Jump to content

Fun_Guy

Member
  • Content Count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Fun_Guy last won the day on December 28 2006

Fun_Guy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About Fun_Guy

  • Rank
    Honorary Mesopotamian
  • Birthday 05/13/1975

Profile Information

  • Name
    Andy Brown
  • Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    BrownianMotions
  1. Taken from The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned?utm_source=b-section) I…I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over! Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments! Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next! All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got! Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon…c'mon…yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations! Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing! The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might! Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking. What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard! No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview. For Richard's sake. What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger! We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse. Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking! Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns! All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you. Unless…wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working! We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!
  2. Fun_Guy

    MI Case list

    Why are you giving out all your completely legitimate 100% guaranteed-to-be-run strategies? Don't you know that States is all about head-fakes, disinformation and politicking? This thread will be valuable both to those who wish to promote their own reputation for fair competition, and those who wish to disseminate potentially misleading information in a plausibly deniable way. Huzzah, States is an intellectual REVENGE BLOODSPORT WHERE I CAN VERBALLY MURDER THESE TEENAGERS...oh my, I'm sorry, what came over me there? What I meant to say was: Huzzah, States is the culmination of an intellectual activity that promotes critical thinking skills and celebrates the kids involved. To quote me for about 10 years running, "States...brings out the best in everyone." If you were looking to this thread for ACTUAL information (assuming that you are that gullible), here is the data I have compiled, which is an order of magnitude more correct than the data presented so far in this thread: Brother Rice: Nuke the Moon Chelsea: Nuke Brother Rice DCD: No plan text, they just rap Dexter: Something about dolphins EK: Sell freedom-hating liberals on EBay Eisenhower: Nuke Eisenhower/meta-SPARK FHN: Whatever FHC does FHC: Whatever FHN does Gaylord: Harness the power of the Dutch Oven Groves: A bunch of disads that they impact turn in the 1ac HH Dow: Ironic Bhopal (get it?) Holt: Consult Tylor Orme's beard Mona: Counterfactual Nixon Impeachment. Zombie-Nixon-4-Life. Okemos: Pixel Malthus Pioneer: A free verse poem about rainbows Portage: No rap, just 8 minutes of free verse Plan Text Seaholm: Kritiking why Kansas is pronounsed 'can-sass' while Arkansas is pronounced '(ar)-can-saw' despite the fact that both words end with the letters K-A-N-S-A-S West Bloomfield: A bunch of PMNs that they solve the brink for in the 1ac I'd recommend you start researching now. Against these specific cases, Internet '08 has an amazing 8,000 word card that you can highlight down to 103 words, no two of which are contiguous in the original text.
  3. You may be referring to the ones that were purged in the Mollicaust. If so, they are gone, man.
  4. Wow, it's getting a little dusty here in the Fun_Guy mansion. 100% of CX.com remembered my birthday, beating out 'each of my parents' by a full 50%.
  5. Old school Traverse City love to Dr. Jake. From a briefcase full of notecards to greatness. Best of luck, man. Say hi to Cornelier if you still see him. --Andy Brown (University Liggett School '93)
  6. Thanks to everyone that showed up, we hope you all had a good time. To more directly address Orion's concerns about our movement going underground, allow me to present the following bulleted list and org chart. I may be revealing too much here, but it is best you all know and accept this particular truth while there is still time. NON-BULLETED LIST, IN NUMERICOBETICAL ORDER 1. There is always a plan. 1(a). ???? ÞÛ. The plan is good. 6. If the plan was not good, it would not be the plan. ORG CHART THAT YOU ARE ~NOT~ CLEARED TO SEE Kilroy was here a moment ago. fnord.
  7. If Pete had a nickel for every time someone has said that, he'd be five cents richer. BA-ZING See you tomorrow
  8. Finally, one that I know. TMBG - Don't Let's Start. Hooray!
  9. I've been stalking this thread for updates on this product and/or service. I'd have very little to contribute teaching-wise, but I'd really like to be involved, if only for my own personal edification. If necessary, I can offer access* to a Ventrilo (VOIP) server if participants are geographically diverse. Also, I require more of the 'What's on Dan's Ipod' thread. I've been 0-fer thus far, which I find personally repugnant. *so long as we use it before 8PM EST, and people are responsible enough to NOT pass the server info around.
  10. HEY GUYS WHATS GOING ON IN HERE! Eh, on second thought, I'll just slink back into the shadows. And since I don't have the balls to actually post on the MIFA-is-fucked thread, I'll put my opinion in here: I dare ya' to do better. The EK Cabal actually attempted to sorta-usurp MIFA few years back...but it ain't easy. Inertia and whatnot.
  11. Wow, this thread had evolved, devolved, and re-evolved (probably featuring stem cells) into a microcosm of what HS debate today is: people creating steadily tightening logical circles around an important issue, until the 'logical circles' are getting more attention than the issue itself. Here's what we know: 1. MIFA racked up a huge debt to UofM. 2. UofM never really planned on collecting that debt, until recently. 3. Fitz did a helluva lot of work to establish oratorical activities in Michigan over his 40-year career, then he retired. Here's what we speculate: 1. Fitz was an embezzeling profitmonger who has probably purchased one (IF NOT ALL) of the Hawaiian Islands, and dines on the flesh of those unfortunate enough to succumb to his Bermuda Triangle-like gravitational field. In the secret society he chairs, he is known NOT as Jon Fitzgerald, but as J.F. Eatsbabies. Y'know, for his habit of eating babies. This is a well-established fact. Here's what we can do: 1. Form an ancillary organization that will be an e-penis functionary for those of us still trying to relive our HS debating days. RB noted that the people in love with this concept tend not to be the standard-bearers of edumication. He stated this earlier, and more eloquently than I, in his 'why i lost the love for HS debate' post up yonder. To be fair, I was more than likely one of the people he made reference to. I'll own that, I was an idiot for quite some time, and by most accounts, still am. 2. Form a new organization with the profit motive and morals in the proper place. If you can do that, you are a better man than I. I can say that confidently, because I tried to do just that. And despite having very experienced and informed people on my side, there just isn't a helluva lot of dollars available out there for debate-ish activities, no matter how good a sell it is on paper. 3. Slowly reform the system. I was at a grand total of ONE debate council meeting in my life. That meeting passed more sweeping reforms that I could have possibly imagined, tossing away antiquated rules from the state tournament like yesterday's garbage. I wish I could say that it was me, Pete, Joe, Brad and Ellen that proposed and wrote up all of these progressive referenda...but nope. Ruth Kay, Scotty Warrow and Deb Marsh were the ones that wrote it, stumped for it, and got it passed, while the people from my generation were all sitting off in the corner being snarky and bitchy. Personally, I like #3. Your mileage may vary. Fitz has been an active member of the debate community for 40 years (yes 40, and to restate -pardon my French- 40 FUCKING YEARS). To write him off as a 'balance sheet liability' is shortsighted at best and downright idiotic at worst. If you could do better, I'd like to see it. If you are willing to burn the bridges he crafted, then I feel sorry for you, and Michigan Debate as a whole. Because those bridges are about the only link we have left to State and School District funding. Debate in its current state may suck (and God knows I've made that argument several times), but I'd rather see policy debate be a going concern than a consignment to budget cuts because we couldn't decide on a governing body. I may piss off a lot of my friends by saying this, but get a grip, fix what you can, and don't stress so much about the stuff that you can't change/can't improve on.
  12. Fun_Guy

    Today in History

    w00t! To quote Pete Battey "you have successfully aged, defying all known semblance of logic and empiricism."
  13. Pete dug up some of our old MOSSA greatest hits...here's the 1AC from the Ocean Policy topic from a few years back. Enjoy! “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” This statement is as true today as it was when issued by Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1776. Because we believe that our government has become destructive of the ends for which it was created, we stand resolved that the United States Federal Government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources. Jefferson's words are an echo of the natural rights philosophy espoused by John Locke in his second treatise of civil government of 1690, where he stated that, “To understand political power aright…we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.” Good evening. My name is Pete Battey, and along with Andrew Brown, we are 2_fun_guys_gr. We begin our defense of the resolution by discussing the origins and purposes of government in our AFFIRMATIVE OVERVIEW. · One. We believe that the rights of people are inherent to them and not granted or created by some government decree. Rather, all people have the ‘negative’ rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are those that people exercise in a world without government, or the state of nature. Some may argue that the state of nature is a mythical construct Locke used to justify his stance on rights. We disagree, pointing to the period of the American Revolution as an example of a state of nature. When the founding generation threw off the shackles of English oppression, they began to live in a state of nature, unencumbered by British tyranny. · Two. Because a life without laws or police could be unpleasant and violent, the founders immediately decided to create a new government. The process by which a just government is created is that of a social contract, when people agree to set up a system of rules. In so doing, the people surrender some of their natural rights to protect other rights they deem more important. For example, a modicum of taxation, and thus a forfeiture of property, is required to undertake the just task of administering and enforcing the laws. · Three. The conclusion that we draw from this is that the purpose of government is to protect as many negative rights of the people as possible, and not to unnecessarily intrude upon their liberty or property. Defined, negative rights are ‘freedom from’ rights, such as freedom from needless taxation, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Certainly, no form of positive rights can be justified under such a system, as they would necessarily involve mass coercion and impingement upon more sacred negative rights. Our defense of the resolution turns next to an examination of the current state of affairs, the status quo, in our CONTENTION OF INHERENCY. The Federal Government has used the Environmental Protection Agency and other groups to impose their will on the people of the United States. · One. The fundamental problem with existing environmental laws is that they embody a command-and-control, government knows best mentality. By this, we mean that the government has decided how to go about protecting the environment and what disciplinary power it will use to force private citizens to do its bidding. · Two. We can conclude that there is no substantial effort underway to change the current regulatory nature of the government solution with regard to environmental issues concerning the protection of marine natural resources. We will next examine the various failings of the current system in our CONTENTION OF HARM. We believe that government regulations are simply incapable of effectively protecting the environment. · One. It should be apparent to all that the reason this resolution exists is because the ocean is being polluted and its resources depleted at an alarming rate. All of this has occurred under the regime of command-and-control environmental regulations. If this type of regulation worked, we wouldn't be debating this topic. · Two. Government regulations are clumsy and slow. There is no end to the range of private activities that could have an effect on the environment. These changes occur quickly and unexpectedly, before any federal regulator could hope to understand and act upon them. · Three. The adversarial process of environmental regulation blocks any real change. Environmental regulations are imposed by Congress, which is heavily influenced by all manner of political action committees. It is big businesses and corporate interests that have the money to exert their will on the politicians to ensure that environmental regulations serve to protect their interests, or at least minimize intrusion. Thus, the process of imposing a regulation is a contest between the environmental activists and corporate giants. · Four. When the government finally manages to wade through this conflicted bureaucratic nightmare of their own design, there aren't any financial or enforcement resources left to actually regulate with. At the end of the day, numerous pieces of environmental legislation remain unimplemented and the rest are lackadaisically enforced. · Five. The government has a vested interest in supporting environmental destruction. Because politicians are democratically elected, they have an incentive to placate their constituents. Time and again, the government has chosen to protect jobs in failing industries more than the environment. As a result, for example, every year the government pays over $1 billion in subsidies to non-profitable fishing enterprises to keep them afloat. This encourages inefficient and environmentally destructive behavior. What are we to do? How can we act in a way that is consistent with the legitimate purposes of government and protect the environment at the same time? How can we use the zealous desire of environmentalists as well as the profit motive of the free market to protect resources? Fortunately, there is an answer, so Andrew and I present the following PLAN. The President will initiate and Congress will approve appropriate legislation to implement the following mandates: All existing oceanic environmental regulations and subsidies will be repealed. The ocean with the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States will be divided into parcels of approximately one square mile apiece and auctioned by the Federal Government. Only residents of the United States and United States Corporations will be eligible to purchase this ocean property. Owners of ocean property will be prevented from restricting existing navigation rights. Individuals or corporations that own improvements in or on the ocean will be granted ownership of that section of ocean. Funding, enforcement, and implementation will be through normal means. The free market model has failed on numerous occasions when used to manage the environment. This occurs because of externalities, considerations that affect the market model but are not accounted for. We address these issues on our CONTENTION OF SOLVENCY. · One. Pollution and resource depletion are excellent examples of externalities. Setting up a strong system of property rights will serve to internalize these externalities because people who use the ocean will bear the economic cost of their pollution. For example, if Exxon isn't careful while drilling for oil, they will spill it and it will drift into somebody else’s section of ocean. At this point, the owner of the adjacent ocean property can sue Exxon for trespass and nuisance, having been responsible for an intrusion onto their property. Recent technological advances and GPS systems ensure that such spills can be easily tracked. Armed with strongly defined property rights, people will actively work to protect the quality of their water from intrusive pollutants. · Two. We solve the tragedy of the commons with respect to fishing. Currently, every fisher has an economic incentive to catch as many fish as possible as quickly as possible. If they fail to do so, another fisher will just come in and take what's left. When fishers own ocean property, they can act responsibly to ensure that the stock maintains a healthy size, ensuring future profits, sure with the knowledge that they will be protected. · Three. The Coase Theorem. As outlined by Ronald Coase in 1960, it shows exactly how a property rights regime guarantees efficient protection of marine natural resources. Coase won the 1991 Nobel Prize in economics for explaining that in a world with minimal transaction costs, the socially efficient outcome for the use of a particular piece of property will occur if tradable property rights exist, no matter who possesses those property rights. This means that if the use of a piece of ocean property can be sold or traded, the agency that values it the most will exercise the use of it. o Subpoint A. If the Sierra Club wants to protect the ocean more than McDonald's wants to grab fishwich's, they will do so by buying it. We understand that transaction costs can never be completely eliminated, so we use an auction to ensure that each ocean parcel starts under the control of the group that values it the most. o Subpoint B. If McDonald’s owns a piece of the ocean that the Sierra club views as valuable, the Sierra club can tender a sustainable fishing contract to McDonald’s to ensure the long-term viability of the fish stocks in that area. o Subpoint C. If the Sierra Club owns that piece of the ocean, they can tender a contract to McDonald’s allowing limited fishing. o Subpoint D. Coase makes the point that whichever way the law interprets the property rights, as long as these rights are well defined, society's resources will be used most efficiently by just letting private agents work out these problems on their own, free from government intervention, to their own mutual benefit. In conclusion, we believe that stating, ‘we should protect all marine natural resources’ is a hollow promise, obviously unfulfilled by years of governmental over-regulation. Instead, we contend that all marine natural resources should have an owner standing behind them to protect them from unimpeded exploitation. I hope that my speech has been interesting and educational, and that you learned a little bit about the nature of government and the free market. I'm ready for cross-examination.
  14. Lousy weather...low turnout...it was still good times. My 3 favorite quotes: 1. (Me, responding to the 'disad' that Pete and I have 2 Billion illegitimate children and refuse to pay child support) "Well, at least I'm getting laid. But seriously, look at me, and be honest - would you do me? (silence) I didn't think so." 4: (Pete, extending that argument) "Seriously, he's repugnant!" C: Ellen: "Hey Andy, thanks the trouble of driving out here" Me: "Ellen, if you could guarantee me a win and top speaker, I'd drive to Florida for it." Still needed more Muszynski though, IMO. Two-peat!
×
×
  • Create New...