Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About Steez

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 06/16/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    East High
  • Biography
  • Location
  • Interests
    parkour, ch'uan fa, drums, skiing
  • Occupation
  1. cam, where are you going to school? i stuck around at the U for the chemistry program, so i'm somewhat available for research/help/judging. in all honesty, there are people still debating who are better than i am/was, but i might be useful in the capacity of a practice opponent. ultimately, my loyalties will lie with EHS, but i can possibly help out other folks who are close by. email: toomsedwards at hotmail dot com
  2. as a debater who also competes in track and crosscountry, i feel that there is a significant difference between debate and a sport. whether you win or lose in a policy round (usually) has no bearing upon your physical capabilities (spreading doesn't count). this is why i still think that gymnastics, diving, etc are still sports because what the judges are evaluating is physicality. of course, i'm an elitist runner, so i think that the purest sports are those where all you have is yourself and a goal. No passing teammate to blame a fumble on, no judges to get angry at, no equipment malfunctions, just your physical strengths and mental toughness against the clock. until debaters start competing in stair-sprinting-tub-carries, i wont think of it as a sport.
  3. Steez

    Unexpected Affs

    we read psychedelic psychotherapy this year. (tryptamine-containing plants native to africa used by shamans). read a lot of evidence by terence mckenna..
  4. i agree. unless the feminism functions as pha...ie, his case has two internals to solving for an increase in pha. that requires a bit of lifting on the interpretation and standards debate, but it's possible.
  5. thomas szasz has a few things to say about mental illness treatment. and there exists lit on most drugs used by mental health services that indict their effectiveness/safety/etc.
  6. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=980887 this thread has some good discussion on "alternative energy incentives"
  7. i agree with the idea that it's a question of solvency. So long as the "alternative energy incentive" is intended to act like an incentive, it's topical. the efficacy of such an incentive-whether or not it actually results in the use of alternative energy-is a solvency issue. (that is if we're operating under the assumption that the incentives are *for* alternative energy usage. not that "alternative energy" modifies "incentives") The Third, i think that there's still a distinction between coercion and incentive. I'm not quite sure where that line falls, but i think it exists.
  8. uniqueness is that right now there are fewer and fewer engineers and scientists being graduated within the United States. plan can increase the number of people seeking degrees in pure sciences and engineering via funding, guaranteeing continued US dominance in major tech industries. your impact stories go through economic scenarios, possibly war scenarios with china, and tech dominance key to leadership/influence.
  9. just from being exposed to the world of scientific research, the current trend is not at all for US scientists/engineers to go overseas. We're importing scientists/engineers from other nations to work here. there is a real shortage here in the US...new graduates will most likely stay here
  10. i still think that the increase in incentives and work on fusion leading to well-trained physicists/engineers/physical chemists spilling into the U.S. workforce/research infrastructure is a very strong/true story. we're rapidly losing the tech war against nations like india and china...plan is key to maintain supremacy.
  11. except there's one major flaw: those timelines are based upon the assumption that economical fusion can be attained within those estimates. scientific research does *not* always go as planned. but you're right, this is a workable case, with potential latitude in the 2ac
  12. don't know about your first question...but ev probably exists. there are trans/post-humanist groups out there.. but on the second: trans means across or beyond. some contend that posthumanism is a synonym of transhumanism. The idea is that we utilize our intelligence/tech to push the boundaries and limits of what it means to be a human. Transhumanists think that we should embrace the possibilities of interfaces between technology and humanity. just wikipedia transhumanism. of course, don't cut cards, but it gives you a good overview of the philosophy/movement. check out donna haraway. (note: i'm not as in-depth with the lit/ideas as someone like Scu. more experienced debaters/forum-members will likely have better and more detailed advice for cutting a transhumanism aff)
  13. your solvency is problematic: 1. there's no guarantee that we'll uncover workable fusion. 2. fusion reactions have an enormous activation energy...you need fission to trigger it. according to the second law of thermodynamics, fission reactions are a more viable method for producing energy. 3. there is massive resistance to cold fusion research efforts. I work in the very laboratory where two U of U scientists supposedly found cold-fusion. I've heard from people directly involved about the fallout from that fiasco. a nuclear energy aff would be more strategic (aka, fission reactors). or, you should spin the fusion aff a different way: don't claim advantages from actual fusion. claim advantages off of funding/incentive-ing research for fusion. These are science-econ, increase in research/education and related advantages. When you get a host of graduate and post-doc students researching this problem nation-wide, even if they don't achieve economical fusion, the experience they get from working in the project will turn them into good scientists and researchers. The benefits of this will spill over into other industries and research projects.
  14. i think of it like this: either, A. they don't defend the other regions and cannot guarantee solvency because their solvency evidence talks about the *entire act,* not just the act in SSA. (most likely). and dig up evidence on this. the act was designed to fix problems in all of those areas...just using one means that the act wont function properly. or B. they do utilize the act in the other regions and are Extra-T, and they must defend disad scenarios in those other regions.
  15. i agree with msacko. your speech time is better (meaning, more strategically) spent reading well thought-out solvency arguments.
  • Create New...