Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by whit211

  1. Westminster lost round 7 to Carrolton DU.
  2. Thank you, quote of the day: It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor. - Neil Gaiman
  3. I'm not under the delusion that my previous post will end the practice of reading emails as evidence in debates for all eternity. A lot of those arguments were written to be made in round. Hopefully it will guide teams who want to write a theory block to said arguments. Other potential benefits include changing or reinforcing judges/coaches views on the subject and deterring teams who may want to pref me from reading email evidence (my judging philosophy is in dire need of a thorough updating). Obviously, I don't see eye to eye with some on this issue and to some extent there is a debate to be had. I just wanted it to be clear where I stand on that debate. It also became clear from the conversations at http://www.3nr.com that some people hadn't considered all the intricacies of the practice. Antonucci's "lit doesn't exist" example is a clear indication that even my longwinded post hadn't considered all other instances. I think that holding the negative to a higher standard on questions of politics link evidence and counterplan competition probably solves some of the need to find evidence on unspoken yet obvious truths. Also, (keeping in mind I haven't actually looked into these things) I would not think it is that hard to find evidence that changes to the U.S.'s nuclear posture are covert, or at least not publicized. I would also think it naive to believe that a.) congress wouldn't know/be informed/care, or b.) leaks wouldn't happen. People write uniqueness evidence about targeting, alert status, etc. If they know, it's not a secret.
  4. The Case Against Emails 1. Publication a. None - No one seems to be defending being able to read unpublished emails, so I not going to spend the time spelling out the obvious reasons why this is an awful idea. If someone doesn't understand the problems, they can look at the rest of this post and magnify the impact by 10, and it would give them a pretty good idea. b. Location - Emails end up getting posted in the most questionable places. The history of this practice tells us that emails will get published on: wikis, blogs, random cross-x pages that are inaccessible from the forums because Kerpen gave someone the hook-up. These webpages usually can't be found on google or other traditional methods of research. Let's not kid ourselves. There is always a perverse incentive to keep the emails secret until deployed in round for the first time. Isn't this true of every new file or argument? Yes, but with other arguments there is always a chance that I found the same article you did anticipated the argument and wrote a response. Emails posted to websites that can't be found in searches eliminate the ability to predict arguments based on research of the topic's literature base. The potential for abuse is obviously outlandish as well. A professor or graduate assistant could put these emails in a university library under a course reserve and claim it's available for anyone to peruse. c. Timing - History also teaches us that emails are usually posted to these hidden websites minutes before the round begins. This obviously makes it impossible to anticipate and prepare for the argument. It if functionally the equivalent of not posting at all (in the first instance). Don't people get caught off guard by new arguments all the time? Yes, but it is usually because of a deficit in their research. If you developed a position based on an article in an obscure journal that another team didn't read, then kuddos to you and shame on them for not finding it. However, we can't expect teams to anticipate every email you would send and the possible responses you would receive. Would waiting until the 'webcrawlers' have found my website so that it shows up in searches solve this problem? Perhaps, but that brings me to other issues with email evidence. 2. Annoyance I've seen how upset librarians can get at camp when dealing with a limited pool of kids in the community asking for research assistance, and they actually get paid for doing it. I can only imagine how quickly an author would grow tired of answering emails from high schoolers about their silly debate topic. It would seem that this method of research would favor the proverbial early bird and would not provide a replenishable resource for the community. This means that if the author is vague or ambiguous in their initial email, future attempts at clarification my find their way to the spam box. 3. Verifiability How can we prove that the person emailed is in fact qualified or an expert? The Marburry incident seems to indicate that this misdirection can happen. I've got emails from 'doctors' telling me that taking a pill will lead to significant male enhancement. Can I use that as evidence? The problem becomes more acute when authors stop responding because of the annoyance da. This can cause suspicion and tension to rise in the community. Also, how can we be sure that the author is actually the one responding to the email, and not a clerk or aid, or staff person, or secretary, or personal assistant (insert slumdog millionaire outsourcing joke here). 4. Fishing The questions that are asked of these authors are often very leading, and may lead to author to say things that have an impact on the debate community that they don't fully understand. Such as, "specifically, in the context of 'alternative energy incentives', what would be a 'substantial increase'?" The questions are always loaded. Anyone who has done elections research about polling knows the way you ask the question affects the answer you receive. Tricking an author into using resolutional wording isn't good research. It's deception. 5. Casualness Emails with experts aren't subject to same standards as published material. There is no peer review process, no fact checking, no editorial board. Authors may have very strong (read biased) opinions on matters that would never make it into one of their published works. It's also unlikely that in typing out a response the author engaged in the amount of academic rigor they would put into a published work. You are likely getting a knee-jerk response, because it's highly doubtful they consulted Webster's for your T question or U.S. Code for you counterplan competition question. There is an issue with appealing to the authority of an author of an email when they may not be writting in that capacity. Authors are also unlikely to take the conversation as seriously as the debater will. One need only search edebate for the Stratfor staff's mocking of Brad Hall to find proof of this. 6. Cherry Picking There is no way to force teams to post every email email exchange they have had. Teams are only going to post the conversations that benefit them. You can email 25 authors and put the best response up on your wiki to read in a round. This extra layer of opacity in disclosure always benefits the emailer and not the teams trying to answer it. It's also impossible to verify that you have posted the entirity of the email exchange. Are you going to hand over the password to your email account? What if you've deleted an email? Sure, I could email the author to make sure he actually wrote that exact reply and that the exchange lasted for 4 emails not 6, but see Annoyance DA. Also, if you've already pestered dissenting authors for their opinion, that decreases the likelyhood that I can email them for a response to your new sweet ev. 7. Linchpins Let's face it. People don't email their authors to get a 5th uniqueness card for their 2NC block. It is ALWAYS to obtain a critical argument that would make the position otherwise unviable. Maybe it's T question. Maybe counterplan competition. Maybe a disad link. Regardless, it always expands the research burden by making a new case/strategy viable or eliminating the viability of pre-existing case/strategy. Argument innovation can be a good thing, but only when it's predictable and grounded in literature. 8. Students should email authors for assistance in guiding their research and deploying their arguments Counter Interpretation solves all your offense. There isn't a reason why emails need to be read in round. Authors can point kids in the direction of literature they haven't read or places to look for the evidence. All of the educational benefits of this practice can still be obtained. ***The out of context exception. If you feel a team is reading a card out of context or misinterpreting the author's intent, then in this limited instance I think it would be ok to introduce an email exchange. However, you should probably make every effort to let the offending team know that you think they are in error and disclose the exchange to them in an effort to prevent the infraction in the first place.
  5. Version

    This is a violation to be used against teams that deal with agriculture or treat malnutrition. It is useful against agricultural biotech cases like the ones Colleyville and Greenhill read all year, and cases about food aid like the ones Dallas Jesuit read. The basis argument is that you have to treat communicable diseases to be topical, and malnutrition isn't one. *Microsoft Word File*

    1.00 USD

  6. Version

    This is a violation to be read against teams that read a single country AFF to South Africa. There are at least 6 independent reasons why South Africa should not be included in the list of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. These reasons are supported with evidence and there is additional evidence to prove how this undermines NEG ground. *Microsoft Word File*

    1.00 USD

  7. The packet was wrong. It broke ties using a random number (RND). The tournament used another, less arbitrary, method for breaking the ties.
  8. Version

    This is an AFF I wrote for the TOC. Unfortunately, the right opportunity to break it never materialized. Yes, it is expensive. Here's why: 1) I think it is the best file I have ever posted on this website. 2) It is in the interest of the buyer that the file not be purchased by lots of other people. In fact, once someone buys it, they can contact me via email (whit211@gmail.com), and I will remove the file from this site within 24 hours. I am unable to guarantee that only you will be able to buy it, but I will do my best to protect your investment. I'm not going to discuss what the AFF is in this discription (because I want you to be able to maintain the element of surprise), but I also don't want you to go into this blind and be unsatisfied with the product. So I will tell you the following: 1. This is NOT a critical aff. It is a "policy" aff. 2. This is NOT a small aff. It is very much a "big stick" aff with lots of impacts. 3. The aff is only directed to one country. Not a lot of teams have ran cases that go to this country, but it is NOT an obscure small country that there is little literature on. 4. The assistance that the AFF gives does not go to the government of the country that it acts towards. 5. Many people's gut reaction may be that this AFF is not topical, but I think the evidence to support its inclusion in the topic is very good. 6. There are lots of cards to answer topicality, disads, and counterplans. You will need to add analytical arguments, theory, and perms to the blocks. There are politics links/turns both ways and case specific answers to many popular consultation and international actor counterplans. 7. There are zero specific K answers. You will need to do this work on your own. 8. The U.S. key arguments are quality. If you have other general questions about the AFF, feel free to email me at the address above.

    150.00 USD

  9. No James is her brother.
  10. Cases that are being run (this is based on vague memory of a quick phone conversation last night....so it could be a little off): Water Condoms to Uganda Repeal Gag Rule for Kenya Rebuild the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant (Sudan) Disease Suveillance Djibouti/MEDFLAG Landmines Two agricultural biotech cases I'm sure there is more, but I can't remember...and don't even ask me to try and attribute schools to these cases...just consider it a primer for what to expect.
  11. When you concede that fiscal discipline is low and argue that the economy is still high, you have taken out the INTERNAL LINK to your disad. Sure perception arguments are sweet, but you're most likely not going to be able to control that debate. Most people THINK we are spending too much money. Unless you are talking about investor perception, but then good look winning that people who are smart will get freaked out by the US spending a few bucks in Africa. ...and any good 2ac block to spending is going to have multiple levels of uniqueness answers. FD low, econ low, new spending inev, etc.
  12. Hit him up at scottyp431@gmail.com to negotiate.
  13. Hey, if any of you public school kids want to put your teachers in a uncomfortable position, show them this article and ask them if they know of any historical examples of it happening to humans. I'm getting flashbacks of Noah Wylie's "I can't continue this conversation" from Donnie Darko just thinking about it.
  14. Seeing as how "aid" isn't in the resolution, no one will have to claim it 'on face.' ...and yes I'm saying most people won't be effectually topical. Most teams will directly increase 'public health assistance' to Sub-Saharan Africa. You are conflating assistance and aid, then conflating two different definitions of aid. People will give 'assistance' (read: money...although there is some debate over whether it can include other things). Regardless of whether that money assists or aids the people it is intended too, the aff has met its burden for topicality. Q: "But Whit, aren't there other definitions of assistance...I totally found a sweet one that I'm going to use to legitimate my totally abusive aff?" A: "Yes, but they're all stupid and bad for debate (a definition doesn't make you topical...a definition supported by a solid interpretation of the topic and some standards does). A majority of the community will adopt the standard that aid is money and that the modifier 'public health' means it has to go towards something related to that."
  15. Dude, I haven't seen the file, but I'll go out on a limb and say you don't have a single card that says both "Learn and Serve America" and "Urban Debate League" solvency advocate or not. Unless it is from an article from April that says a UDL did a public debate with LSA funds. ...but that is the only one. Providence Journal 4/11/07 l/n Yesterday, high school students from the Rhode Island Urban Debate League, the Providence District-Wide Student Government and Channel One-Central Falls debated the question, "Should Rhode Island students be able to drop out of high school at the age of 16 or should it be changed to the age of 18?" This was the first in a series of public debates organized by the debate league. This event was sponsored in part by Brown University's Swearer Center for Public Service and a grant from Learn and Serve America and the Rhode Island Campus Compact.
  16. whit211

    Mean Girls K

    Rob, don't take this the wrong way, but thinking about you thinking about me watching Mean Girls is just scary to me.
  17. whit211

    Mean Girls K

    Interesting. It's good to see that others think Mean Girls is an awesome movie. I'm sad to learn that my idea was not original, though. The K I wrote doesn't use any schlag arguments.
  18. whit211

    Mean Girls K

    Honestly, it hit me when I was reading one of the books and read the first card in the shell. It is about how difference is like high school cliques. It immediately made me think of the movie. From there the metaphors and references just started coming naturally. The movie is about social hierarchies, but the movie's way of dealing with it is the contemporary left's embrace of diversity and identity. Had Cady broken up a real tiara at the end of the movie and redistributed material wealth, then that would have a been a significant acheivement. Instead it was an empty gesture, a plastic token, to say, "I accept your difference." But valuing difference doesn't solve for poverty because being poor sucks regardless of whether people respect you for that fact or not.
  19. whit211

    Mean Girls K

    Buy it. It's a kritik of identity politics that doesn't rely on Zizek cards. In fact the cards rely on rational logical arguments that are easy to understand instead of lacanian psychobable and obscure references to foreign movies and books you've never seen or read (well there are some obscure references, but for the most part - rational logic). The thesis is the same though - focus on diversity/identity/difference etc distracts from a focus on economic inequality and puts the power in the hands of the neoliberal right. Imagine getting to read your identity K without having to answer a 2AC filled with Zizek indicts and cards from that guy who writes those sweet psychoanalysis bad cards (robinson?/robertson?...whatever). you can get more info in the decription on the evazon website: Mean Girls K
  20. whit211

    Mean Girls K


    Table of Contents This is a kritik of identity politics. The main argument is that focusing on identity undermines class struggle. ZERO cards in this file are by Zizek. So if you run the Zizek multiculturalism K, then you should consider buying this file as a suppliment to that argument. Included are links to a lot of the major affs on this topic. It was written for Chattahoochee High School at the TOC. While it was written for the National Service topic, there are no "national service" links. This K will be useful to you on future topics. A small amount of link work would no doubt make it a viable strategic option against many cases on the Africa topic. K debaters should consider buying this file for the "A/T: Rorty" alone....oh yeah, it's called the mean girls K cause there are lots of quotes and references to the movie in the tags to the shell cards and in the perm block.

    20.00 USD

  21. The explaination of those Ks usually makes a lot more sense. They are usually impacted with arguments like participation in the activity (not perpetuation of global violence). My problem is when K debaters take up a holier-than-thou "what I do is more real world/actually matters" when they rely on the same daisy chain of internal links as the policy folk. ...and there is a fine line here. I was involved in a round on the sanctions topic where a debater answered our pesticides/fertilizer da with "iraq is just a big desert...they wouldn't need to use that stuff." Which not only is factually incorrect, but reliant upon racist notions of the middle east. So we read some Said cards and called them racists. They got offended cause we called them racists ("we're not racist...we run a pro-iraq case"). We lost because the judge didn't think what they said was racist (althought I passionately disagree). So I guess there are somethings that are blatantly racist and then there are things that there is a debate about. Maybe some people think reading nuclear war impacts is racist. I don't. First of all, I challenge your assertion that saying nuclear war hurts natives. Kato isn't talking about educational institutions or debaters. Well to some extent he is talking about educational institutions, but more specifically he's talking about Derrida and Lifton and all the other hippie K authors that you probably think are sweet. He thinks they are the devil...so think about that before you read any other Ks. I'm not on the wrong side of the violent reps are without impact debate. First of all lets be clear, by "violent reps" you mean war impacts. Reading war impacts does not silence or suppress or hurt natives in any way. I think your assertion that because the land is stolen (which I would question) anything that takes place on it is oppressive links to you too. You should totally give up your home. It's on stolen land. Stop eating. The food you put in your mouth was grown on native land. Quit going to school. Built on native land. In fact you should just head for the coast (assuming you're allowed to trespass as you make your way there) and start swimming (because any boats, planes, and cars are likely also the product in some way of the theft of land that took place so long ago). Are you beginning to see why reductionist totalizing claims like that are silly? I hope so. I'll assume the unposted warrant for your "education bad for natives" argument is based on assimilation. Reading nuclear war impacts is not assimilative. To the best of my knowledge, debate is not assimilative of native americans. ...And debate is good. So to the extent that a culture is not inclusive of debate, perhaps that culture is bad. *gasp* He criticized a culture, OMG! Guess what cultures aren't static. They change over time and that's a good thing. You say assimilation...I say adaptation. Plus one of two arguments will be true: 1) some cultures are better than others, and should be adopted by more and more people or, 2) every culture has equal value, and it really doesn't matter what your culture is or even if your culture exists because there are any number of equally valuable cultures for you to practice if yours goes away. Getting congress to pass a law is almost infinitely more probable than convincing the world to stop being violent. 1. We're a democracy so you can convince people to vote a certain way and pressure their representatives (and you only need a majority of americans...not the world). 2. We're not a perfect democracy so you can buy votes through lobbying and horse trading. Schlag is talking about law school students, not debaters. ...and if you think he has a valid point, you should quit the activity. You don't have a link to "in round discourse." Show me a link card to your K that assumes debaters reading cards. All you have is some articles about policy maker rhetoric and leftist academics not being left enough. ONCE AGAIN: YOU DEPEND ON FIAT FOR YOUR LINKS, INTERNAL LINKS, AND IMPACTS JUST AS MUCH AS THE AFF. If Schlag is right, and what we do has no impact on policy, there is no impact to saying we should have a survival and security focused foreign policy that is aimed at preventing an apocalyptic nuclear war. Because no matter how much we say it, we aren't responsible for bringing it about. And it certainly doesn't justify our government testing nuclear weapons on natives, because our government isn't looking to us for approval (and they're certainly not saying "some kid in Kansas just read an aff with the Khalilzad card, that means we get to test another warhead"). ...and you didn't answer my "the way you use the K is racist" da. I guess net "in round discourse" offense goes my way.
  22. Oh sigh... If your argument is that we shouldn't pretend as if fiat existed or policies become implemented, then EVERYTHING you say is laughable. For instance saying "when governments use the avoidance of war/security concerns to justify policies it allows them to do bad things to poor people and native americans" is somewhat believable. HOWEVER, saying "when a debater utters violent representations in a high school classroom on a saturday in front of 4 witnesses, ontological violence is done to an indian" is about as believable as "everytime you masturbate a kitten dies." Furthermore, saying that when the judge of that round casts a ballot for the negative they set in motion a chain of events that will bring about the end of violence on an international scale is just coocoo for coco puffs. You depend on fiat just as much as the aff (for your links, for your impacts, for your alt solvency). If the aff doesn't have to defend gov't action because fiat doesn't exist, then you are in a world of hurt. Fiat not existing is a 100% internal link takeout to any and all "fiat bad" arguments. Now whose argument is stupid? No, I'm not smarter than that...and you aren't either. In fact, why don't you define "ontological violence." ...and I don't want a "well this is what ontological violence means to me." Define it. I've scoured the internet looking for some understanding as to what this actually is and the context of a majority of the uses of that phrase seem to suggest it is suppressing a type of knowledge or hurting someones 'being.' So again I reiterate, when a kid reads a nuke war impact in a debate round it doesn't a) silence or suppress any forms of knowledge (indigenous or otherwise), or hurt anyone's feelings (at least it shouldn't...and if it does, that person likely has some deeper issues they need to work through, and shouldn't be worrying about what is going on in a random debate round). ...and while I'm at it, using the argument in this way is kind of racist. Saying "every time you read a nuke war impact, you hurt a native american's feelings" is no different from those eco-friendly PSAs that used the "every time you litter an indian sheds a tear" commercials to try and get america to quit throwing trash on the highway. Pimping out representations of "third and fourth world peoples" for a ballot is probably a greater form of "ontological violence" than reading Mead in '92.
  23. No, all of our tests ARE underground, but that's not what subcritical refers to. Subcritical tests don't reach critical mass and start a chain reaction, but radioactive materials are used. You can read about it here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1728616.htm Last Update: Thursday, August 31, 2006. 9:27am (AEST) The United States says it has carried out a subcritical nuclear experiment successfully at an underground test site in Nevada - the 23rd such test since 1997. The test came amid intensifying US-led international efforts to press North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear programs. It was the 10th test under the administration of President George W Bush, despite persistent criticism by anti-nuclear groups. The previous test was conducted on February 23. Many activists and experts argue that the tests undermine the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons and that the Bush administration is carrying them out to use them to boost its efforts to develop new nuclear arms. The US Government maintains the subcritical tests do not violate the treaty because they do not involve a nuclear chain reaction and are necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear stockpiles. It also insists they are fully consistent with nuclear test moratorium it has maintained since 1992. "The Los Alamos National Laboratory conducted the experiment to gather scientific data that provides crucial information to maintain the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests," the department's National Nuclear Security Administration said in a statement. The administration said the subcritical tests do not involve nuclear explosion because they are designed to "examine the behaviour of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives". "No critical mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur," it said.
  24. You're wrong about this. We do conduct tests still. We call them subcritical, because we don't cause a full nuclear reaction, but we still do it on (what some would call) native lands. Plus there is the mining for nuclear materials. Interesting note... Japan sends a letter of disapproval to a country every time they test a nuclear weapon, and then they put the letter on display (I believe they are at a museum/memorial for Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If you look at the letters to the U.S.,there was a long gap where no letters were sent. Then, there is a letter from September 12, 2001...September 13, 2001...September 14, 2001...etc. (and before you naively ask, yes the dates do happen to coincide nicely with 9/11) ...and even if the argument was purely historical, it would still arguably be relevant. Focus on big boom death has historically allowed us to write off slow death by radiation poisoning (which is just another Cuomo like structural violence internal link). Focus on future generations is a form of kill to save cause we are willing to sacrifice those that are already alive (and other such nonsense ).
  • Create New...