Jump to content

smoth as sandpaper

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


smoth as sandpaper last won the day on June 1 2010

smoth as sandpaper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

230 Excellent

About smoth as sandpaper

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/22/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Biography
  • Location
  • Occupation
    poision tester

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  1. As a 2a I despise the consult CP with a fiery passion, so here are some tips to end this scourge on debate. Substance v. consult Signal based advantages--giving another country veto power over US policy on something probably reduces the credibility of US commitment to something. For example if you were reading an advantage about US nonproliferation credibility, giving Japan or NATO a veto over this policy wouldn't do great things for the perception that the US makes nonproliferation a high priority. These make great add-ons against the CP. Modifications--Since countries will actually want to be consulted on this years resolution, you could argue that allowing them to modify the policy will change it in undesirable ways. Japan might not want to maintain a small amount of troops or hijack consultation to demand some other policy like missile defense. (These are just hypothetical examples, I don't know much about the HS rez). Delay--have a very short timeframe advantage and read cards about consultation taking a while, so the CP can't solve one of the advantages. Read a short tf addon if you don't have a fast 1ac advantage. Say no--obvious. Try to find some reason why the country would dislike or even not want to speak on the issue of plan. If the US actually tried to enter into binding consultation with Japan over energy or social service policy, they would be confused and probably say that the framework of genuine consultation created for decisions on the SECURITY ALLIANCE wasn't the right forum for the question. It would also just be stupid. Impact Turn the Net-Benefit--This is most strategic when you can moot the ability of the block to spam impact addons. Ex/ NATO trades off with an active EU, which solves all the reasons NATO is good and is good for an external reason. NATO collapse inevitable, now better than later for Y reason. You must have good defense on the original impact as well (rule #1 of impact turning). Consult DA's--These are based on the process of consultation and giving another country a veto. These are not as good as having quick/signal-based advantages because if the neg kicks the CP there is a definite time tradeoff. However, if you have nothing else going for you, these are a must. - Hegemony: Forget the Carroll evidence, its trash and you will get beat by the better Klinger cards. There are several cards out there supporting the argument that giving other countries a veto over US policy destroys heg. Heg DA cites Goble 93 – Senior Associate @ Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, Paul, “AWOL Abroad: Clinton's Foreign Policy”, Christian Science Monitor, 7/2, ln The end of the cold war is an appropriate time to redefine our national interests. ...a lowest-common-denominator level of international agreement. - Rising expectations: consulting them over some trivial BS just makes our allies more pissed when we don't ask about the important stuff. Related to this would be things arguments such as "consultation undermines the alliance by destroying perception of US leadership" Rising expectations cite The National Journal 2 - Clive Crook, "One Thing That Did Not Change: How the World Sees America,", 9/14, 34.37 Sometimes, admittedly, it is tempting to accommodate ...r reneging on its promises. Alliance link turns/possible heg DA Betts 5 – Professor of political science and Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University, Sr. Fellow @ CFR, Richard, “The Political Support System for American Primacy”, International Affairs, 81.1, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/publication_files/betts/The%20Political%20Support%20System%20for%20American%20Primacy%20-%20Betts.pdf The US government has little reason, moreover,... propose a plan and lead the alliance. - Constitution/SOP: apparently giving another country veto power over US policy isn't cool with the constitution or separation of powers. I'm not sure how good the cards are on this, but its an argument I've heard. - Inter-branch conflict: I haven't seen the cards on this question, but here are some cites from UTD BR's wiki IBC Turn: Consult causes it Newsom 92 The Allies and Arms Control, p. 282 The reluctance of an administration to consult fully with the Congress…cause serious executive-legislative tensions. Causes prolif, AIDS, envtl collapse Jamison 93 “Executive-Legislative Relations After the Cold War,” Wash Quarterly Indeed there are very few domestic issues that do not…dialogue that goes beyond the executive branch (Mann 1990, 28-29). - There are also specific DA's based on the agents being consulted. You'll have to dig through the lit to find these. Consulting Japan could piss off China for example. Finally, you must have defense. One consult won't snowball and improve alt causes to relations, regular answers to relations, etc. The net benefits to consult are weak and should be easy to beat.
  2. Sean Bram debated at El Campo High School for 4 years and debating at Trinity University. Prefer judging policy in San Antonio/Austin areas. sean.bram<AT>gmail.com
  3. "The" PIC is grammatically incorrect http://www.infoukes.com/faq/the_ukraine/ Does English grammar require the definite article the before Ukraine? Ukraine is the name of an independent country. There are only two groups of countries which require the article in English: Those with plural names such as the United States or the Netherlands. The others have names with adjectival or compound forms which require the article, such as the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, or the Ukrainian SSR.
  4. I'll just leave this here.. Thrift 2k – Nigel, Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick and a leading academic in the field of human geography, "Its's the Little Things" Geopolitical Traditions. A Century of Geopolitical Thought: in Atkinson, D., Dodds, K. (eds) Page 383-385 Let us finally come to one more arena: the arena of words. After all, here we might be thought to have the clearest example of representation at work, the word. Yet, what we do not get from critical geopolitics is a clear enough sense of how words function to bring about geopolitical change and it is not possible to do so as long as geopolitical forces continue to be framed as "big" and "commanding" (with all the masculine overtones.) Some of the most potent geopolitical forces are, I suspect, lurking in the 'little' 'details' of people's lives, what is "carried" in the specific variabilities of their activities' (Shotter and Billig 1998: 23), in the context of utterances. And these variabilities have immediate consequences. Thus, As Bakhtin notes, and is confirmed by the work in conversational analysis, 'we sensitively catch the smallest shift in intonation, the slightest interruption of voices in anything of importance to us in another person's practical everyday discourse. All those verbal sideward glances, reservations, loopholes, hints, thrusts do not slip past our ear, are not foreign to our own lips' (Bakhtin 1984: 201). And we in turn show our stance to what they do or say also in fleeting bodily reactions, facial expressions, sounds of approval or disapproval, etc. Indeed, even in the continuously responsive unfolding of non-linguistic activities between ourselves and others - in a dance, a handshake, or even a mere collision on the street - we are actively aware of whether the other's motives are, so to speak, 'in tune' or 'at odds' with ours. And in our sense of their attunement or lack of it, we can sense their attitude to us as intimate or distant, friendly or hostile, deferential or arrogant, and so on. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 23). Thus, very effective work has been done in disciplines like anthropology and discursive psychology (Billig 1995, 1997) which attempts to provide a sense of how national identity and an accompanying geopolitical stance are inscribed through the smallest of details. Thus, for example, national identity is not accomplished in grand displays which incite the citizen to wave the flag in a fit of patriotic fervour. Instead, it goes on in more mundane citations: it is done unobtrusively on the margins of conscious awareness by little words such as 'the' and 'we'. Each day we read or hear phrases such as 'the prime minister', 'the nation', or 'the weather'. The definite article assumes deictically national borders. It points to the homeland: but while we, the readers or listeners, understand the pointing, we do not follow it with our consciousness - it is a 'seen but unnoticed' feature of our everyday discourse. (Shotter and Billig 1998: 20). Such work goes some way towards understanding the deep, often unconscious aggressions which lurk behind so much geopolitical 'reasoning', which through small details build a sense of 'us' as not like 'them', and from which political programmes then flow as infractions are identified and made legible. In these few brief comments, I hoped to have outlined a parallel agenda for critical geopolitics, one still based on discourse, but on discourse understood in a broader way, and one which is less taken in by representation and more attuned to actual practices. In turn, such an agenda leads us away from interpretation of hyperbolic written and drawn rhetorics (which, I suspect, are often read by only a few and taken in by even fewer) towards the (I hesitate to say 'real') work of discourse, the constant hum of practices and their attendant territorializations within whcih geopower ferments and sometimes boils over. I don't really think there is a link. The USFG refers to an actor, its not a way of implying geopolitical grouping like "the nation". Thrift says that through using terms like "the nation" that identify us as part of a group tied to geopolitical boundaries, we subconciously inscribe a national identity. Saying the USFG doesn't imply any membership in a group.
  5. Yeah, but you need word 03, not 08. From there on out just download the template and it should be all self explanatory Paperless debating without macros sounds hard, but not impossible, if you have to have 08.
  6. Well if you always travel on busses, tubs shouldn't be a big deal. Of course, if you can get your organization to front the money for the additional laptops, then paperless is a great idea. If not, just stick to a hybrid tub/printing setup.
  7. I vote aff RFD: Daniel hasn't posted in this thread in 3 weeks, and somehow didn't see the guerrilla communication stuff coming.
  8. You need more than one laptop in order to do paperless. 3 to a team is the minimum.
  9. This is a really bad card. The only qualification Ross has is that he started a group of anti-nuclear New Zealand hippies, and his only warrant for concluding NW -> extinction is a very scientific and complex chart of dots. "Here is a chart with 6,000 dots divided into 100 squares. The one dot in the centre represents all the explosive power of allied bombs dropped in WWII - equal to 3,000,000 tons of TNT or 3 megatons. Millions were killed. We have enough for about 6,000 WWII's. The dots in just one of the 100 squares represent the firepower to kill all life on earth. We have made enough weapons to kill everyone on earth many times over." Reading this card is a waste of breath, and relying on it to answer any "nuke war doesn't cause extinction" card ever written is a default loss ("who bombs Australia?" decimates this card in three words). If you want qualified scientific evidence on this question, check out the recent work done by Alan Robock and Owen Toon, as well as a few articles related to the original TTAPS studies.
  10. What I did is just screw around with automator until I figured out how to do it. Second window from the left should have "find and replace in microsoft word docs" or something like that. Input "^p" for find and " " (single space) for replace. Save it, and it should show up in your word toolbar at the top right. Keep in mind you probably need a blank doc open to transfer the pdf text to first, because I can't get it to work on just the highlighted words instead of the whole document. I tried to upload it, but for some reason I can't. The shortcuts issue was a little annoying at first, but ultimatley it doesn't matter to me because I only plain underline my cards and don't use styles for anything but headings, tags, and basic paragraph formatting. Ultimatley I agree that word 2k3 was much much better, however if you are lazy or have problems with 2k3 running like me, 08 isn't totally unusable.
  11. I run mac office 08 and generally don't have many problems with lack of macro compatibility any longer. For example, you can use apple script to replace the oh so tedious "clear returns" process on a card pasted from a pdf. Besides clear returns, the only macro I ever used changed the un-underlined font to 7pt. This is easily done with a single simple find/replace after you complete the file. I still can't get applescript to do that one... Anything else is easily done with simple shortcut keys. (highlight, headings, etc...) A mouse with a bunch of programmable buttons makes card cutting so easy you can do it with one hand, leaving the other free to scratch your ass or eat delicious treats with. As for OP's template problem, creating one is easy. http://debate.uga.edu/research_guide/howto.pdf Alternatively, I can send you my template if you would like.
  • Create New...