Longhorn4Life929

I also second the hatred of Dillon Kang. That kid is just a straight up faggot. He should quit debate and do more SAT problems.

Thanks alot Burns. That helps alot.

I love how every Burns thread is suggestions about rap. lol. But i need help Burns or any other rap classic listeners. Im starting to listen to Ghostface Killah and Wu-Tang Clan. Are there any songs that i should get from them? Im not sure which songs are good and which ones aren't. Furthermore are there any other rappers that are kinda like Ghostface Killah cuz i just heard only one song from him, We Celebrate, and it was sick, and i've already became an avid fan of Ghostface. Thanks Burns

omg this is so glorious. Yay for Nas. His new album isn't that great but the only song i really like from him is Ether due to his diss on Jay-Z

1. Sure they may not indict modern technology but at the point where NASA uses technology to insure human benefits and don't realize that they are damning the earth, then this mindset is exactly what McWhorter indicts. The pragmatic way of approaching instead of the reluctance of changing one's mindset. 2. Sure i guess i too am guilty for thinking how technology had a possibility of saving the Earth but what if after people realized that the only way to save Earth, i.e. a BRAND new form of natural resources that could cleanse all the dirty shit one earth, is by using a new form of technology? Does that mean we should reject this mindset? is what i was wondering, cuz it doesn't even take into consideration the human assurances. 3. I guess i should explain this. In page 5 of McWhorter's essay, she talks about how the only way to stop destroying the environment is to do nothing in order to reflect our mindset. That seems like the only clear alternative she gives against technological means of saving the environment. She indicts how bad a pragmatic approach is towards the environment. But im saying that is a utopian because by doing nothing, humans allow more bad shit to happen to Earth. There are some things that humans do nowadays that actually help the environment. I guess what im trying to say is that if there is a chance that some form of technology helps the environment, and McWhorter wants us to stop all pragmatic approaches to the environment, then wouldn't the technology that once kept Earth living be stopped and allow further destruction of the environment. Like i said, i don't think McWhorter elaborates what would happen after our mindset has been renewed. And i think thats why its utopian because she doesn't show us the world after the alternative has happened. And i think it just damns the environment more because the things that once helped the environment are no more.

So i decided to write this on my plane trip while i was in Dartmouth. Sorry for gramatical issues but whatev. It's my thoughts. Comment if you like Space Colonization: A Heideggerian Approach One of the most talked about topics in America today is space colonization. Space Colonization interests many because most people in society believe that the Earth will be destroyed thus the finding of a new habitat becomes imminent. N.A.S.A and John F. Kennedy has first initiated this long lasting quest with the exploration of the moon. A rocket of the name Apollo II sparked one of the greatest lies to the American people. Year after year, we hear a team of astronauts attempting to make historical records with new technology that N.A.S.A uses to fulfill their goal of colonization. I Think the greatest flaw in space colonization is the motivation mindset that the modern people have. Sure, Earth may become extinct but the key question is when earth will become destroyed. I think humans have accepted the fate that Earth will become destroyed thus they manage and modernize earth with technology to their own benefits, specifically to find themselves their new homes. Heidegger’s concept of technology being one of the most damning tools of modern time can be applied here. His theory has become more developed specifically by a woman named Ladell McWhorter. In her essay, “Heidegger and The Earth,” she argues that uses of technology only damage the environment because these technologies only become a method of dominating the environment for human’s own self assurance. She specifically indicts the notions of pragmatism for the environment. She condemns discourse of helping Earth in technological means, but I think the notion that humans have in this era is more damning. The first reason is because humans have already accepted the notion that it’s okay for the Earth to be destroyed. The influence behind this is because humans treat technology as a god. This is very apparent. Recently, I heard of a technology of doom that could seal our fate with the Iraq war, called the Reaper. It is a drone plane that can effectively carry as many missiles as the F-16 Raptor but the catch is that even if the plane was to be destroyed, no human deaths would have to be acquired. Specifically on environmental issues, the government is advocating the use of new motion sensored restroom appliances. They say the motion sensored stalls will “help” the environment but the only reason the government incorporated the stalls is for economical benefits. I’ve been researching on this lately and nowhere does the government care to even explain how these new technologies will solve environmental problems. In fact I even read some articles talking about how these further destroy the environment because the stalls don’t have a proper waste sewage system. I think Space colonization is the same way. Lately, there have been people advocating the use of solar space technology to colonize space. This ever finding of technology is what destroys the environment quicker. I think the clearest example that applies to this is the movie Transformers. The two species of robots go on a destructive quest to find the ever hailing Cube that could help and save their habitat but at the same time, has the power to destroy. Irregardless of the cube’s power, I think the quest for this is way too dangerous and can be easily applied to colonization of space. So the cube, after decades of battling, ends in Earth. Planet after planet, the Transformers destroyed. I think this is the exact same mindset that humans have. They are so focused on the human benefits of the ultimate technology that they don’t realize the destruction they are causing. So lets say they succeed in moving to another planet. With the same mindset, they will keep destroying the new planets that they move to until that one last planet. Without a refletion of the status quo mindset, they will just bring catastrophic destruction to the environments and humans causing the extinction to end them all. I think the easy way to show this is back to the Transformers analogy. Near the end, the good robots that didn’t want the power of the cube, used the power of the cube against the bad robots, destroying the bad robot and the cube. I think this is very apparent of how this applies. The technology will inevitably destroy the makers of technology and furthermore destroy the environments they have been on. The refusal to modern technology is the only way to stop the catastrophe that will face the humans. I also think that the abandoning of modern technology will further save the planet because with a renewed reflection towards the Environment will have the humans compassionately helping the environment. I think the only flawed argument of McWhorter and Heidegger’s Environmentalism theory is the question of what happens after the renewed mindset. So humans can prove themselves of compassionately helping, but what exactly happens if saving the environment needs the use of modern technology. A guy named Beckman who also advocates Environmentalism concedes this argument. He talks about how a windmill was made but later became a wind powered turbine destroying the birds and other precious environmental gifts. For example, he advocates the use of windmill which is technology itself. I don’t think there is a clear line of what kind of technology the humans can use to save the environment and the technology that can be used for human’s self assurance. And what even happens if there is that special occasion that helps the humans and the environment. Does that mean we should abandon that ideal because we still have the mindset of helping ourselves? I don’t think Heidegger and McWhorter presented a clear picture of what the world would look like after the alternative of reflecting. I think there argument is clear and logical but their utopian mindset of an alternative can possibly further hurt the environment.

Like Davethehistronic says. This is discouraging and good at the same time. If Mr. Richardson really wanted the EPA job, we should all be glad for him but at the same time, i'm sad because Tom was always the one to cheer me on from my first tournament to the last. I remember how i he judged me my first debate round and told me how much talent i had for debate and and my last round he judged me, he told me how much i improved. I hope he occasionaly judges for oklahoma tournaments. Thanks to all your contributions to debate T-Rich

DDW only put out affs first and its Renewable Process Standards Nuclear Energy Hydrogen Cars Airplanes NASA Military