Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chaos last won the day on October 3 2018

Chaos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2587 Excellent

About Chaos

  • Rank
    Mare Incognitum

Profile Information

  • Location
    everywhere, nowhere, none of the above, all of the above

Recent Profile Visitors

60324 profile views
  1. Post a new thread if and when an Android version comes out, please.
  2. That sounds unlikely depending on what you mean, Canada's immigration system is rigidly merit-based. See here. They have an election coming up next year, but I haven't heard anything about any candidates wanting to change the system. Edit: Article in The Atlantic on the populist push for Canada to deport more people, might have election relevance: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/theres-a-perception-that-canada-is-being-invaded/561032/. The link to the World Values Survey at the end might work for your purposes.
  3. Anyone have any published articles or written theory blocks about this phenomena? It might be more of a problem in LD, not sure. I feel like I've seen blocks on this in framework files in the past, but can't find any at the moment. Relatedly, when I'm writing K blocks I keep having this urge to throw an independent voter claim on every other sub-argument. I'm pretty sure that's abusive and am looking for an argument to help me restrain my cheating urges. How will/do people punish this? It's sort of a no-risk move, sans theory.
  4. Wow, good observation. I kind of feel like people will just ignore this grammatical point and interpret the word substantially as referring to the number of immigrants, though. Winning that grammar matters is hard - grammar is key to the predictability of the interpretation, but having a less predictable interpretation in exchange for a better limited topic seems like a good trade. I've never come across any other convincing arguments as to why grammar matters as a standard.
  5. I actually had that in mind. My motivation was a desire to detect if it's possible judges are voting for arguments from certain camps more often than they should, all other factors considered. Or, relatedly, choosing to inflate speaker points. A firm determination of bias from individual judges is probably beyond the level of confidence the data can offer, but it's hard not to be interested in the possibility. I guess knowing that judge bias exists won't really do anything to curtail it, though, and you're right that such tools could be used to make things worse, so maybe investigating further would be a bad idea. On the other hand, I don't know how much room is left for technical innovations to make polarization worse. At least this way, knowledge about judge biases would be more accessible for everyone, and less reliant on institutional experience. Regardless of whether or not building such tools is a good idea, I hope Hanes will chime in with his thoughts on the technical feasibility of the idea, and push back against any mistakes I might be making. I don't know that MPJ is a major cause of polarization. I get that there are arguments for that position, but feel like polarization would have happened regardless. Polarization is almost the inevitable consequence of 1. People with diverse beliefs thinking that debate has more significance than just a game and 2. Specialization resulting in more competitive arguments than those resulting from cross-pollination across camps.
  6. I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Most of my knowledge of statistics is through feel and very casual self-study, so probably more than half of it's wrong. I was sort of hoping that by asking you an open-ended question, I'd provoke some discussion that would reveal something useful to me. Probably was a little too vague though, earlier. I was thinking about possibly detecting judge biases against certain teams or argument styles. I think, in order to do that, you'd want to have a measurement of team similarity, which you could get by comparing judges' decisions to the predicted decisions, and then observing which teams judges tended to rate better or worse than expected. Call doing better than expected a bonus and doing worse than expected a detriment. If the bonuses and detriments of teams A, B, and C are highly correlated among all judges, then teams A, B, and C are highly similar. You could probably do something similar to develop a measurement of judge similarity. If the bonuses and detriments of judges A, B, and C are highly correlated for various teams, then judges A, B, and C are highly similar. It might be that we can't get access to both a good measure of judge similarity and a good measure of team similarity, though, and that these would confound each other. Not really sure. If this idea worked out, potentially, debaters could look at teams similar in style to them who do better than expected with judges of certain types, as a basis for figuring out how to better adapt. I guess you don't really need the logit score for this, and could just use the season's win-loss record, but incorporating the additional information about speaker points and opponent strength seems useful. Also, I kind of vaguely feel like since judges are not randomly assigned to rounds this might complicate things somehow, making the logit score a better tool than just win/loss records or speaker points for grounding a similarity score in, but I can't articulate why and it could be nonsense. Both in the sense that judges aren't randomly assigned to K vs policy debates due to pref sheets, and in the sense that experienced judges are going to judge more rounds late in the tournament. I feel like I might be reinventing, sloppily, concepts that sports statisticians have already mastered. This looks relevant, but debate doesn't have the kind of granular data sports do, so maybe that research won't be helpful.
  7. I think going to court with Evazon related claims could be a bad idea. It seems unlikely that selling files which give limited access to paywalled articles would be considered to fall under fair use.
  8. If anyone cares, I did the math on this at a tournament a few weeks ago and found it interesting. My naive estimate was that the number of possibilities would be X factorial where X is the number of planks, but that's an overestimate because permutations are sensitive to the ordering of groups. Strictly speaking, we're interested in combinations. It turns out that the number of distinct options available if there's, say, a five plank counterplan corresponds to 5 pick X, where X is every integer from 0 to 5. In other words, you add the number of options for 5 pick 0, 5 pick 1, 5 pick 2, 5 pick 3, 5 pick 4, and 5 pick 5. The equation for Y pick X is (Ignore the second line, it's just an example.) Consequently, if there are five planks, that means there are 1+5+10+10+5+1=32 possible worlds the negative can go for, assuming no other conditional options in the round. For four planks, there are 1+4+6+4+1=16. For three planks, there are 8 worlds. For two planks, 4. It turns out that this corresponds to adding up the different rows of Pascal's triangle, which was pretty unexpected. The conclusion is that 2 plank counterplans where each plank can be kicked probably aren't that abusive, but 3 plank counterplans or more have a lot of potential to be. (Obviously, it's not like the negative's likely to have a strategy that depends on some precise combination of planks, so this doesn't necessarily matter too much, but it's a nice way to illustrate the worst-case potential of the problem involved.)
  9. Anyone got a copy of the K of the Politics DA from like a decade or two ago? I remember seeing in like 2009 a fairly hefty PDF put out by UTNIF or somebody, and the file was already fairly old at that point. There have been some articles recently about how people should just ignore short term political news or not pay attention to Trump's antics and I feel like it might be possible to combine the old arguments with the new into something viable. Given that a high percentage of cards read on the politics DA are from random bloggers, the argument is probably stronger in today's media environment than it was formerly.
  10. Card for reference: Kappeler 95 (Susanne, Associate Professor at Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The politics of personal behavior, Pg.10-11) Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls ‘organized irresponsibility’, upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally, and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers. For we tend to think that we cannot ‘do’ anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of ‘what would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defense?’ Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as ‘virtually no possibilities’: what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN – finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like ‘I want to stop this war’, ‘I want military intervention’, ‘I want to stop this backlash’, or ‘I want a moral revolution. ‘We are this war’, however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in co-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our non-comprehension’: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we ‘are’ the war in our ‘unconscious cruelty towards you’, our tolerance of the ‘fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don’t’- our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the ‘others.’ We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape ‘our feelings, our relationships, our values’ according to the structures and the values of war and violence.
  11. Anyone have access to the full text of Kappeller 95 (preferably in a form I can copy and paste from)? If not, does anyone have the card that says Kappeller concludes affirmative? I'd prefer the original source in its entirety, but will take what I can get.
  12. I agree that everything is ultimately an opportunity cost DA, but I choose to assign the label "fiat" to endorsing one particular opportunity out of all the ones available. I'm just going to stop arguing now, because I feel like we're agreed on as much as we can. Thanks for the responses, it's nice to have an excuse to refresh my understanding of these ideas.
  13. In the least sarcastic way possible, does that mean you think Counterplans don't utilize fiat either?
  14. Sorry, there are really two different debates here. I was not asking about the "mass movement" interpretation. I meant, why use this framing in which judges don't vote for the negative's alternative but instead simply abstain from voting for the affirmative in the presence of assumptions which are worse than the alternative? To me, it comes across as just a really convoluted way of expressing the same exact idea while trying to avoid the word "fiat".
  • Create New...