Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Lamp


  1. fuck you. exactly what the "3rd world" needs is teenage americans coming over to visit them in their horrid lives and build them a school or shit like that... the only people who benefit from that bullshit is the kids who get to write their college essays about how much they realized "we are all the same" or some other banality, what they really learn is how good they personally are for "helping" and how superior our nation is to all the mess we have (if not mostly, at least a good chunk) created.

     

    and yes, the groups who promote hate are pricks despite whatever good they might also happen to do. if the klan builds a school or cleans a park that doesn’t in anyway make up for the men they have lynched.

     

     

    this is why plebs shouldnt be introduced to science: a little bit of knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance because with complete ignorance one might at least realizes ones own incompetency where as people who have no idea what they are talking about can now throw around idea they have only the slightest understanding of, like evolution.

     

    evolution by means of natural selection acts on populations not individuals. just because one has a trait which makes it less likely for that individual to reproduce doesnt mean that that trait is selected against. In a extreme example: very very few ants mate, an overwhelming majority are born as sterile workers who support the colony (and thus allow for those who do mate to mate) if all ants were born as queens or mates that population would die because they need the support of the infertile workers. in an example closer to home, naked mole rats live in extremely organized social groups with one female and one to three males mating, the rest of the males do not mate with the female but rather, again, serve other vital functions for the preservation of the group (and thus, the genes which code for their birth).

     

    this is, of course, in no way to suggest that homosexual behavior is like our non-mating, but still extant (and not at all selected "the fuck out"), relatives, but rather to simply point out that just because an individuals propensity to mate or not does not nessicarily indicate positive or negative selection for those genes. additionally, many mammals engage in homosexual behavior though in most cases, not to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior: dogs arent "gay" or "straight", they're horny.

     

    but there is something much more important than all of that: besides your notion of biological science being utterly and completely incorrect, you're assumption that there ought be a "scientific basis" for homosexual behavior for it to be ok is an absurdly violent notion.

     

     

     

    why some guys* like dick and others don’t isn’t really that interesting of a question to me. if you dont understand then maybe its worthwhile for you to peruse it, but the answer is pretty simple: some guys like guys for the same reason some guys like girls, it feels good.

     

    *privileging the male experience, i know, but it is probably appropriate in this instance and saves me one longwinded phase.

     

     

    tldr: suck dick gear.

     

     

    absolute ass whooping of the original argument.


  2. I respect that. I'd like to run a little test though. Look me up in 4 years, after you graduate college, and lets see if you still have the same fundamental views. I'd be willing to bet we agree a lot more in the future than we do now... :)

     

    Unfortunately, I will have probably forgotten all about debate by then.


  3. Okay, if I accept this premise, the best debate has no time limits and probably isn’t presentation based.

     

     

    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.


  4. 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

    • Upvote 1

  5. It seems the general impact that you are striving for is a better debate. The link to the better debate is more time and more research. If I’ve over simplified this, I apologize.

     

    This same argument could be used for increasing prep time from 5 to 8 minutes, correct? It seems Kaut is making this point clear. The more time I have to prepare, the better my arguments and strategy will be, correct?

     

    So, my real question is, if more time for research and preparation is better for debate, why do we limit it at all?

     

    I could be wrong, but given 25 minutes of prep, I could make a much better speech than if I had just 5 or 8 minutes. If you handed me your entire speech, in written form, a month before we were to debate, I can have much more detailed and specific answers, which would make the debate “better”. And, how about if I give the Aff a written copy of my entire 1NC, so they could research and have better 2AC answers? And to make things even better, we could have 2AC’s then give the negative an entire written copy of the entire 2AC, so the block would be even better yet! And during this entire time, we could have open CX to really clarify each and every detail!! Now, that would be some good debate!

     

    Personally, I’ve always been a fan of just showing up and debating whatever you are confronted with. I like when kids work on their skills to think on their feet and be original.

    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.

    I’m reminded something that one of the greatest coaches ever told me in a lecture at UMKC, “I’m not scared when the negative team hears the 1st sentence of my 1AC and pulls out a big folder full of evidence against my case. I’m scared when they hear the 1st sentence of my case, look scared as they realize they have nothing, and then a light bulb shines above their heads and the scurry to put together arguments. Nothing is scarier than a team that thinks during the round.”

     

    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.


  6. I understand fully the benefits for the neg, but I also understand the hesitancy some affs would have to disclose... it's a no win for the aff.

     

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


  7. Exactly and this is what would happen if we did disclose our aff's. Every team would know what we were running and then could have a week to research it and by the time the tournament arrives, you get destroyed on Aff.

     

    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.


  8.  

    1. Affs have a vested strategic interest in keeping their case a secret.

     

    Same goes for the negative in keeping their strats a secret. If both participate, they cancel each other out.

     

    2. Get your intel the old fashion way... ask people.

     

    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."

     

    3. The idea that debate is about a search for truth laughable.\

     

    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.

     

    4. Debate should not be scripted. If you disclose the 1AC and the 1NC before the tournament you might as well just have the debate over email. Thinking on your feet is an important skill in HS debate, too many debaters become frontline dependent.

     

    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.

     

    5. I've judged a bunch of rounds this year and I have yet to see an aff that wasn't put out by one of the major camps. I have yet to even hear of anyone running a case that wasn't put out by a camp. A lack of a case list has not hurt research at all. There are no amazing case specific link cards that would have not been found but for a case list.

     

    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.

     

    6. The idea that a case list would somehow weed out the "bad" squirrely teams with squirrely cases is also silly. A) If a team is bad you should beat them. B) These teams see running small affs as a strat and would not participate in the list or would switch to a new case if their case is disclosed.

     

    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.

     

     

    7. The idea that a case list would weed out cheaters is also silly. Why would a cheater disclose their case? Also, In over 10 years of judging debate I have never seen anyone get called out for cheating in a round.

     

    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.


  9. don't get me wrong--i know, if we frame this discussion as a "debate" with my "case" against yours, yours is currently "winning" because you've got this nifty little interpretation of how disclosure should work. and that moots the argument i'm hinting at in this paragraph. yes, i know. your idea of doing it is a better one. perhaps one that solves enough of the concerns i have with disclosure for me to endorse it someday.

     

     

    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.


  10. i think not disclosing case makes the debate more interesting the negative team does not have a set strat to run they have to tihnk on there feat and use creative ways to prove the aff wrong

     

    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.


  11. for example, it will usually benefit the negative side to have disclosure and rarely the affirmative (exceptions exist, but they are few and far between). so why then would an affirmative disclose? so the judge can hear that PIC debate?

     

    as always, defenses of disclosure assume several things that shouldn't be dismissed. WHY does it make for "far better" debates? as a former debater in kansas, working with five minute prep time and never looking at a caselist for a tournament he attended in his entire life, i can assure you that you can do every single thing you just mentioned in prep time. essentially, pressing disclosure as a "good" strategy hands the negative a crutch upon which they can lean on should they fear a particular team or have a particularly long break before a round. why is giving the negative this crutch good? does it really force better 2ac block writing? hell no. you should know as well as everyone that correlation does not imply causation. teams that disclose routinely are teams on the national circuit, meaning their 2ac blocks are generally pretty damn good anyway. forcing this disclosure upon everyone doesn't improve the 2ac blocks at all. hearing new arguments might, but that's not a direct effect of disclosure. does it allow negatives more strategic options? NO. it merely allows negatives to have MORE TIME to find those options. so why do negatives need more time? i ask because this is all disclosure does. it's unnecessary. learn to debate in the round. when someone hands you eight minutes of prep or a caselist down the road in your career, any advantage they have in out-assistant-coach-card-cutting you or whatever other advantage those ridiculous schools have will be completely nullified by your ability to think on your feet and make the arguments in a 1nc you would make if you had a caselist and a half hour to prepare.

     

    this all, of course, is without me going into why this idea is even worse in practice than in theory. which i believe is just completely crystal clear. especially in kansas. but if anybody has a solution i would love to hear it.

     

     

    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.


  12. And you fundamentally misunderstand my argument. The fact is, it isnt deregulation that caused this mess. It was the over regulation of the market. By telling banks that they had to fill a quota for minorities, the federal government overstepped its bounds by promoting these absurd loans.

     

    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.


  13. Of course no one would here would publish something good about McCain:

     

     

     

    I was listening to the audio of it this morning and it was rather good. McCain was talkinig about Obama being an excellent person and how he respects him then there are boo's from the crowd and McCain said something to the effect of "Obama would make a great president...but if i didn't think i wouldn't make a better president i wouldn't be running"

     

    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.


  14.  

    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.


  15. 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.


  16. 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.


  17. ( ) 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.


  18.  

    september

    19-20 - washburn rural

    26-27 - derby

     

    october

    3-4 - olathe east

    3-4 - olathe northwest

    3-4 - seaman

    10-11 - manhattan

    10-11 - olathe north

    10-11 - wichita east

    17-18 - blue valley

    24-25 - blue valley north

     

    november

    7-8 - shawnee heights

    14-15 - shawnee mission west

    14-15 - newton

    21-22 - st. thomas aquinas

    21-22 - winfield

     

    december

    5-6 - lawrence

    12-13 - west kansas nfl @ newton

    12-13 - salina diocese cfl @ marysville

    19-20 - state 4-speaker qualifier

     

    january

    9-10 - debate coaches invitational

    23-24 - state championships

     

     

    does anyone know when the ever so prestigious shawnee mission east tournament will be?


  19. there are three kagans that talk about US international power and are read in debate rounds. donald, fred, and robert.

     

    i hope the rest of your file is better researched :)

     

    you're overly presumptuous. robert kagan's book is widely read in hegemony debates. the historical indicts are criticizing one of his books. however, i cut quite a few cards indicting fred. and none about donald because no one reads donald. for the sake of concision, i used an overly generic phrase--"The Kagans." you can go back to beating off to how smart you think you are. :)

×
×
  • Create New...