Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lamp

  1. Lamp

    Happy Holidays!

    just out of curiousity, how did the abbreviation "xmas" start? i'm suprised more religious criticism hasn't been brought up, about why we shouldn't "x" out Christ's name.
  2. GBS completely dicked on this tournament. Congrats guys
  3. ironic you say that, considering he used to be a psychiatrist.
  4. absolute ass whooping of the original argument.
  5. Lamp

    Case Book

    Unfortunately, I will have probably forgotten all about debate by then.
  6. As usual, I was doing some reading I ran into this: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/ I'm interested to see if someone will step up and make the comprehensive argument for Obama?
  7. Lamp

    Case Book

    Neither of us will ever agree with each other because we have fundamentally different views on the importance of presentation and the role that evidence should play in the debate. With that, I will agree to disagree.
  8. Lamp

    Case Book

    Dear tennisguy1313 and Ozmanks, Please stop ruining an intelligible discussion with your asinine remarks/name-calling. Why don't you go hang out in the Miscellaneous forum for a change? Thanks. Sincerely, Danny
  9. Lamp

    Case Book

    Debaters like to use extreme, totalizing, examples to prove their point. You've given the extreme of my argument. Now I can give you the extreme of your argument: Why do we have ANY prep time? We should just give speech after speech after speech! That would force people to think on their feet. Actually, you know what? Why don't we just get rid of evidence all together! That way people have to formulate all of their arguments on their own? Obviously, neither what I just packaged your argument to be nor what you packaged my argument to be are desirable. I agree with Kaut in thinking that 5 minutes of prep is entirely insufficient, but that is a completely different debate for a completely different time. Casebooks allow for debaters to finetune how they think about their arguments, how they want to frame particular points, find evidence to support their points, etc. They allow for more targeted, specific research which in turn provides for a better, more clash-filled debate. That's a great quote. However, casebooks don't prevent lightbulbs from going off in young, brilliant debaters' heads. Quite the opposite. Maybe instead of a lightbulb going off in-round, the light bulb goes off at 3AM when a squad is hunched off their Mountain Dew-ridden desks, with their facecs illuminated by the glow of their addicting laptops. At that moment, one debater after sifting through a teams posted 1AC cites, leans back in his chair and says to the rest of the team, "I've got it." I can tell you I've had plenty of those moments, and they are what made me love debate. Furthermore, I really just don't think that what you are getting at even pans out in the real world like you are saying it will. I can't even count the number of times when I tried to make an analytical and I had it perfectly packaged in my head but I couldn't translate it into words. The result wasn't some coup de grace, or a silver bullet that made my opponent concede. Far from it. Those are the times when on the van ride home from a tournament I rethink the argument a dozen times and finally come up with how I want to execute it next time. Not to mention, I can't even count the number of times that I thought I had some dope analytical and I went for it and after the debate the judge says to me, "That was a good argument, but I really felt you needed evidence for it." Just my thoughts.
  10. Lamp

    Case Book

    Sure, i'll admit that it favors the negative. But the beauty of switch-side debate is that everyone gets to be negative.
  11. Lamp

    Case Book

    Look, if research destroys your aff, then you've got a bad aff. You should research the negative side of an affirmative when you are evaluating whether or not it is a viable argument. So get a better aff, research the negative's positions (which you could find on a casebook), and then maybe win some debates. I also find it ironic that you are being arrogant with kaut.
  12. Lamp

    Case Book

    Same goes for the negative in keeping their strats a secret. If both participate, they cancel each other out. This doesn't provide a stable locus for research. Also, it is inefficient to try to track people down. Once tracked down, those people usually forgot (assuming they are even willing to tell you). Simply asking people doesn't foster the specific research that a casebook does. If you ask, what did the neg run, someone will usually say "Capitalism K" and will have forgotten everything else, or probably didn't even understand the argument. With a casebook, you know what their alternative is, their link story, whether or not they have a text to the alternative, etc etc etc. You tell me what allows for better preparation--should be obvious. Too many in KS have these maudlin, nostalgic sentiments about the "old fashion way." You have to evaluate arguments in the game. Neg says you link, aff says no link. Who is right? What is true? Not only do you have to make truth assessments internally, but I think debate as an educational vehicle allows individuals to formulate opinions about the world based on their research. But this is really beside the point. Thinking on your feet is an inevitable aspect of debate. You have to do it in rebuttals, and you have to adapt your blocks mid-round. "Scripting" debate is also inevitable. You write down your arguments during prep time. Few people just make shit up when they are speaking, and if they do, it is usually cave-man like incoherent babble. Casebooks just allow you to think through your arguments more ahead of time, and then to find evidence to support them. I'm curious as to what tournaments you were judging at. Either teams have been lazy, this topic sucks, or you got unlucky with the teams you had to watch. I have a really hard time believing that no one deviates from camps. On the macro scale, sure, research hasn't been hurt. That's because there are like 3 or 4 high school case lists currently in operation. Unfortunately, that's where the Kansan Luddites abstain. This is just flat out wrong. Last year, Damien CG ran the most untopical aff. It was have the US fund Chinese Medical Teams to go to Africa. Every single debate vs them was about topicality. And let me tell you, they lost very, very few debates on topicality because they read about 30 cards supporting their interpretation. Don't equate bad case with bad team. This was a bad case, but a great team. The fact was that if you had not prepared a case negative to their specific aff you were going to lose. No question. And yes, Damien participated in the high school casebook. 1) Make participation in the casebook mandatory. 2) 10 Years? That's weird because I personally called three people out in my time. Maybe people aren't being called out, because no one knows they are cheating??? Maybe a casebook allows people to know if they are cheating or not?? And thus, we are back to my argument.
  13. Lamp

    Case Book

    Rather than responding to that incredibly long post, and going line by line (which i'm tempted to do because there are some things you say that i really disagree with), I'm going to propose a couple things that i think we can both agree on: 1) teams that don't do research USUALLY lose... regardless of a casebook 2) casebooks allow teams to narrow down research topics, allowing more in-depth/specific research 3) if KS is considering a casebook, they should at least do it right; by that, i mean disclose both affirmative and negative strategies But in the end, i'm not going to put any more time/thought into this discussion because i know that regardless of who i convince or what i prove on this mere website, the fact is that a casebook will never really happen in Kansas. casebooks have no place in a community that values presentation over substance. if i were still debating, or if i still cared like i used to, i would be saddened by that. but i'll let someone else take up the cause.
  14. Lamp

    Case Book

    So you think that a few shotty analyticals are better than a case specific link to a disad with a case specific counterplan that avoids the link?? You and I clearly have a different idea of what "interesting" is then. Creativity is inevitable. You have to be creative to come up with a strategy ahead of time.
  15. Lamp

    Case Book

    I strongly disagree with you. I think that you have a warped understanding of the way that disclosure really works. You are imagining disclosure to just be someone's 1AC online, but in reality, and the way that the college circuit has been doing it, is that BOTH affirmative AND negative strategies are cited. This answers all of your "hands the negative a crutch" arguments because it allows BOTH the negative and the affirmative to research the other side more, which yes, that does improve your 2AC block if you have the exact cards/cites for the negative's off-case arguments. I believe that debate is a search for truth, and that casebooks facilitate greater research. Your argument is that "we should learn to think on our feet" but that type of critical thinking is inevitable because you will run into a team that has heavily researched your aff and has a new, innovative strategy. Therefore, you have to think on your feet. A world without casebooks encourages affirmatives to race to the bottom, writing more and more tenuous, squirrely, unpredictable affirmatives because negatives won't have a case neg. Disclosure weeds out shitty arguments. If your argument is transparent, and people are able to research it, then you better hope that it is airtight. If you notice, the most confident affirmatives don't mind disclosure, because they have already researched the negative's options. Sure, disclosure might allow for some PICS, but shouldn't an affirmative be prepared for a PIC? You wrote the plan text, and if you aren't prepared to defend it then spend your weekends partying or playing world of warcraft not debating. I think that casebooks facilitate MORE research which results in BETTER arguments. Do Parli if you would prefer to rely on analyticals and abandon evidence. More research ALWAYS results in more education too. That should be an axiom in the debate community by now. Lastly, I think casebooks are necessary because they provide an ETHICAL check. IDEALLY, debaters would never cut evidence out of context, cut strawmans, etc. But that's like saying ideally everyone on Wall Street could regulate themselves. Furthermore, there are times when a debater may be reading a piece of evidence out of context and they didn't even know it because they got the evidence from a camp file and someone else cut it. I personally know of a card that had words INSERTED into the middle of it, was distributed via the camp, and was read in hundreds of debates last year. Also, see the thread on Zimmerman 93. Totally out of context. Casebooks prevent bastardization of intellectual capital. You really haven't given any reasons why casebooks are bad. If anything, they are inevitable because everyone on the nat. circuit and in college are using them.
  16. I go to Indiana University in Bloomington and our local congressman is Baron Hill, a blue-dog. I can definitely testify to the fact that Obama is aligning with the Blue Dogs (or maybe the Blue Dogs are aligning with Obama?) based on Baron Hill's campaigning. Baron's campaign is under the banner of "Change" and written on the sidewalks are the three B's: Baron, Barack, and Biden.
  17. Lamp

    Bailout plan

    EVEN if this is true, which it is not, but I won't get into because previous posts pointed out the flaws in your logic, the lack of regulation of credit default swaps tremendously exacerbated the problem. Excessive collateral calls were what brought AIG down.
  18. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist.
  19. Seems to me that a slowdown in the economy makes advanced industrial nations, such as the U.S., less likely to impose anti-warming regulations, such as a carbon tax, because companies are already reeling. There would be zero popular support. Also seems like if no one can access credit, then no one can borrow money to invest in clean tech/renewables/etc. People can't borrow money to buy a new hybrid and get rid of their F350 truck. Just my thoughts.
  20. This is a truly awful occurrence. Unfortunately, I never had the privilege of debating Trevor, but I really wished I did. I can, however, testify to the class he demonstrated out of round and his caring personality which was shortly communicated in my brief interactions. My heart goes out to all those much closer to him. I've had situations like this occur with my close relatives and I can honestly say that suicide--like a lot of other things--makes us all feel the most awkward mixture of feelings. Sadness. Bitterness that bleeds into near hatred. Confusion. Love. Desperation. I'm so sorry for all those undergoing the pain right now. RIP Trevor. You would have been brilliant at the TOC.
  21. i can't imagine why you would want to read the paul card over the layne card that i posted. the layne card indicts all of their impact authors while still using khalizad as an example which means this card still applies when they read ferguson, thayer, etc. plus, wtf does that paul card even mean? he lobbied for the taliban? cool -- how does that negate the importance of us hegemony? that card is fairly powertagged but the thing is, is that the tag is more warranted by the layne evidence than the paul evidence.
  22. this rule basically just reads: no more "champ" judges. it is obvious kansas is hell bent on retrogressing. kshsaa = luddites
  23. ( ) Prefer our evidence – threats are exaggerated to justify hegemony Layne 97 (Christopher, Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing” International Security, Summer, dbm) The security/interdependence nexus results in the exaggeration of threats to American strategic interests because it requires the United States to defend its core interests by intervening in the peripheries. There are three reasons for this. First, as Johnson points out, order-maintenance strategies are biased inherently toward threat exaggeration. Threats to order generate an anxiety “that has at its center the fear of the unknown. It is not just security, but the pattern of order upon which the sense of security depends that is threatened.”4’ Second, because the strategy of preponderance requires U.S. intervention in places that concededly have no intrinsic strategic value, U.S. policymakers are compelled to overstate the dangers to American interests to mobilize domestic support for their policies.42 Third, the tendency to exaggerate threats is tightly linked to theconcern with maintaining U.S. cred strategy of preponderance’s ibility. The diplomatic historian Robert J. McMahon has observed that since 1945 U.S. policymakers consistently have asserted that American credibility is “among the most critical of all foreign policy objectives.” As Khalilzad makes clear, they still are obsessed with the need to preserve America’s reputation for honoring its security commitments: “The credibility of U.S. alliances can be undermined if key allies, such as Germany and Japan, believe that the current. arrangements do not deal adequately with threats to their security. It could also be undermined if, over an extended period, the United States is perceived as lacking the will or capability to lead in protecting their interests.” Credibility is believed to be crucial if the extended deterrence guarantees on which the strategy of preponderance rests are to remain robust. Preponderance’s concern with credibility leads to the belief that U.S. commitments are interdependent. As Thomas C. Schelling has put it: “Few parts of the world are intrinsically worth the risk of serious war by themselves. but defending them or running risks to protect them may preserve one’s commitments to action in other parts of the world at later times.”45 If others perceive that the United States has acted irresolutely in a specific crisis, they will conclude that it will not honor its commitments in future crises. Hence, as happened repeatedly in the Cold War, the United States has taken military action in peripheral areas to demonstrate—both to allies and potential adversaries—that it will uphold its security obligations in core areas.
×
×
  • Create New...