Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Okay

About Bobmurphy

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  1. I may be stupid and I can't seem to find the actual def. for negative incentive. But, I am trying to get a grasp on this. Wouldn't just a heavy tax on oil be a "negative incentive". It just seems to me (this is all opinion open for discussion) that incentive's are generally seen as an optional choice and therefore I don't understand how a ban can be interpreted as an incentive even if it is a "negative" one. Plenty of discussion would be helpful.
  2. 1.something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity. I know not a great def. its dictionary.com. I know this isn't contextual at all, but I guess I would just say that you're fighting an uphill battle to prove that banning oil is an "incentive" to use AE. I would have to agree with the guy that said negative incentives are going to be a T-battle in themselves. But, if you're going to have a shot at winning T I would stay away from a ban, it's not an incentive as much as it's just a law or regulation.
  3. its a shame that only matt wood replies to this. with his batman avatar...
  4. Bobmurphy

    Save Kansas PFD!

    That's the key flaw with the NFL system. I personally don't consider that a win-win particularly because I got kinda screwed over one year on this. I experienced this when my junior year my partner and I had experienced some success and the other good debater in our program had also been doing well. Well it came down to qualifier and the question was who out of the 3 would be the 2 to go together? Well in the end my partner and the good guy decided that it would be easier for them to just do PFD because they had made it the year before just screwing around. So i was forced to attend the qualifier with someone I had never debated with before. Now we did end up getting into 2 go rounds and narrowly missing qualifying. But the fact is that 2 of the best policy debaters from my school stopped working in policy because they knew PFD would be easier to qualify in, because it required much less work. My school over the past 4 years has gone all season without having PFD team then sent teams to the qualifier and shut it out 2 years in a row and had qualifiers the other 2 years. That shows you just how "valuable" PFD is.
  5. so now im curious to know why the majority of people decide they are going to quit debating without even trying it. I don't know i guess I just don't get dropping something you've done for 4 years when you can do it for 4 more. maybe this is a dumb question..
  6. So I realize that the College Destinations thread already basically covered this but that was also a long time ago, and plans might have changed. I'm just interested in seeing everyones final plans and really just want to know who's debating and where? Personally I'm going to KU.
  7. Bobmurphy

    Save Kansas PFD!

    It seems like everyone has had some really great points on the problem facing kansas with top teams wanting to spend more time on the national circuit. I experienced this my senior year as Cook/Gill attended 0 local tournaments with the exception of the qualifier I believe. This year's TOC tournament in kansas was a great step in helping kansas debate. To me the bottom line is having former highschool debaters maybe now college debaters coming back to judge. It's the lack of good judges that prevents small kansas schools from ever reaching a higher level of debate. Although this new DCI system could help a bit to give the good judges a good idea of where they should go that weekend. It's important that debaters stay involved for years after graduation.
  8. Ok so i finally got a hold of my good friend that witnessed the round. He gave me a bit more detail on the 2ar. He said it was quite obvious that there were new arg. all over the 1ar and that there were a few, not as many in the 2ar. But he concluded with gbn destroyed. We'll see if the judges agreed. Great job to both teams though congrats on just making it there.
  9. well since i didn't actually see the round I guess it is hard for me to even discuss. I was just curious to learn more about the round. I mean the 2ar to an extent is allowed to say new things just to the same extent the 2nr is. I mean not making completely new arguments or producing new evidence to just seal the round. I mean the 2ar has to answer the analysis the 2nr gives the judges of the round and the arguments, what to vote on and yatta yatta. I mean in the 2nr your not typically going for everything so there is going to be new analysis as to why this arg. is the best therefore meaning new analysis, not argument was brought into the round in the 2nr. Meaning the 2ar will have to answer their analysis over the argument. But since I didn't see the round I don't know if anything even resembling this happened. I'm just curious. I dont mean for any of this to seem hostile. Just curious.
  10. Oh i saw that and i believed it was a great post. I considered it the most informing post about the round I had seen yet. It was his very next post where he said someone was part of the NFL's problem just because they offered their very vague opinion.
  11. But to address a different issue. I have seen that some people think there were new arg. in the 2ar and other people say it was just great. I was just wondering ( since i wasn't there) did the 2ar bring new arguments or just some new analysis? just curious.
  12. biopower you were cool before you started talking shit. debate is an event meant to be interpreted however the viewer see's fit. It's your chastisement of opposing opinions that shows your narrow minded and obviously haven't learned much from debate since one of the largest lessons to be learned by it is that there are always two sides to a story and that both could be right. It's about learning to oppose while yet appreciate a different opinion.
  13. he thinks. official results are never available before the awards assembly tonight. although i have heard many opposing views on the subject. Honestly I would say from what I have heard in the past years it is always pretty split opinion of the audience. I think the focus should be that they at least made it there, like many have said, the panel is sometimes full of some big shots that may not know a whole lot about the event.
  14. well predictions? is someone gonna break a new aff for finals? whos gonna take the round? what arguments do you think will play a key role? Is finals even that important considering the panel? just some questions for discussion
  • Create New...