was along the lines of "duh" for a reason. That your opponents will try to win is not responsive to "hey, how about you tell us what you're thinking before asking us to pledge agreement with you". I didn't give any specifics for a reason: I don't know what the file contains. I've never said that any of this needs to be posted publicly, my points have solely revolved around the combination of secrecy and the pledge. If you want to keep your files completely secret outside the round, I don't have a problem with that. It might hurt you strategically if you don't share, but that's your choice to make. I also have no problem if you want to start a movement and ask people who agree with your message to publicly declare themselves as supporters . The problem comes when you combine the two. The OP and successive posts have asked for blind support. The OP basically said, "I have this great file, and I'll let you see its arguments, but only after you agree with its arguments." Of course, it's impossible to know whether you support an argument you can't read in advance. I've maintained from the start that I'd love to see this file, but I will not make any statement of support (or opposition) to the arguments and associated movement until I can read them. (I also can't personally pledge to run them since I don't compete anymore, but again, that's a tangent.) You can't have it both ways, either you can have secrecy or you can have a public-pledge-fueled movement. Specifically, I ask for the disclosure, here in this thread, of everything that the pledge covers. If the pledge only requires you to support/run the 1AC/NC shell, then that's all that needs to be posted. But if the pledge demands fealty to the whole file, then the whole file should go up. You have no way of knowing either of these claims but I'm entertained by your stab in the dark anyway; even if that's true, I never asked the debate community at large to support my arguments or tried to turn my cases into a broader movement. That's the difference. Holy moving target, Batman! Suddenly the burden of production has shifted to me! How did that happen? It's not my job to ask additional questions when my advocacy has been consistent from the start: I feel the same way about this Kritik you're soliciting support for. Whatever you want people to pledge to run should be made known before they pledge. Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, you are begging them to lie. Maybe they like your K and do decide to run it, but if they don't like what you send, then they'll have to renege on the pledge. I don't think they should be in that bind in the first place. But since you want a question, I'll repeat one I've already asked: There is a chasm of difference between debating "about" the arguments and debating the arguments themselves. I read the blog essay and it was interesting, but short and basic. I am not yet in a position to discuss the specific Kritik referenced here or its associated movement because neither one has been posted. As for my students (BTW thanks for giving me this example of irrelevance, straw-man, and burden-shifting all in one, I might use this in a lesson) they do what they want. I neither require nor prohibit them from disclosing any of their work. But again, they've never gone around soliciting blind out-of-round support for their arguments as far as I know... Like I've said above and before, I don't know what the pledge covers, so I don't know the breadth of what I think you should disclose, but I do know a false-dichotomy when I see one and this is a prime example. Saying that your arguments are "predicated" on a short blog essay is fine, but that doesn't come close to fully explaining the Kritik at issue in this thread. You should either scrap the pledge or post here all the materials the pledge covers.
  22. This is probably too absolutist, but on the right track. People are persuaded by pathos, logos, and ethos in combination. The most effective arguments appeal to all three.
  23. Show me a national-level Republican who seriously advocates for raising revenue (either alone or in concert with spending cuts) as a solution to federal budget deficits and I'll show you someone who is going to lose their next primary. Whether or not you agree, the GOP party line is (and has been for quite some time) that cutting spending (a/k/a "shrinking the government") is the solution to deficits and the national debt, raising taxes is not. Your graph actually agrees with my graph that Republican Presidents have, since 1981 at least, done a very poor job of cutting spending and reducing the national debt. Both have dramatically increased during GOP presidencies. That's an interesting spin, but it's only useful if you compare them both as equals. But, relative to the GOP, Democrats have not been deficit hawks or called out government spending as something in dire need of reduction. So it's not really a criticism of Presidents Clinton or Obama that federal spending rose during their terms because they didn't promise to cut it. That real spending and the national debt rose at all under the Republican presidents (even ignoring the relative magnitude of the increase) is a criticism of them because it went against major parts of their platform.
  24. I understand the claim that getting this argument to outrounds will increase its exposure and increased exposure will allow a better chance for actual change. However, I disagree with the premise that an argument that is reliant on surprise will actually be successful in that way. If this argument requires surprise, then its in-round effectiveness (and, therefore, its outround exposure) will significantly decrease each week it's out in the wild after other teams see it and begin preparing responses. Even if it so groundbreaking as to sweep tournaments the first week, it won't be able to repeat that feat if surprise is necessary. So just when the proponents will want the argument to have the most real-world impact is when it will start losing traction and disappear from view. (Again, this is if we assume that surprise is necessary to its success.) As long as winning the ballot is your preferred method of spreading the message (or at least is necessary to achieving your preferred method), then you have to accept that whoever your in-round opponent is will attempt to deny you the win. That's the nature of a competitive activity. StrawserM is choosing to play a game (granted, playing with a novel strategy, but debate is still a game) yet is complaining that the opposing team also came to win and might also employ valid strategies to get that goal. That's childish. If the novel strategy is genuinely good, then an opponent's mere knowledge of it won't change the outcome when it's played by a good player. Conversely, if surprise is not necessary and the arguments carry significant weight on the merits, then all of this secrecy nonsense is silly and prevents the change-inducing discussion proponents claim to want from starting here or elsewhere within the LD community. I coach and judge LD, so I probably have a stake in the outcome of that discussion or, at the very least, could add some thoughts/support one way or the other. As it stands now, my only options to even know what ideas are being proposed here are to (1) lie to the OP and pledge to make my students run these arguments, which is not a pledge I can enforce because I don't yet know whether these arguments have any merit (also, I don't dictate what my students run, but that's a side-issue) or (2) happen to judge a round in which these arguments come up. Neither situation allows me to really participate in the discussion as either a proponent or opponent of the movement. So either this secrecy is mere window-dressing to cover for weak arguments or it is unnecessary and preventing the real community-wide discussion that can best bring about actual change. I can appreciate that this topic has unfortunate personal relevance to certain people. My issue is unrelated to that. My criticism here is two-fold. First, the pledge of support begs for dishonesty as debaters are asked to commit to running an argument they haven't seen. Second, the secret nature of this argument appears to be hiding significant flaws in the argument because it requires surprise to be effective and posting it publicly would allow for more of the community discussion that the proponents claim to want. On the nature of the pledge. If, as Young Nietzschy suspects, this is merely an application of the silence-based discussions already out on this site and other LD resources, then the pledge-takers aren't really going in blind, they know basically what they're getting, but then there's nothing to keep secret! The argument is already something that good teams will be prepared to oppose on the merits. On the other hand, if this isn't in-line with what's already out there, then the pledge really is asking for people to openly lie in order to just look at the arguments. Even if they end up supporting the movement for real, the initial pledge of support cannot be based in fact at the time it's made. Either way, this seems like an incredibly dishonest and ineffective manner of getting support for real change in the activity.
×
×
  • Create New...