Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nomaz last won the day on December 22 2008

Nomaz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 Good

About Nomaz

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/12/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  • Location
    Springfield, MO
  1. Hello debate community, this question pertains to the political science community within the United States (I promise not to group all political-science under one common banter), but quite frankly I'm desperate for a community of discourse outside that of the folks pursuing majors in PoliSci from my school, as wonderful as they are. First, if anyone has any links to pre-existing threads that discuss, criticize, etc - the pursuit of poli-sci degrees in North America I would appreciate your kind contributions. Now then, I'll give a little background. I am a sophomore at what could be called a "moderate" liberal arts school in the United States (Aka, it is composed of a Capitalism depart--I mean, economics department, a political science program that gives an overview of the revisionist vs. positivist debate and then haves you write a positivist senior thesis, etc) and am wondering to what extent I should be concerned about indoctrination. I was also hoping that you fine folks could shed some light on some of the issues that I've been having because I understand the complexity and sheer magnitude of disagreement and literature that exists over what I'm discussing. I'll clarify. After spending three years in the American debate community espousing the wisdoms of Zizek and Mearsheimer as strategically as possible for the sake of winning (My partner and I were a pretty consistent 5 or 6 off team because I was balls fast and stupid, and he was a strategic genius), I decided that pursuing a degree in International Relations seemed like a fairly reasonable life choice, and decided to hit up a smaller liberal arts school in the south. The summer between my Senior and Freshman years (I went directly to college), I read some of Noam Chomsky's commentaries on the Vietnam War and was shocked out how divided academia was. Reading his works planted a seed of sorts within my view of political science that would reemerge as I contemplated a lot of what I was digesting and contending with in my education. I never really questioned if what I was learning or not was unethical or conditioned until I read a very recent comparative politics analysis of genocide. I feel like I fully grasp the arguments that positivists have for strict empiricism but something just did not sit well with me. The author spends the first 2 pages of the introduction apologizing for the "standoffish and insensitive nature" of political theory and then launches into a definitional framework of genocide versus politicide. Only 3 historical events are deemed to be genocide while the rest are considered possible politicides. Perhaps what I found most difficult about the work was not the precise definitional context that excluded events as not genocides but that the work (and class for that matter) gave little to no historical context for the events being discussed. Our professor personally gave very little historical background for any of the genocides (I had a fellow classmate state that we had virtually learned nothing from the course) and preferred to examine specific variables in comparison to other intra-genocidal events - such as refugee flows, fatality percentage (notably higher around 70-80% within genocides, and 20-25% within politicides) but I think you folks get the idea. Currently. I am in an upper level history-political economy course over the Iraq War where the professor adamantly praises Wolfowitz, has deemed the Arab Spring to be a direct result of the Iraq Invasion, etc and as spent no time in the course discussing pre-gulf war history. The professor often takes opinion polls within the class (Pro-War, Anti-War, Pro-Unilatarism, Pro-Multilaterism, etc) and notably more students have become pro-Iraq War then there were when the class began. The professor also treats the invasion as a choice between the sanctions regime or invasion, to which I or anyone else is unable to challenge the point because we are limited in our discussion to what is being discussed within the documents read for that specific day. The professor does not call people stupid directly in class and is more or less incredibly sophisticated and tactful, but i still feel incredibly uneasy about his methods. So, do I have a complaint here? Should I just shut up and be happy with the fact that my professors discuss interpretative approaches at all? I'm on the verge of switching majors and taking shelter in early twentieth century history and was hoping that you well thought people could give me some advice. Tl;dr: Give a guy some advice about his political science education and whether or not it's bullshit.
  2. Just some ramblings, not promising anything logical, I'll take historical and neurological approaches. There are multiple examples brought up by anthropologists, sociologists, etc. concerning the development of governmental and coercive infrastructure that may be of use here. We've all heard about the concept of "Medieval Indoctrination" where the church grossed in power to the point of becoming a tool of "thought control" but what about the development of the "justice concept" and how does its origination affect the existence or nonexistence of free will? One hypothesis indicates that the need for survival was the underlying predecessor to thoughts about justice, but from a truly historical perspective what was the point at which the thought entered an individual's head to disregard coercive power in favor of trial, the rule of law, and/or individualized sentencing? I think Machiavellian theory and the fact that human natures dictates that most human beings desire a general survival of the community are two interesting concepts, but ones that don't evidence the existence of pre-determinism. Coercive power in tandem with concern for the community were a powerful combination that existed "pre-justice", and the only logical answer I can see for the development of justice is the "variable-mind" deciding that justice was necessary to promote the survival of all the civilizations... a concept which completely abandoned ideas of community containment and coercive superiority that dominated human thought for thousands of years. Also, on neurology, just because subatomic particle interaction may affect thought process and emotion that would still be an infinitely regressive concept because matter has no non divisible limit (there would always be more variables interacting), and in such a system human decision making would be impossible. Thus, neuron alignment and the ability for humans to self-condition exists and human beings have the ability to overcome environmental conditioning, evidencing free will.
  3. Sometimes pun usage is so good it isn't even possible to critique it, I applaud you in your punctual usage good sir.
  4. Nomaz

    Nebraska 2010-2011

    @ Millard South LOVE the idea for the new AFF, and my prayers and thoughts are with those coping and the lost. -Sincerely the random red headed kid who debated you guys at East last year.
  5. What Blake said... also, I'll be up for this weekend, might make a round of I.E. prelims and should make all of debate. -your favorite community ginger
  6. Nomaz

    Policy basics?

    Ya, pretty much what was said here, I know personally that my partner and I would always read it in a traditional 4 part UQ, Link, I/L, !, in front of flows to keep it simple even if we had the extra baller politics card that covered more than one base... we would typically read 2 card disads in front of flays to cut down on the techy aspect if we could.
  7. China counterplan with a China sphere of influence Disad... oh lordy.
  8. Nomaz


    Fiat - the extent to which the plan is passed/functions in the world of the plan or the counterplan. For instance, if the other team asks, "well how is the plan going to get through congress?" you might say, "Well our interpretation of fiat would be that the plan would be passed on a 100-0 margin". Fiat does not cover plan solvency though... for instance, you couldn't say fiat covers that conflicts would not emerge from troops being withdrawn from South Korea.. etc. Basically, you get to interpret fiat. And AWAY TROLLS, BACK TO THE DEPTHS FROM WHICH YE CAME!
  9. Nomaz


    I would think the most basic of critiques, Capitalism, would cover your bases. You'd read a card that says competition is the basis of a system of a capital and then read the Herod 04' evidence saying that the only way to truly replace capitalism is to reject it in every instance and to practice 'silence' not compliance in the face of it. The performance serves as a means to abandon capitalism. Again, because it's a critique that is mostly read in policy debate you would probably need at least the Zizek and Daily evidence in the round to truly sway a vote (Although I know jack shit about LD and how critiques function in LD). What the evidence indicates is that we have an ethical responsibility to reject capitalism in every instance because of how it comodifies and anomalyzes life. This would seem to only work when your con or pro (I'm not sure which) against competition being best, although I'm sure you could spin cooperation as being 'cooperating with the capitalist elites' which allows them to subject the lower classes and make an endless system of commodifying/anomylzing capitalism. There's currently a card being read on the policy circuit this year that you could rework to this purpose from a writer named Spark in 2003. for evidence I would reference this SDI 09' capatalism packet from here http://www.debatecoaches.org/openevidence/ Again, this is just what I would do if I wanted to read cap bad in an LD round for the first time, for a better opinion on this I would try to get in touch with a college LD debater, or a debater in general with experience on reading the K in an LD round. Best of luck!
  10. Historically, there might be some real short term truth in this statement such as the reelection of Bush in 08' (Though signs of economic woe weren't quite there), and in general the many historical examples of why people 'go back to basics' in times of economic crisis because they want conservative policy which facilitated past economic growth. But in the mid/long-term, regulation and welfare policies absolutely dominate the public reaction as far as the two largest and most historical economic crisis are concerned in the Roosevelt administration of the Great Depression and current policies of the late Bush/Obama administration. With nationalism, such as the rise to power of Hitler in the 1930's, no doubt economic woe was a major factor in his ascendancy and his ability to coerce the people of Germany into fanatical racial violence, but it was long term economic growth that gave him the resources necessary to sustain his power and declare war on virtually the entirety of the international community at the time. And the fact that history supports long-term economic growth, not short term decline, as allowing for big war scenario nationalism is a reason why it'd be difficult to read nationalism as an impact to economic decline, unless you're doing enough impact calc to talk about why economic decline would reverse long-term/facilitate the rise of a radical nationalist country. Sorry for the rant but it seemed like something worth opening a little conversation on. Also, I'm probably getting wayyyy to picky on the impact calc debate, but it's an unfortunate side-effect of my debate career being spent in an impact calc/carbon rich environment. I didn't hit enough fear of politics it seems .
  11. Nomaz

    rand 64?

    Ya, definitely true. She might not of wanted to be labeled as a libertarian but you are what you eat i suppose. Thanks for contributing to this thread Tomak, I was hoping that someone with actual hands on experience would contribute.
  12. Nomaz


    Seems like the only plausible way to read straight up states would be through the national guard, but even that would be blocked by an executive order Obama signed in early January which shifted state jurisdiction over the national guard to the federal government. Add that the United States only has large numbers of national guard troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (to the best of my knowledge), And the CP is only usable in every other other other other round at best. As far as giving states the jurisdiction to withdraw troops internationally... sound badass. Also sounds like 50 states bad theory would not be fun to answer.
  13. Nomaz

    rand 64?

    If I can say anything that will help you understand her... it's that she was strictly writing in a philosophical context and not a political one. Many confuse Rand for being a libertarian, but she in fact clarified her philosophy as being a lifestyle in complete opposition to collectivization and specifically socialism as Blue Jay said. I have never read or hit the Objectivism K and don't really know enough about it to give you a complete answer, but it seems to me like a lot of teams would misinterpret the philosophy, like 99% of teams seem to do with every K. The aff makes individuals more individualist or something along those lines might make things interesting.
  14. If the disad uniqueness is that destroying or regulating crops would cause drug lords to consolidate then the disad is halaciously non-unqiue. But ya, it's definitely just a thought, and there probably would be at least a chance of offense when you're talking about destroying the entirety of the illegal narcotics industry in Afganistan.
  • Create New...