Jump to content

DML

Member
  • Content Count

    1325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by DML

  1. and you thought I didn't like your posts
  2. lol, have fun taking the "high ground" on a debate forum primarily populated by people doing an activity that you don't even do
  3. I MISSED YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. but guys, offense-defense
  5. idk why i can't edit my last post, but it's worth mentioning that there are 57 exclamation points in this file. That is 57 more exclamation points than should be in any file.
  6. DML

    Affirmative Idea

    seems like if "politicians are dithering" then there's your link to politics, jussayin'
  7. for coming up with this idea, the OP is now homo sacer
  8. Nickelback. Their sound is truly unique and genre-blending - no other band listed here has perfected that singular combination of hard rock, post-grunge and contemporary alternative. Seriously, let their success speak for itself - they're one of the most successful Canadian bands of all time. Billboard listed their hit song "How You Remind Me" as the top rock song of the decade, and the 4th best song of the decade. How many bands here can compete with that? Not to mention all of the top 10 singles that they've put out - their album "All the Right Reasons" put out three of them. Style-wise, they are incomparable - Chad Kroeger's vocal talents are unparalleled. No one else can match up to his guttural roar that is always perfectly in tune. Additionally, every single song of theirs is different - it's amazing how much diversity they have from "Photograph" to "Rock Star" to "If Today Was Your Last Day." Seriously, get on Nickelback's level.
  9. Cross-x.com, what is your collective opinion of the UTNIF camp? Do you think it is worth attending, especially in comparison to other camps? Please express your opinions, as I can't find a good evaluation of UTNIF anywhere else on the forum.
  10. Everything I wrote above applies – existential risks make no sense to people in any other situation. Literally the only place that offense-defense makes sense is debate (and it probably still doesn’t make sense) – there is a reason that so many people are opposed to the precautionary principle in every real-world situation. Imagine what would happen if policymakers actually operated based on offense-defense – nothing would get done ever. Congress would be too busy freaking out because passing Jackson-Vanik AND not passing it would both cause extinction. Seriously, not many people can’t refute Schell – here’s a hypothetical that illustrates both how bad that card is and how bad this model of debate is: <2AC reads schell on like a pos peace k or something> 1N: Alright, Schell evidence – any risk of extinction means you vote aff because a fraction of infinity is still infinity, right? 2A: yeeeeee 1N: So I’m gonna start a nuclear war if we lose – sure this is low probability but it is still a fraction of infinity, why shouldn’t the judge vote for me? 2A: uhhhhhhhhhhhhh <neg wins anyways because a 2AC who wastes time reading Schell probably forgot to say floating PIKs bad or something> Also, don’t you do LD or something? How do you know what the norm in college/policy debate is? I assure you, this website is not an accurate indicator. You are mischaracterizing what advanced impact calculus is – winning probability takeouts is advanced impact calculus. Impact calc moves beyond traditional “we have a bigger nuclear war than you!!!!!!!!111†by like sophomore year – successful impact calculus requires taking things like probability and timeframe into account, doing comparisons, etc – it begins at the internal link level, not the impact level. To use the poverty hypothetical again – Bad impact analysis: Neg: poverty outweighs because Gilligan, structural violence=nuclear war which I guess is like your impact right? Aff: uhh we have infinity and Schell and nuclear war causes extinction! Yes, the aff would probably win and that would support your model of debate, but let’s take it a step further (caveat – these scenarios are very wordy but this isn’t a time-pressured 2NR here): Neg: Structural violence outweighs – nuclear war impacts rely on very specifically constructed scenarios which makes it more and more difficult to predict with each added internal link - <to use the example of my aff from this year> they assume first that the PLA is actually an insulated body from the rest of the Chinese government which is factually untrue, THEN that they would be stupid enough to attack our satellites which they should have done within the last 5 years if they were, THEN that the attack would take out enough of our satellites to render us vulnerable to a Chinese first strike, THEN that the Chinese government would authorize a first strike, THEN that that would somehow trigger full-scale nuclear war over Taiwan and would overwhelm the taboo, THEN that that nuclear war would indeed draw other actors in. Our impact is far more likely – poverty and structural violence are occurring every day all across the world – your ballot should take an intellectual stance against it – it likely also turns because a failure to expose this violence allows the government to continue militaristic mindsets that allow for all forms of violence, including war, in the name of promoting our glory. Aff: Yeah, but structural violence doesn’t cause EXTINCTION! Sure there are like 90 things that could go wrong with our scenario, but WHAT IF THEY ALL GO RIGHT? You cannot risk our death – sure there are people who can’t get food or whatever, but fuck ‘em man, they’ll die in a nuclear war too! My rhetoric may seem a little biased but that’s because I honestly can’t find a way to write the aff response using the Schell logic that would be at all persuasive or responsive. Point is, Schell suxxx These things are easy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a bad debater. Your main concern seems to have been making this into a big offense-defense debate, or not, I’m not sure because you are flip-flopping more than Mitt Romney working at a Waffle House
  11. Gonna have to double-post because the original post was too long, lulz. Alright, I'll play your game bro Aren’t we all critics at heart? Besides, this sentence seems to be an excuse to criticize me – arbitrary much? Why do I believe judges are becoming less reliant on offense-defense? Let’s use some actual evidence here – quick search of the phrase “zero risk†on the judge wiki (which is a phrase commonly used in conjunction with a section on offense-defense) reveals that a grand total of one result supports the offense-model, and that’s Cat Duffy, so take that how you will. Every other result on that page has a phrase saying something like “offense-defense is stupid†or “I am willing to assign zero risk to an argumentâ€. I don’t really feel like going through the rest of the pages, but I have a funny feeling that the vast majority (the phrase you chose to use) would seem to prefer a model of debate that rejects offense-defense. check urself b4 u wreck urself bro who needs an alt – owen 97 The ‘universal’ intellectual, on Foucault’s account, is that figure who maintains a commitment to critique as a legislative activity in which the pivotal positing of universal norms (or universal procedures for generating norms) grounds politics in the ‘truth’ of our being (e.g. our ‘real’ interests). The problematic form of this type of intellectual practice is a central concern of Foucault’s critique of humanist politics in so far as humanism simultaneously asserts and undermines autonomy. If, however, this is the case, what alternative conceptions of the role of the intellectual and the activity of critique can Foucault present to us? Foucault’s elaboration of the specific intellectual provides the beginnings of an answer to this question: I dream of the intellectual who destroys evidence and generalities, the one who, in the inertias and constraints of the present time, locates and marks the weak points, the openings, the lines of force, who is incessantly on the move, doesn’t know exactly where he is [they are] heading nor what he [they] will think tomorrow, for he is [they are] too attentive to the present (PPC p. 124) The historicity of thought, the impossibility of locating an Archimedean point outside time, leads Foucault to locate intellectual activity as an ongoing attentiveness to the present in terms of what is singular and arbitrary in what we take to be universal and necessary. Following from this, the intellectual does not seek to offer grand theories but specific analyses, not global but local criticism. We should be clear on the latter point for it is necessary to acknowledge that Foucault’s position does entail the impossibility of ‘acceding to a point of view that could give us access to any complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limits’ and, consequently, ‘we are always in the position of bargaining again’ (FR p. 47). The upshot of this recognition of the partial character of criticism is not, however, to produce an ethos of fatal resignation but, in so far as it involves a recognition that everything is dangerous, a ‘hyper and pessimistic activism’ (FR p. 343). In other words, it is the very historicity and particularity of criticism which bestows on the activity of critique its dignity and urgency. What of this activity then? We can sketch the Foucault account of the activity of critique by coming to grips with the opposition he draws between ideal critique and real transformation. Foucault suggests that the activity of critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are but rather of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, uncontested modes of thought the practices we accept rest (PPC p.154) The genealogical thrust of this critical activity is ‘to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident is no longer accepted as such’ for ‘as soon as one can no longer think things as one formerly thought them, transformation becomes both very urgent, very difficult, and quite possible’ (PPC p. 155). The urgency of transformation derives from the contestation of thought (and the social practices in which it is embedded) as the form of our autonomy, although this urgency is given its specific character for modern culture by the recognition that the humanist grammar of this thought ties us into the technical matrix of biopolitics. The specificity of intellectual practice and this account of the activity of critique come together in the refusal to legislate a universal determination of ‘what is right’ in favour of the perpetual problematization of the present. It is not a question, for Foucault, of invoking a determination of who we are as a basis for critique but of locating what we are now as the basis for reposing the question ‘who are we?’ The role of the intellectual is thus not to speak on behalf of others (the dispossessed, the downtrodden) but to create the space within which others can speak for themselves. The question remains, however, as to the capacity of Foucault’s work to perform this crucial activity through an entrenchment of the ethics of creativity as the structures of recognition through which we recognize our autonomy in the contestation of determinations of who we are. Explain the difference in the context of this, kthx I honestly do not know what you are saying here – the post that we are both citing seems to be an attempt to take a very specific instance and generalize it to every debate round ever (“If there's only a .001% chance that a nuclear war kills us all without the plan, I'm still voting affirmative if the negative has failed to make an offensive argument†“The negative needs to prove that there's a greater chance that the plan causes extinction than that the plan stops extinction†“many people find that reading cards about how nuclear war is improbable is a strategically bad ideaâ€). This also doesn’t change the fact that this is a stupid way to debate – if you are ever judging a round and your RFD is “Yeah, I vote aff, I know that the neg absolutely won that there is no chance that the plan solves or that there would be a Russia war in the first place, but BOSTROM MAN THAT SHIT IS AN EXISTENTIAL RISKâ€, you would get post-rounded like there was no tomorrow and then struck by most everyone. 9/10 judges would recognize why this model is flawed and an outdated way to debate (even Calum agrees and are you really gonna disagree with Calum Matheson? ““Any risk†is inane. Below some level of probability, the effect identified should be overwhelmed by random noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. You know who’s bad at applying math to policymaking? Jonathan Schell. The exact calculation of risk is similarly hilarious. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation.†). dick See: above You say, after you spend a few paragraphs trying to defend an exhaustive model of debate and insist upon the absolute truth of the strategic necessity of existential impacts. Seriously, stick to your guns. If you think offense-defense is good, don’t back off from it just to maintain some kind of high ground. Or, if you don’t really care, then don’t respond. Problem solved. I feel like to a novice who had never done debate it would seem more obvious that we should try to stop things like poverty or global warming even if they do not cause extinction over a tiny, tiny risk of a nuclear war (something that, in the real world, is incredibly unlikely – lending more salience to the impact defense that this thread is supposed to be about anyways). Novices do not enter debate with debate-y mindsets – they see everything through a more real-world lens. They often don’t understand why we always race to the extinction impacts, which is probably a flawed mindset in the first place – there’s a good post by Odekirk a couple years back on puttingthekindebate on this. I can find the link if it’s really necessary. Lol while I won’t dispute that I’m a rude person on this forum, you picked probs the worst example of it – I can’t understand how that sentence is objectively rude
  12. <3 youdabest cole not gonna bother responding because I'm too lazy to type out more than a few sentences and anything i do post will be deconstructed in depth by Chaos in the rough form of a five-paragraph MLA-citation essay
  13. DML

    Zizek Documentary

    you are actually SO behind
  14. Fewer and fewer judges are as absurdly locked into the offense-defense model as this. Obviously it makes sense to couple your impact defense with another impact, but it's pretty easy to win that existential risks don't matter as much/that your impact turns.
  15. Edina High School is seeking a Director of Debate for the 2012-13 school year. Edina High School has a rich tradition of success in debate and consistently ranks among the very top programs in Minnesota and the nation. Edina High School debaters participate in both the Policy and Lincoln-Douglas divisions. Novice students from the District’s two middle schools are also included in the program. Recent accomplishments include a 2012 Minnesota State High School League championship in Policy Debate. Strongest consideration will be given to candidates with the following characteristics: · Proven experience and success in debate either, or both, as a coach or debater · A long-term vision for continuous improvement of the program · High integrity and an ability to model both competitiveness and sportsmanship · Strong administrative and communications skills The selected candidate will be expected to: · Provide high quality coaching to both varsity and novice debaters · Foster skills in research, organization and cutting and filing evidence for building cases · Conduct practices and student meetings to further develop the skills of the team · Maintain rigorous expectations for student performance and growth · Provide opportunities for competition at the national and local level · Further develop both the Lincoln-Douglas and Policy components of the program · Recruit and manage a team of quality assistant coaches · Collaborate with the coaching staff, administration, parents and community supporters · Represent Edina High School and the program in a variety of venues including coaches’ meetings, media requests, and team functions Applicants should send a resume and cover letter to Eric Nelson at erijnelson@edina.k12.mn.us. About Edina Public Schools Edina Public Schools is comprised of six elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (6-9) and one senior high (10-12). Total enrollment is approximately 8,300 students. The District serves a large portion of Edina, a first-tier Minneapolis suburb comprised of approximately 47,450 people.
  16. if by "dead" you mean "high school sophomores do not routinely (fail to) troll the ever-loving shit out of it", then yes.
  17. DML

    Bataille

    Isn't there a rule against having your coach judge you?
  18. IP tracker says that they are from eden prairie, minnesota
  19. this is the zero point of the holocaust
  20. lol why is david herman not mentioned here
×
×
  • Create New...