Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by time_stops

  1. This is good advice, its to bad people on here won't take it seriously. Then again i guess it is cross-x.
  2. Depleted Uranium is a War Crime - Anti-Flag
  3. time_stops

    Dude, No

    at least one good thing came out of Kansas... EDIT: haha someone gave me neg rep for this. So dude, im from Kansas and can testify to how shitty of a state it is. Avoid it at all cost's.
  4. The, i believe, 3 year oration champion in Kansas was deaf and used an interprator. (someone correct me if im wrong on the number of years).
  5. No offense but i think you missed my point. You can't tell me that a football coach or a football league would be okay with letting a child who is in a wheel chair play football and tell all the other competitors to not tackle him. There are reasons, 2 of which are safety and fairness, that would keep these students from participating. Its similar to the reasons why kids without a disability aren't allowed to participate in activities for kids with disabalities. You wouldn't allow for a perfectly healthy (i.e. no disabilities) to participate in the special olympics and you would allow a student who could see take part in a blind baseball league (which does exist). Sure, kids do play sports with prosthetics. Kids with speech problems also partake in these activities. But what im saying is that when a disability doesn't permit them to participate in the fundamental aspects of what the competition is over (i.e. speech) then its impossible to evaluate them on the activity simply because they didn't do what it asks for. For the same reason why we don't provide a student in a wheel chair the immunity from being tackled or a car in a marathon, we shouldn't allow external help (i.e. someone reading a speech) in an activity thats main competitive aspect is speaking. Obviously someone who is good at reading the speech is going to be chosen to be the interprator. Whether professional or not, its still not the student giving a speech, its an aspect that they don't have to practice on that every other student does. For the same reasons i can't (and should be able to) participate in the special olympics (i.e. it would give me an advantage competitively) are the same reasons that we shouldn't allow for external help (i.e. an advantage over competition via someone else reading the speech) in a speaking activity. Once again, please don't take this as an attack upon the disabled. If anything i think that they should be given a fair shot at anything and everything. But i also have to take a look at how it affects others in the community who work hard to be able to compete and fulfill its requirments. I think JustACoach kinda took my last post as offensive and i apologize if he or anyone else did. But im just trying to view this issue from both perspectives. This is obviously a big issue that is worthy of debate (which is what this site is for) in order to find the best possible solution. So if there is something wrong with what im saying up here, make a constructive argument against it. But don't take it as an assault on people with disabilities and don't get all defensive about it. Just try and help myself (and others) to better understand the issues. Thanks.
  6. Here are 9 cards that i cut against the Stop-Loss case for our team that went to CFL. Thought i would share them with everyone here that is going to NFL. Good luck and i hope these help. Fuck i realized that the copy and paste feature didn't carry over the underlining and i don't have time to underline them. Sorry for the inconvenience but i guess it still takes a little bit of the work off of your shoulders Stop-Loss orders are grounded in the idea to keep solid units in order to assure the best forces stay on the battlefield. Squitieri, 2006 [Tom, Political Analyst for USA Today, “Army Expands Stop-Loss Order to Keep Soldiers From Leaving”, 2006, accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm] Although the orders cover all the approximately 160,000 returning troops, the Army said it estimates only about 7,000 of the returnees will have their time in the service involuntarily extended. Most deployed soldiers are not affected because they have service obligations that extend beyond their current deployments, Army Col. Elton Manske, chief of the Army's Enlisted Division, said Monday. "This decision is really being driven by the readiness of units and the absolute intent to keep the units themselves intact down to as low as the squad and crew level, so we are assured of putting the best fighting force on the battlefield," Manske said. Getting rid of Stop-Loss orders would create dysfunctional units resulting in a situation much like what we faced in Vietnam. Brooks, 2004 [Anthony, Political Analyst for NPR, June 2004, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1P1:97305762&num=4&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=&FreePremium=BOTH] The Army says it's changing the so-called stop-loss program. It means that thousands of soldiers who were expecting to leave the Army in the coming months won't be able to if their units are 90 days away or less from deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Franklin Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said today the Army wants cohesive, trained units going to war together rather than units of new or recently transferred soldiers. Lieutenant Colonel Franklin Childress is a spokesman for General Hagenbeck. Lieutenant Colonel FRANKLIN CHILDRESS (Spokesman): If we have a unit in theater that has a number of soldiers leaving and new soldiers coming in, it makes for a dysfunctional system. We had that system in Vietnam, and a lot of times we found that soldiers coming in were in great danger when they first got there or right before they left. Stop-Loss orders haven’t hurt retention rates of already enlisted soldiers or recruitment rates of new soldiers. Hess, 2004 [Angela, Pentagon Correspondent, “Army Extends Stop-Loss Order”. 2004, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1P1:95143078&num=5&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=&FreePremium=BOTH] "To ensure our formations remain a cohesive element throughout their deployment, it is necessary to stop personnel losses from the deploying units until after they return to their permanent duty stations," the Army stated. The Army last used its stop-loss powers in 1990 and 1991 for the Persian Gulf War. Hagenbeck said the stop-loss order has not had a negative effect on reenlistment. "Retention is just a little higher among those who have gone to (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and (Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan). They have been retained at a higher rate than those who haven't gone to the fight," Hagenbeck said. "The intangibles tell us by and large the Army captains ... are extraordinarily satisfied with what they've been doing, they are doing something larger than themselves. Will they do that if they are staying in Iraq with the U.S. Army an indefinite period of time? I don't know," he said. He noted that repeated deployments might affect retention and satisfaction. During the Vietnam War, senior enlisted non-commissioned officers left the Army after their second and third tours of duty, he said. Several units, including Hagenbeck's former command at the 10th Mountain Division, have already put in three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. One soldier complained about that situation in an opinion article in the New York Times Wednesday, calling the repeated deployments a breech of trust. "I don't regard that as a breech of trust, I regard that as being a U.S. soldier," he said. Overall retention rates are good, Hagenbeck said - a function both of the soldiers enthusiasm for the mission as well as the state of the economy and private sector jobs. The economy "influences them greatly," Hagenbeck admitted. The National Guard has a 129 percent retention rate compared to its annual goal. The Army Reserve is meeting its goal. The active force is retaining soldiers at 98 percent of its goal, according to Hagenbeck. Recruiting new soldiers is also going well: more than 100 percent of goals in the active force, 96 percent of goals in the Army Reserve and 90 percent in the National Guard. The Guard and Reserve numbers are lower, Hagenbeck said, because they traditionally rely on some number of retiring active duty soldiers to sign up for reserve duty. Fewer soldiers are available to retire because of the stop-loss order, Hagenbeck said. Provisions in contracts and past court decisions uphold the use of stop-loss policy. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] The simple expression of terms in Section B of Form 4/1, however, does not conclude the bargain between the enlistee and the government. Section C of Form 4/1 contains several provisions that speak directly to the extension of the term of service. There are five such provisions. First, Form 4/1 provides that "n the event of war" the term of service for all enlistees and reenlistees "continues until six (6) months after the war ends." (77) Second, members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces may have their terms of service extended during "a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress ... without ... consent" for up to six months after the period of war or emergency ends. (78) Third, ready reservists may be ordered to serve as many as twenty-four months of active duty during a "national emergency declared by the President" and their "enlistment may be extended so [they] can complete 24 months of active duty." (79) Fourth, ready reservists who fail in their last year of service to perform "required training duty satisfactorily" may be held to extended enlistment of up to six months in order to complete their training. (80) Last, members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard serving on "naval vessel in foreign waters ... may be retained on active duty until the vessel return[] to the United States" so long as the extension of enlistment is "essential to the public interest. (81) Such persons are to be discharged within thirty days of their return to the United States. (82) The standard enlistment contract provides that terms of service may be extended in times of war until six months after the war ends. (83) Presumably, then, the war in Iraq would justify extension until six months after the war ends. One might argue that because President Bush called an end to hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 2003, (84) stop-loss was proper only through November 2003. Yet, the practical reality is that the war continues for as long as hostilities persist (85) and the U.S. military presence in Iraq is undiminished, (86) This reality seems to have influenced the result in Qualls v. Rumsfeld. (87) In Qualls, Judge Lamberth rejected a contention that stop-loss breached Qualls's enlistment contract on the grounds that the United States was at war with Iraq. (88) Judge Lamberth authored that opinion on February 7, 2005, nearly two years after Bush formally declared an end to hostilities in Iraq. In the current State of Emergency stop-loss orders are justified by enlistment contracts. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] The standard enlistment contract also authorizes the involuntary extension of reservists for up to six months after the termination of a national emergency declared by Congress and of ready reservists for up to twenty-four months of active duty in times of national emergency declared by the President. (89) The national emergency declared by President Bush on September 14, 2001, has been consistently renewed and is currently in effect until September 8, 2006. (90) Seemingly, this national emergency would justify stop-loss as applied to some members of the National Guard and Ready Reserve within the letter of the enlistment contract. Although one might question whether a national emergency still exists in fact, it is extremely unlikely that a court would invalidate a presidential determination of national emergency. (91) The indefinite nature of a national emergency predicated on the threat of terrorist attacks might pose some more difficult constitutional questions, but these are better addressed in discussions of due process. (92) The Enlistment Contract that a soldier agrees to is not invalidated by breach of Contract on the part of the United States Federal Government making Stop-Loss orders justified. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] The Supreme Court elucidated the feature of enlistment contracts that distinguishes them from other types of contracts in In re Grimley: (94) "Enlistment is a contract; but it is one of those contracts which changes the status...." (95) The enlisting party is transformed via the enlistment contract from citizen to soldier, or rather, his status is altered from that of citizen to that of soldier. (96) The effect of the change in status on the contractual relationship between the parties cannot be understated: "[W]here [status] is changed, no breach of the contract destroys the new status or relieves from the obligations which its existence imposes." (97) The Court was unequivocal in its assertions that the change in status accomplished by--and the obligations imposed by--enlistment contracts are not undone by breach on the part of either party. (98) The theory of enlistment contracts espoused in Grimley persists undiluted today. (99) Enlistment contracts are, therefore, distinguished from other types of contracts on the grounds that enlistment contracts are status contracts. The language of Form 4/1 endorses the notion that enlistment contracts are distinct from other contracts, as it states that "enlistment is more than an employment agreement." (100) Furthermore, Grimley provides that a breach of contract does not invalidate enlistment contracts and the obligations they impose. This is not to say that a court could not intervene and invalidate a status contract, (101) but breach alone will not suffice to void such a contract. Instead, some other invalidating factor (102) would have to be adduced in order to void an enlistment contract. (103) In general, the theory of Grimley will prevent a soldier from escaping his obligations on the grounds that the government has breached the enlistment contract. Provisions in the enlistment contract have the soldier agree that laws affecting his/her status are subject to change without notification. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] An additional clause of Section C of Form 4/1 deserves consideration, as it might operate to make moot all previous discussions of breach of contract. This clause states: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to [the enlistee]. Such changes may affect [the enlistee's] status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/ reenlistment document." (104) By its language, the clause seems to give the government carte blanche to modify the terms of enlistment contracts via a change in laws of the United States. A colorable argument could be made that the term of service is not within the ambit of the change-in-law clause because term of service is not explicitly listed among those items subject to change (status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities). This argument seems stronger when one considers that extension of the term of service is given express attention in five other provisions of Form 4/1. (105) Nonetheless, the change-in-law clause suggests that the enlistment relationship is ultimately governed not by the terms of enlistment contracts, but rather by the laws of the United States. Contract violations don’t invalidate stop-loss policy. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] When read together, Grimley and Bell stand for the following propositions. First, enlistment contracts are status contracts by which the enlistee is transformed from citizen to soldier. Second, as a consequence, neither the enlistment contract nor the obligations imposed thereby are void by breach of contract. Finally, the law of the United States, in situations in which it has spoken, takes precedence over any specific contractual language in determining the obligations that enlisted soldiers and the United States owe to one another. These principles imply that contract law will not invalidate involuntary extension of service in the form of stop-loss despite the fact that such extension is probably a violation of both the general and specific terms of the standard enlistment contract. It would appear, therefore, that challenges to stop-loss must target the laws on which the policies are based rather than the terms of the enlistment contract. The justification of stop-loss in U.S. law is the next topic of discussion. Stop-Loss orders don’t violate the 13 Amendment, additionally it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule them as a violation of it. Wooten, 2005 [Evan, Attorney, “Banging on the Backdoor Draft: The Constitutional Validity of Stop-Loss in the Military”, December 1st 2005, Accessed May 26, 2006, http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:141908373&num=3&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=1&FreePremium=BOTH] No one would contend this late in the day that conscription violates the Thirteenth Amendment. As has been said before, conscription is undoubtedly a constitutional exercise of governmental authority. (211) This is true despite the fact that conscription poses a "vital interference with the life, liberty and property of the individual." (212) In addition, numerous circuit courts have held that conscription, even in times of peace, does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court has disturbed none of these opinions. (213) Conscription is distinguished from compulsory labor on the theory that the former is viewed as a civic duty that the citizen owes to the state. (214) The Thirteenth Amendment "certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the State, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." (215) As an extension of military service, stop-loss seems to fall within the notion of civic duties. By contrast, the ambit of activities that constitute compulsory labor is relatively narrow. "Modern day examples of involuntary servitude have been limited to labor camps, isolated religious sects, or forced confinement." (216) Stop-loss does not seem analogous to any of these examples. Given the unconditional language with which courts have traditionally upheld conscription and the characterization of military service as a civic duty, it seems unlikely that any court would hold that stop-loss violates the Thirteenth Amendment. This is not to say that the Constitution poses no barrier to the infliction of involuntary extension, but rather that such extension is not prohibited outright by the unconditional language of the Thirteenth Amendment. If stop-loss is to be subject to constitutional limitation, such limitations must derive instead from the Due Process Clause.
  7. Yea, if anyone has the balls to scan this book please post it on here. Its a fucking beast.
  8. Well whats next, should we penalize or vote someone down because they are to dramatic in their performace, what if someone is to persuasive, hell should we critique someone for going slow? Even if you think its "strategic" its still whining because the other team is better at one aspect of debate than you. Its like people who refuse to learn what a critique is because they don't think its "real debate". Just like any other activity debate takes practice, and there are many different aspects of the activity that you have to practice on. People who like to go fast have to practice going slow and being persuasive in the event that someones grandma got bribed into judging. Why should someone be punished because they go fast in front of a judge who is chill with speed debate. It comes back to my example provided above. Do we penalize a huge ass running back who runs for a touchdown every single play simply because he takes his training seriously and works hard reviewing film, etc. The answer is no because we shouldn't penalize someone for having dedication to the skill level that they have achieved. The debates about education can go both ways, you may think that going fast ruins education, but i thinkt hat providing more information at a rapid pace requires you to learn to analyze things quickly and learn to make the best arguments. If your sitting in a job interview you can't leave for 5 minutes to think about an answer, it has to be on the spot. Thus, its education for us to be able to quickly analyze things to make the best arguments and to answer things the most efficient ways. Why would a judge penalize someone for being to persuasive, why should a judge vote someone down beacase their performance was to dramatic? The answer is, we never should, just as we shouldn't penalize a football player for training hard or a track runner for his high endurance level. The same is for spreed reading, we shouldn't penalize someone for practicing so much to obtain a level of competition where they can speek fast and where they can make quick, smart arguments.
  9. What day are you moving? Is it before camp? if not than i know we are bringing a scanner to camp so we can also scan some there in our free time.
  10. This is a fucking stupid argument. OMG S/HE IS READING TO FAST AND I CAN'T KEEP UP. Its not elitist, its skill and practice. You don't play on a varsity football team and expect for a huge ass running back to get a penalty because he dedicated time to lift weights, train, etc. You don't run on a varsity track team and expect someone to get disqualified because they are faster than you. Just like in any other sport/activity you have to practice at debate. If you can't keep up with the speed reading or you can't do it yourself then you have two choices (just like you would in other sports) you can move down to open debate (or to J/V in football or track) or you can practice and become more skilled (or as in football, lift more weights and spend more time reviewing films, or in track work on your endurance etc.). Its a dumb argument and if you have a person judging you in the back that is chill with people reading fast, they probly aren't going to be convinced by your argument because they probly read fast in high school, college, or both.
  11. Im pretty sure it wouldn't hurt.
  12. I believe there was also a student that was deaf who competed in debate a year or so ago in kansas. I guess my question is (Don't interprate this as a verbal assault on the disabled) but in an event that is meant for speaking, how is one to evaluate the "speech" when the student didn't actually say anything? How is a judge able to evaluate his "speech" against others? Is it fair to allow a professional to give the speech on behalf of the student (whereas speaker puts the emotion into the words, etc.)? All-in-all we don't let a disabled student play football and tell all the other kids to not tackle him and we don't let him/her drive a car in a marathon instead of run it. Im all for giving people of lesser abilities opportunities, but i guess i also have to examine how fair it is to the other competitors also. Furthermore i think its fair that you have to evaluate the person on the activity. If its a speech event, and they don't give a speech, how can you actually evalute it as a "speech". Once again im not trying to verbally attack people of disabilities. Maybe someone on here can offer me new insight into this issue?
  13. time_stops


    Fuck yea, props dude.
  14. O yes, and the 2 books that we are scanning are: The Plague of Fantasies - Zizek and Essays in Understanding - Arendt (felix, America doesn't fit on the scanner and fucking with size changes on an OCR document is hard as shit)
  15. Yea, my debate partner and i are in the process of OCRing them so they are a little more user friendly when it comes to cutting cards out of them. The difference between OCR and just a regular scane is that with OCR you can copy and paste the actual text of a document like you would a regular web page when you are cutting cards. Without the text being OCR'd you will have to take a picture of the document (you won't be able to underline, bold, or change the size of the text) and then paste it into another document. Thus, it is worth it if i OCR the shit now instead of make the job of cutting harder. The unfortunate side is that it take a while longer to get them OCR'd and i have to do it outside of work and other activities. So i will get them posted ASAP. Thanks for your patience.
  16. use the search function. you are pretty much garunteed to find info on about any spec argument.
  17. Of course...this is true with almost any debate argument. Not just ptix. But Planet Debate puts out a sufficient file of which you can adequately answer ptix with.
  18. meh, its sufficient for answering ptix. But not so much if you want to run ptix.
  19. time_stops

    watch this

    They protested in a funeral in the town that i live it. I think its hilarious how these people are so persistant on their "cause" while they get absolutely no positive media attention. My question is: If God allows these things to happen, as a sign that homophobia is wrong why doesn't this church have anymore than 100 members (80% being family members). What is even better is that when these protest's are going on, a group of redneck motorcycle enthusiests (the patriot guard as they call themselves) line the street and hold American Flags the people involved in the funeral drive down the street. Gotta love America.
  20. Master is access to everything. It is the top of the pyramid.
  21. We have the master subscription. Its really good, if not for the different cases/negs/cp's/k's blocked out, then its the random peices of evidence from years past that they have stored in their database. Plus they post helpful articles to give you a jumpstart on different case area's and audio lectures about different styles of debate. All-in-all its definately worth it.
  22. Planet Debate put out an affirmative on this.
  23. time_stops

    CFL Nationals

    Holy shit, props to Seth. He most definately deserved it.
  24. time_stops

    CFL Nationals

    Anyone know how Seth did?
  25. They should have the right to express their faith publically just as any other person of any other faith should have to right to publically express their faith. But neither has the right to harass the other whether verbally or violently. I think that most of the publics unwillingness to allow these people to profess a belief in public comes from their own insecurities either with themselves or their faith. Honestly, if you can't respect someone who is different than yourself then you have a little bit of growing up to do and are the grounding to the ideal that people of differences must remain at odds. If society could progress past this ideology and allow for a christian to profess their faith next to a buddhist (or any other combination of religions/beliefs) without anyone having to question the right to do it in public or be offended by it, we will then have taken the first giant step towards a chance at world peace.
  • Create New...