Jump to content

WoodenTaco

Member
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About WoodenTaco

  • Rank
    Registered User

Profile Information

  • Name
    Spencer
  • School
    Edgemont '07 /Northwestern '11
  • Biography
    What?
  • Location
    Edgemont NY

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    WoodenTaco
  1. I think most judges err on the side of caution in trying to ensure high quality cites when other teams are called out on the question, at least in my experience. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people in this discussion who has won a debate on the quality of a cite: at Harvard two or three years ago, the other team (two debaters who we were very good friends with and who, I'm totally sure, did not mean to do anything unethical) had emailed an expert to ask him, essentially, "is our plan topical?" and posted his response on an imdb.com message board. We won on a 3-0 (with Antonucci and Heidt judging, which is kind of funny. I think Roy might have been the third judge? Can't remember.), not because anyone conclusively believed that the evidence was faked, but because the possibility that it was made it unreliable enough that it wasn't evaluated, and it was their only substantive answer to topicality. I don't think that's an unusual conclusion to reach. Given that it doesn't take all that much for a judge to throw out a piece of evidence, I think that by far the most significant question is this: how can we detect bad evidence in rounds? I have no easy answer to that question. I'll leave it up to people much smarter than me to figure it out. But it seems way, way more important to figure that question out, since while we can convince judges to reject bad evidence with arguments inside the debate, identifying it when it happens could be much more difficult.
  2. Speakers: 1. Victor Shao (GBN MS) 2. Flynn Makuch (GBN MS) 3. Jillian Jordan (Highland Park JK) 4. Ian Lee (Millard South LR) 5. Charlie Curran (Walter Payton BC) 6. Timothy Bingham (Walter Payton BC) 7. Caitlin Carmody (Decter CI) 8. Christian Steckler (Bishop Guertin DS) 9. Joe Balistreri (Marquette BH) 10. Ian Miller (SPASH JM) 11. Alexis Shklar (GBN PS) 12. Laura Johnson (Saint Paul Central JQ) 13. Alexandra Evans (Georgetown Day EK) 14. Zac Karabatak (Centerville KR) 15. Michael Hoffmann (Marquette BH) 16. Mutian Rui (Centerville KR) 17. Jasmine Injejikiaan (Dexter CL) 18. Mia Kunst (Georgetown EK) 19. Jesslyn Mitchell (Meadows MW) 20. Ann Peter (Maine East PS)
  3. Wooo Edgemont CS 9th seed is the business. Now win the tournament.
  4. Wait a minute. You argued teams should leave if they didn't agree with the way the tournament is run. You can't turn around and call that "copping out," implying that they are running away out of fear, when you are advocating that as the best method of criticism.
  5. You are grossly overestimating the memory of debaters. I have trouble remembering what happened in a round an hour later, let alone days later. I do think that disclosure absolutely provides a check to make sure that judges think hard about their decision. Defending your decision is a good thing. Judges should be confident enough about the decision they made to be able to back up their reasoning. I also think defending a decision helps to educate judges in the decision-making process, something which is too often overlooked.
  6. A perm is a no link argument. That's why people call it a "test of the link." That other stuff you mentioned is the impact debate of the K.
  7. This is exactly wrong. The perm doesn't "justify slavery in one instance of the greater good," it says the plan isn't slavery, so there's no reason we can't criticize slavery and do the plan.
  8. Uhhh, no, it doesn't assume that. Those are all fantastic reasons that the K still wins the debate. But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good argument to make to take out the hyperbolic impact claims that are so common. Normally, that list you give would have a fifth argument - "5. k solves nuclear holocaust." I thought it was obvious that you would have to make other arguments to win the debate.
  9. A lot of bad shit still ain't "nuclear annihilation" or "genocide."
  10. People get scared away from making those arguments. I think they're fine.
  11. What specifically would you like to know about? Nuclear war is a topic, not an "argument." Do you want Arguments for why nuclear weapons are good? Why they are bad? Arguments that nuclear use can be justified? That it can't? Arguments for why nuclear war is unlikely? Arguments about the effects of a nuclear war? Gonna have to clarify the what you are looking for, because as it stands there is no question really.
  12. Absolutely - although it's almost always a kritik of neoliberalism. A neoliberalism good advantages is more commonly known as a free trade good advantage.
  13. Neoliberalism is a doctrine emphasizing LIBERALizing international economies - that is, removing regulations on them. Traditionally, states use tariffs (taxes on goods from other countries) and subsidies (tax breaks for companies within the mother country's borders) in order to keep home-grown industries strong. Taxes on foreign goods + tax breaks on domestic goods = more people buy domestic goods. More people buy domestic goods = more domestic companies make money. More domestic companies make money = more people get hired by those companies. With me so far? Neoliberalists argue that these tariffs and subsidies (and various other economic tools to accomplish similar goals) are bad, overall, since they inhibit the efficiency of the market. If somebody is choosing between a Ford and a BMW, and they cost the same amount, they'll take the BMW, of course. Those tariffs and subsidies can make the Ford cost half as much, though, and so Joe Carbuyer buys the Ford. But at the end of the day, this is inefficient - he is getting a worse car than he should, say the neoliberalists. So, in order to convince governments to stop using tariffs and subsidies, neoliberal doctrine calls for various international organizations and groups, like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, who do various things to make convince nations to remove trade restrictions. For instance, the IMF might offer a $80 billion loan to Argentina if Argentina is in a bind because it's economy is collapsing - but only if the Argentinian government removes all tariffs and subsidies. This is why some people (erroneously, if you ask me) call it imperialist: The IMF forces countries, or so the story goes, to follow economic policies that other, more developed nations like. This is the Marxist view that a lot of scholars (typically not economists) take. The IMF, after all, doesn't require that countries accept the loan. And it seems fairly reasonable for the IMF to demand certain reforms in order to give a loan - banks do the same thing all the time. If your Crazy Uncle Ernie the Coke Addict came and asked you for $5,000 because he was in a bind, you'd say "Slow down, Uncle Ernie - you can't spend this on coke." The IMF (and other neoliberal institutions) do similar stuff - they are entirely voluntary. Imperialists counter that developing nations - or Ernie, to continue the analogy - have no other choice. But if you ask me, throwing money at a broken economy isn't going to fix things any more than giving your Uncle Ernie more money to feed his addiction. There are plenty of critics of neoliberalism who aren't Marxists who still argue that it's economically harmful, though, and they might have a point. Friedrich von Hayek wrote a good article about it somewhere a few decades ago, explaining that economic liberalization helps industrialized nations disproportionately, strengthening their lead over less developed nations. That's how Britain became an economic superpower, according to von Hayek - carefully applied tariffs and subsidies strengthened domestic British industries until they were stronger than competition overseas, and at that point the British started promoting free trade, which sealed their advantage by expanding the market for vastly superior British industries. Strictly speaking, Synergy is still correct, that global poverty declines as markets liberalize internationally. However, this data is problematic: these studies often fail to control for other factors commonly present in liberalizing economies, like healthy foreign investment, democratization, domestic liberalization of the market, and so on. And, while poverty decreases, other indicators can decrease, like GNP (production by industries owned by the country itself, as opposed to production by industries operating within the country), and these increases in wealth can be significantly outpaced by increases in developed countries, so that the 3rd world can still be falling behind. There are other criticisms too. Human rights activists and environmentalists don't like the removal of workplace and environmental regulations that's often associated with neoliberalism. Realists complain that we shouldn't engage in trade since it opens us up to dirty floats, price gouges, and other nasty tricks by other nations who are presumably out to get us.
  14. Maybe you didn't read all of my post: Since their origins are different, they are deployed differently in debate - significantly differently. The OP was asking for a list of advantages to block out; clearly he should be writing separate blocks for a soft power aff vs a hard power one, since the uniqueness debate is enormously different. If the aff said "we need to bomb the shit out of people" and the neg said "nonunique - abu ghraib killed soft power!" the 2A would stand up and laugh. Same thing is true if the aff was "we need everybody to love us!" and the neg said "recruitment is down!" Even if they have the same terminal impact, they aren't the same argument.
×
×
  • Create New...