Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Snoozedell last won the day on October 6 2005

Snoozedell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Snoozedell

  • Rank
    All Wiped Out
  • Birthday 05/28/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Name
    Tyler Truesdell
  • School
  • Location
  1. Snoozedell

    CFL Nationals

    Tongie will be staying in the Hilton and traveling via the train. Good luck to all.
  2. Tongie sells pie. Tastier than jewelry, not as sticky as donuts, less sugar than candy, not from a corporation so not supporting corporate America—ya just can't go wrong with pie.
  3. I feel as if negative sentiment from wipeout comes from poorly constructed wipeout files. Yes, the Church of Euthanasia and the GAIA foundation are piss poor places to find evidence. However, wipeout is not at all limited to these sites. I have learned more in my researching of wipeout than I have with any other argument. Most of my evidence has come from professors with PhD who are respected in their field. Likewise, I think that wipeout does generate intelligent discussion. No, I don't believe there are "grays" out there harvesting our blood. No, I don't believe that aliens constructed the great pyramids. No, I don't believe Stonehenge is a time machine. I do however believe that current scientific evidence indicates there are other forms of life, if not intelligent life, somewhere in the great expanses of the universe. I do not discount the ability for human experimentation into science to possibly disrupt the stability of the universe. I do believe that insofar as we have morals the extend to humans, those morals should extend to all life. So yes, wipeout can foster poor research skills--but then again, every argument has that potential. It generates non-responsiveness because people deem it dumb on face value and believe they can win with dumb responses to a dumb argument. This isn’t the end all be all of wipeout debates though. I would wager to say I have more clashing arguments answering wipeout than any other argument in my box. And they are not crackpot spouting unwarranted arguments. Perhaps wipeout is an example of how debate has lost touch with reality. But I do not believe wipeout is unique in this. Most contemporary debates have lost touch with reality. I would contend that most people think a nuclear war culminating in extinction of the globe is far-fetched. And since wipeout is just a check on extinction impacts, perhaps it just an out of touch response to out of touch impacts. As for people who work to just become spark and wipeout debater. Any one dimensional debater is not a good one. People who are Zizek or XO politix debaters are just as guilty of not doing research justice as any spark or wipeout debater. I will say that I recant my previous derogatory comments towards you. Perhaps you have put though into wipeout. I hope, however, that your opinion has not been based off of wipeout files that are based around the GAIA foundation.
  4. I said kind of people--The kind of people who simply disregard an argument because they deem it dumb. He apparently hasn't disregarded it. I am just saying most of the people who say wipeout is dumb don't know what they are talking about and that wipeout is no dumber than spark, politics, or any other debate argument. And besides, who wouldn't enjoy beating a TOC champion?
  5. He can beat me--fantastic. That still doesn't prove him right or wipeout dummer than any other debate argument. It just proves he's a good debater.
  6. Is the end of time inevitable? Because insofar as it is, then there isn't an infinite amount of time for all things to be inevitable.
  7. And I hate closed-minded people like yourself who assume you have a remote concept of an argument but really don't. Why do you assume wipeout is a dumb argument? I imagine because you aren’t familiar with it. You’re my favorite kind of person to wipeout because you are the easiest to beat on it. Calling an argument dumb doesn’t make it go away. I imagine you are one of those people that assume politix and XO or Agamben is zenith of intelligent debate.
  8. Sounds like you should stop beating around the bush and just run wipeout.
  9. What do you think the majority of debate rounds come down to? Advantages vs. disadvantages. People will die (the DA) to save people (the Advantages) or vise-versa. We decide on which saves the most lives. Spark is not unique in death vs death impact calculus. because then you're just opening up a can of worms about how logic and rationality are bad...
  10. NAME: Tyler Truesdell SCHOOL: University of Kansas MAJOR: Astronomy/Physics/Philosophy DEBATING: Most Likely
  11. Truesdell/Solt by virtue of my newly acquired time machine. Davis/Smith from Tongie will be stretching the bounds of rationality as well.
  12. Probably one of the best article out there. The ending seals the deal for me. ------------------------------------------------------ Mainland's offer of pandas rejected (AP/chinadaily.com.cn) Updated: 2006-03-31 20:17 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-03/31/content_557515.htm TAIPEI, Taiwan - Taiwan rejected the offer of two pandas from the mainland on Friday in the latest sign of a hardening attitude. Beijing first offered the animals last spring when Taiwanese opposition leader Lien Chan visited mainland. The offer was part of a Beijing's effort to strengthen Taiwanese support for uniting with the mainland. Taiwan's "Council of Agriculture" announced Friday that they were unable to accept the animals because they would not receive proper care on the island as requested by animal protection laws and international agreements. "Under present circumstances, we cannot accept the pandas coming to Taiwan," Forestry Bureau vice chairman Lee Tao-sheng told reporters after final discussions by a panel of experts. Lee said applications to house the pandas from the Taipei City Zoo and the Leofoo Village Theme Park, located in the northern city of Kuanhsi, didn't focus enough on research and education. "The current plans to exhibit and strengthen the teaching of wildlife protection are not concrete enough," Lee said, without elaborating. The pandas earmarked for Taiwan were picked from 11 animals at the Wolong Nature Reserve in southwestern Sichuan province. They were named Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, from the word "tuanyuan" which means "reunion." Taiwan "President" Chen Shui-bian, a strong supporter of a separate identity for the island, is against the offer, fearing the pair of cute animals would stir up pro-unification sentiments inside the island. In a statement on the "presidential" Web site last week, Chen said the pandas would not be happy living in Taiwan and called on Beijing to step up conservation efforts for the animals. A united media survey made within the island last year shows 73 percent of Taiwanese are eager to see a real panda, while another 20 percent do not care. China estimates that 1,590 pandas live in the wild in the country, with another 183 in zoos and breeding centers.
  13. Munford--racism causes a north-south nuclear war... oh wait...
  14. Actually, this may not be a wise move. I think that Spark would win under the utilitarian calculus. They could easily turn all the offense on wipeout by winning the fact that a nuclear war would prevent the technology pointed to by wipeout from being realized. The thesis behind spark is that a nuclear war would prevent future dangerous technologies. Clearly, AI and Nanotech would fall under this category. The main driving force behind AI is military spending and a big facet of nanotech is its military application. Any technology that is even remotely perceived to be deadly will be abandoned—and with all the critics and skeptics of AI, Nanotech, and particle accelerators, I think it would be highly likely that these technologies would be some of the first to go. I also have some cards indicating that a nuclear war will start an anti-science revolution that will lead to cutting funding to university and shutting down private research. This is particularly damaging considering most, if not all, funding and research related to Particle Accelerators (and AI and Nanotech to an extent) comes from universities. Also, evidence indicates that a nuclear war will send us back technologically to the Stone Age. Obviously there will be no sub-atomic research and time traveling if a handful of humans are left hunting and gathering. So either civilization survives a nuclear war and becomes anti-science or it collapses and science ceases to exist as we know it. This is significant because under the consequentialist calculus, Spark is the best because it thwarts universal destruction and allows humans to live. It is the ultimate compromise. As much as I love wipeout, I don’t know if it the wisest answer to Spark. In fact, I almost ran Spark with the impacts of wipeout this year, but never had a chance.
  • Create New...