Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Good

About cryptic

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. The aff usurps the role of saviour and uses fiat asa form of pastoral power so the state can provide care for the soul. When the aff imagines themselves as the virtuous saviours of millions of poor people in the game milieu of debate they create a virtual landscape for intellectual masterbation. They take pleasure in creating imaginary solutions to the real pain of others. Neg offers real prayer as far more meaningful intervention into the problems of physical and spiritual poverty. That approach can be combined with actual religious work. Salvation offered by the aff is an illusion - a false idol. Aff assumes the role of theological sovereign - a false messiah. Neg offers prayer and work in religious movements as an alternative.
  2. If you read the comments there is a discussion of lying with this answer to the Joker's fabrications: Interesting to consider. You see Batman as leninist communist? I was thinking Batman/Wayne is a billionaire - a proper representation of postmodern capitalism. You might also enjoy reading/responding to this alternate take on Zizek as Joker: http://notesforthecomingcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/08/joker.html
  3. From http://itself.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/theses-on-the-dark-knight/
  4. One additional k that will probably see at least some play: christ/spiritual poverty k Some variation on the arg that physical poverty is distinct from spiritual poverty. Better to be phyically poor and spiritually wealthy: Richard Reese, "Rich and Poor in the New Testament", World Mission Associates, www.wmausa.org
  5. Some uses of pen names are different than others. Every use of a pen name is a deception. Some are more justified than others. If an author needs anonymity for a debate related publication perhaps the better standard would be that they write under the pen name 'anonymous' rather than inventing and positing a fictitious personality. What concerns me is that Mr. Skarb (1) created an identity that precluded the usual checks within debate for source quals/bias and (2) lied when confronted in emails about his identity. I will defend that every participant in debate has the right to publish work. That does not include the right to deliberately deceive when emailed by others about one's work. Communities have different standards for what is acceptable and not acceptable. While it may be acceptable in some fields to use a pseudonym, other fields may require more transparency. I agree with lazzarone that this event exposes some serious cracks in how evidence is circulated and deployed in debates. Where I suspect we might part company is an evaluation of whether lying/misrepresenting in literature is analogous to the same behavior in the debate community. Opening the debate lab to allow more written compositions from participants is a good thing. Allowing deliberate deception to go unchallenged seems rather troubling. I think thescu had some really interesting suggestions for debate related writing. I am not sure I'd support an embargo on a debate peron's work for a year, but I do support his recommendation that all debate work produced by active members of the debate community should include actual author info (or should use the pen name 'anonymous') so that debaters can readily identify any real or perceived bias.
  6. perhaps pressure will mount and they will reverse - those with time to pen a letter or email could help out and if several hundred got involved it might be a big support to the appeal. Brian Diaz - president of the Liberty Dems is on Rachel Maddow - Maybe he'll also get on Colbert or the daily show. He's working on the appeal and there is an online petition but I didn't catch the link.
  7. from todays wash post - liberty u. dems are appealing the decision.
  8. Why is it problematic for debaters or coaches to write real arguments during the season for consideration in the real world? Perhaps the metaphor of debate as a game has eclipsed any sense of debate as a space of invention where people are transformed by the force of the stronger argument. It really is a bit tragic that a participant in the debate community might be asked to limit their written public contributions to a dialogue about the collective good to preserve the purity of the debate game board. Students and coaches should use their knowledge to write. Writing is a form of activism. Writing is a skill set needed to go on to grad school or law school. Asking coaches and students to be silent on public issues they have unique knowledge about robs them of the chance to make a difference. To do so suggests we care more about the game than we do about the issues. Mitchell's examples of debate related activism are being missed altogether. Teams can use the knowledge productively and we can have a debate community that informs arguments in the public sphere. The problem with Skarb is that he engaged in systematically distorted communication. He lied and deliberately misled those who emailed him. To suggest his actions are a reason to discourage writing and publishing is to miss a chance for learning and activism. That approach makes debate a sporting game divorced from any possibility for use in real meaningful public dialogues. Evidence is too often treated as a fetish - judges are unwilling to police evidence qualifications consistently in debate rounds. The result is that we have educators who are actually arguing that debate coaches and students should not publish work that interrupts a game. I am all for opposing lying. Telling students and coaches to be publicly silent during the season is a travesty. I think a better answer is to invite every student and coach to publish/blog post their arguments and analysis.
  9. kind of weird to be impersonating someone when the very charges against that person stem from misrepresentation of identity. Will the individual responsible be apologizing?
  10. did skarb modify his judging philosophy on the wiki Monday to include this: Publishing articles specifically tailored for my team to use at the TOC under a pseudonym: This is illegit? Why didn't anyone tell me? whats up with this?
  11. I have read this thread with increasing interest. There seems to be an emerging consensus that the damien kids should not be blamed. Especially since they were not complicit in the alleged unethical behavior. It would be interesting to get more information about what the other damien coaches knew and why they decided the matter was internal given the possibility that other programs might use the evidence or be influenced tactically by it. I do think there needs to be caution in unproven accusations against an individual who has not been afforded due process. Certainly this situation highlights a need for a more formal dispute resolution mechanism for high school programs and no one should rush to judgment until all sides have a chance to explain. That noted, if after due process there is reason to believe that a coach deliberately created evidence that included inappropriate and misleading authorship attributions then I am curious to hear why the entire program should not be placed on probation. College athletics follows this model. If a coach violates NCAA policy their entire program suffers and that serves as a relatively powerful deterrent to rules violations. Is this college model wrong? Should college athletes bear no responsibility if their coaches cheat? Or is this a poor analogy? I am not sure I have an answer and I am oscillating back and forth between the idea that a team is more than a group of individuals and the point that people should not be blamed for crap they had nothing to do with. I'd like to hear some explanations for why the idea of probation is appropriate or inappropriate if allegations of cheating are proven. The other thought I had relates to what other teams did when they discovered this evidence. Did any teams switch their strategy prior to the toc because they felt this evidence was potentially too devastating? The "no harm" claim that damien did not run this evidence really should be considered in light of what the effect was on others. Was there any effect on the decisions of other programs? Is there an actual team that was impacted in terms of strategic choices or in terms of an actual debate or is this all hypothetical abuse?
  • Create New...