Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lamp

  1. Why did it happen? was it because of the striving for the ascetic ideal, that germans felt guilty about not achieving christian morality or the heights of the ascetic ideal...no, the holocaust happened because germans either a. actually hated jews and didn't mind seeing them put onto trains to Auschwitz OR b. they simply didn't care..and did nothing to stop it.


    I'm sorry to interject and i won't pretend to know anything about Nietzsche but i just came across this and was pretty blown away. While you're probably a pretty smart person, I'm not sure how much you know about A) social psychology and B) the unfolding of the Holocaust. I hope I don't come across like an ass--i'm not trying to be one.


    The first inaccurate statement you make is saying "the germans" were the ones who persecuted the jews. The "germans" as a whole had nothing to do with persecuting the jews. The Nationalist Socialist Party and their followers were responsible. Adolf Hitler himself wasn't even technically "german"--he was born in Austria. Also, wouldn't using the mass noun "germans" include Jews who were german citizens which is ridiculous to assert many Jews "put [people] onto trains to Auschwitz".


    Next, you say that the Holocaust occurred because germans "simply didn't care." Wrong. The people who became caught up in the popular tide of the Nazi party were victims of a social phenomena called deindividuation, which is the loss of personal sense of responsibility in a group. People temporarily lose their sense of identity and feel anonymous. The problem wasn't apathy like you are asserting. Instead it was people feeling like they weren't accountable for the deaths of millions and that it didn't matter if they took part in the atrocity because they were just "one of the crowd."


    Lastly, to answer both your assertions that the "germans just hated jews or didn't care." Allport's Frustration-Aggression Theory offers a pretty coherent and on point explanation for the tactics Hitler used to rally anti-semetic support. It indicates that people frustrated turn anger away from proper, powerful targets towards another, less powerful target that is easier to attack. So instead of isolating the Treaty of Versailles as being a problem, Hitler pointed the finger at the Jews because they are simply, a weaker target that was easier to attack.


    Anyways, those are just my thoughts that I felt were relevant to a discussion revolving primarily around the Holocaust.

  2. run in=throughout saying that Senior Corps is just a name, the program is actually the Foster Grandpartents, RSVP, and Senior Companions. i have the T all written out if you want it, pm me.



    uh what? that makes no sense... senior corps consists of all 3 so if plan text says senior corps they would increase in all 3. it's like a plan text that says "increase in the armed forces" which functionally means increase in all of the branches of the armed forces. in other words, we meet.

  3. you are clearly not just an idiot but an uninformed citizen. it's pretty cowardly of the fact you aren't even willing to own up to your comments by signing your name. sounds like you are just someone who is pissed off they aren't very good and got beat. i can personally attest to the fact okemos, highland park, and egr are all quality teams. highland park has broken at multiple other bid tournaments and already had a bid.. same with egr and okemos having broken at other tournamnets or having winning records at big tournaments.. tom from okemos won the SDI 4week tournament... didnt lose a single round at the SDI


    also, bad judging? put down the crack pipe. we were judged in outrounds by NU debaters, debaters who will be recieving 1st rounds to the NDT this year, great coaches like Bill Batterman who have been judging at big tournaments all year..




    props to nat for not only being an all around nice guy to SME all tournament but also for not unloading on this dufus.

    • Upvote 1

  4. nice KS showing, congrats to all that broke, and to sean/danny, congrats on top seed and top speaker


    oh, and what is this perm: do the alt. in all other instances arg. that i'm hearing about? ;)



    lol it might've been an illegitimate perm.....but no theoretical objection was made so why not?

  5. Here's a couple freebees




    Economic Terrorism Turn: Terrorism causes worldwide economic growth Associated Press, Traverse City Record Eagle, pg. A1


    Post 9/11 period proving profitable

    Aug. 26, 2005



    In the United States, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are seen as the catalyst for a period of fear, war and economic worry. But in the oil rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, Sept. 11 is increasingly viewed as the event that kicked off a galloping economic boom, when Arabs divested from America and reinvested at home. Arab investors pulled tens of billions of dollars out of the United States. They were angered by perceived American hostility toward Arabs. They worried their assets would be frozen by U.S. counter-terror measures. And U.S. markets happened to be plummeting while economies in the Gulf were on the upswing, buoyed by rising oil prices. The results have been spectacular. Since late 2001, economies in the six Gulf cooperation city countries have soared with stock markets up a collective 400 percent. During the same period, the Standard & Poor’s 500 rose 24 percent. Most of the credit for the wealth influx here is because of the near tripling of oil prices since 2001 to a little more than $67 a barrel. “It’s been an exceptional period, the likes of which the region hasn’t seen in 20 years,” said Simon Williams, a middle East analyst with the Economic Intelligence Unit in London. Gulf oil revenues are expected to reach almost $300 billion this year, up from $61 billion in 1998. In Saudi Arabia gross domestic product rose 37 percent between 2001 and last year. In the Emirates GDP jumped almost 50 percent. By contrast, the U.S. economy rose 16 percent during the same period.



    Your freebees are appreciated but do i even need a card to say this is the wrong side of the debate? put the crackpipe down if you think 9/11 did anything but hurt the u.s. economy


    also, i think Shayan makes a point about the definition of terrorism. i've read some stuff about how terrorism is a good political tool to achieve change but these arguments are pretty dumb against a team that is outlining a specific scenario for Al Qaeda or someone unleashing biological or nuclear weapons. whether or not those are "great for revolution!" or not doesn't matter because as per sid-ahmed or steinbruner or ochs or whoever, these acts will precipitate the end of the human race.

  6. It doesn't say U.S. has the technology to deflect it.


    It gives a timeframe of 29 years.


    In fact, the U.N. isn't meeting until 2009 to discuss it.


    Almost every single disadvantage would outweigh on timeframe.



    congrats, arguments aren't flawless, you don't have to be rude to someone trying to help out others.

    • Upvote 1

  7. Literature arguments are never based on the advantages, because unless the aff is completely crazy, the advantages they claim are probably something you already have answers to, or should. Obviously the abuse doesn't stem from not being able to answer the advantages, but not being able to answer solvency. Even if you win 99% chance of the advantages not happening, it probably doesn't matter if you concede solvency.


    that doesn't make much sense. no abuse is done if you are packing impact turns to the aff. i.e. Space mil bad which my previous point is to why this is common/core literature that is still preserved under the affs interpretation. i don't see why not being able to answer solvency is abusive at all when you can impact turn the aff? plus, there is much much more, deeper, and better literature as to why space mil is bad and why ratifying treaties to prohibit them may be a good idea than about acquisition personnel or some mechanism to increase persons serving.



    Besides, there is a ton of literature on why feeding Africa is probably a good idea; but does that mean we should be able to see it coming?


    that analogy doesn't apply. refer back to the Revolution's argument that the air force space commond falls under the armed forces thus it IS something you should've seen coming.

    plus i don't see why neg predictability is that important. "substantially" is in the resolution in order to check the proliferation of tiny affs. also, negatives are always able to fall back on generic arguments to increasing persons or even more relevant, generic args like "space mil bad" or "hege bad". there is usually pre-round disclosure. etc. i think aff flexibility/manuverability within the topic outweighs neg predictability especially on this topic where there is such shallow literature and so few affs that preserving aff ground should come first in order to maintain competitive equity. under your interpretation, there would be no new innovative affs for the rest of the year... if it becomes impossible to win on the aff, then people would just skip their aff rounds, destroys debate yadayadayada.

  8. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't topical.


    Ok, whether or not that matters is contingent upon you winning the T framework debate.


    But i think in the event where your a2: lit checks and you have a strategy is "you're still not topical"!!!! it gives quite a bit of credence to the substance crowd-out argument against competing interpretations.

  9. Which probably don't apply to a case like space force.



    you've got to be kidding. if there is one case that literatures DOES check, it is one that claims advantages off of militarizing/weaponizing space. There thousands and thousands of articles going both ways. www.spacedebate.org

    There isn't nearly as much literature for PICS and plan specific mechanisms as there is for arguments as to why space mil is bad and something like a treaty CP. The literature here is deeper which provides for better ground that you still get.

    • Downvote 1

  10. 3. Not fair to the 2ac because he/she spent all this time arguing D.A.'s and or k's but you didn't go for them because you couldn't go for it. this is a 100% chance waste of his/her speech which damages her ability be a part of the debate



    lol what? you're telling me it's called "abuse" when a 2ac spends a bunch of time of kritiks or DAs that link to an unconditional counterplan? that's not abuse, that's stupidity.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...