Jump to content

Shayan Makani

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Shayan Makani last won the day on May 13 2007

Shayan Makani had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

588 Excellent

About Shayan Makani

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I plan on posting a file with the "Top Ten Biodiversity Impact Cards" and other necessary cards needed to debate this impact scenario soon. It will be available for purchase on this website through Evazon. The file will definitely be cheap. Look out for it. It will be posted soon.
  2. Here is a link to a short, new camp that ends early: http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/cdi/index.html
  3. I'm no biologist, but here are my thoughts from a "debate perspective": The lizards that are the subject of the article you posted were introduced to a totally new environment, an island in Croatia, while they naturally resided in Italy. If forced to, any species will try to adapt as hard as possible. That is logical. However, since they were introduced to a new environment, evolution was needed to survive, and so it occurred much quicker than it usually would. Granted, the evolution of those lizards is definitely extraordinary. However, the species that most Affirmatives will claim to be "keystone" will not be introduced to a new environment when they face the threat that the Plan claims to solve. The environment those "keystone species" lived in actually changed, probably minutely, causing them to be threatened. They will change their habits, and might, over years, evolve to accommodate the new conditions if they are not remedied. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the change will cause them to get stronger immediately, meaning the lizard example is not a fair one to be making in regards to the argument that species get stronger when threatended. Simply put, the degree of the threat, new environment (that the lizards were introduced to in Croatia) versus alteration of current environment (faced by the "keystone species" most cases will affect next year), has a remarkable impact on how quickly the species is forced to evolve. Don't forget that species naturally face threats on an almost daily basis. A completely new home, however, is not something species face, by their own doing, many times in their lives.
  4. First, there is definitely evidence that disproves the claim that a particular thing is a "keystone species." Making this argument well requires some serious research, though, mainly because it is not generic, it specifically concentrates on a species. Essentially, you will need more cards and they will need to be very specific to each species. Taking out this internal link to a biodiversity impact is not a good approach, though, for three main reasons: 1. Quantity - The Affirmative will almost always have more cards than you on the species their advantage concentrates on. After all, they have probably done more research on it than you have; it is their case. 2. Quality - The credibility of the Affirmative's evidence will likely be better than the few cards you have. Plus, the Affirmative will probably have authors with varying degrees of qualifications. They might have everything from a nature documentary cameraperson (since debaters will almost always cut cards from anyone as long as they say what the debater needs) to educated, environmental scientists. 3. Ecosystem Connections - The first two reasons have been technical and are related to debate strategy. This last reason is not. Even if you are able to win that the species that the Affirmative claims to be a "keystone species" is not one, it will be very difficult for you to win that the extinction or even slight upset in the balance of that species does not directly or indirectly negatively affect a species in the ecosystem that is actually a "keystone species" and would be positively affected by the Plan. Keep in mind that ecosystems connect many species, and as such, make even the tiniest species relatively important. You would need to win that there are no such thing as "keystone species." Such an argument is simply ignorant and false. I think a better way to answer the Affirmative's internal link about a certain species being "keystone" is through reading "empirically denied/disproven" evidence. Read cards that indicate that species has faced/is facing remarkable threats. The Affirmative will probably claim this lends uniqueness to their scenarios, but if you spin it correctly, these cards can demonstrate that the way ecosystems adapt and at the rate of reproduction for most species, animals are tough enough to not go extinct as quickly some impact authors make them out to be. Granted, the population of that species might decrease, but that is not a true internal link into the risk of a species going extinct and thus threatening human life itself, which is what most cases claim to be the impact of not passing their Plan. The Affirmative would need to win that any change in the balance of this species in a specific ecosystem would threaten human extinction. That argument would just be asinine, though. Now I will address your second question. It is definitely possible to make the claim that species will become stronger if they face threats, and the cards for it do exist. However, due to the time is takes for species to evolve in any noticeable manner, you will lose the timeframe debate. That does not mean the species will go extinct; it simply means that they will probably be negatively affected. Darwin spoke of the issue of how it takes a considerable amount of time for species to evolve when he studied finches on the Galapagos Island. You might want to look at his primary texts, and more so the secondary authors, probably scientists, that have since updated his theories. I'm sure you'll be able to cut cards from there.
  5. Congratulations to those who advanced to the elimination rounds, especially Hebron LP. Though I have never seen you guys debate, I am glad that policy debate has not died there yet.
  6. The official results were posted on eDebate earlier today by J.W. Patterson. You can check them out here: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075103.html
  7. There is a ton of stuff by Joseph S. Nye, along with countless other experts, at the following website: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/index.html?groupby=6&=&filter=3
  8. Timothy Morton's new book seems useful. Even Slavoj Žižek liked it, and decided to give a lecture on the book in Athens. Here is a link to a website where you may purchase the book: http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-without-Nature-Rethinking-Environmental/dp/0674024346 For some useful commentary to complement the book, here are the links to the lecture that Žižek delivered on it: Part I: Part II: Part III: Part IV: Part V: Part VI:
  9. The best works I have read on this topic from postmodern authors are from Jean Baudrillard or Paul Virilio. I am sure some secondary works on these two authors would probably fulfill your request. These works would probably be shorter than books by Baudrillard or Virilio, though, as they exclusively concentrate on the concepts of Good and Evil as interpreted by these authors.
  10. It's hard to decipher the tone, purpose, and intent of a thread on the Internet sometimes. It was a fair assumption on my part, I think, based on the title of the thread. Nonetheless, I could obviously be wrong. If that is the case, then I apologize for assuming.
  11. You can purchase it at the following website: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/ADIStuff/Evidence.htm
  12. Jeff Buntin posted a solid file on this argument for sale on Evazon. Check it out: http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10521
  13. Here are some articles that may help you: http://www.bostondebate.org/UMKC%20Study.pdf http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/dEBATEACROSSTHECIRC.doc http://communications.fullerton.edu/forensics/documents/Silly%20and%20Jason%2002%20NCA%20Paper.pdf Here are some more articles that you may find helpful. However, these are not links to the full articles. I am sure you could track them down yourself through the electronic resources offered by your school. http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1020190398.html;jsessionid=12A7369F288A4C7F312C063EA0A3284E.ehctc1 http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/27/3/264 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ671184&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ671184 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W50-4DR0401-1&_user=29621&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000003958&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=29621&md5=631bd51385e70707a99defbf24266251 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ776523&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ776523 Obviously, you should look through the bibliography of the above articles to see if the works these authors cited could be of use to you, also. I didn't totally understand what you're looking for, so I apologize if some of these articles serve no purpose to you. There are a ton more available on the importance and advantages of debate, so if that would be a direction your essay could take, then let us know. I'm sure many on this website have access to such articles and texts. I hope that helped.
  14. Congratulations. You guys definitely deserved it.
  15. You can purchase it here using an Evazon account: http://www.cross-x.com/evazon/product.php?id=10579
  • Create New...