Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MrMarantz

  1. Mmmmm I think it's still an important point to be made. The argument isn't "some policy teams still win," it's "traditional powerhouses are still powerhouses." Emporia's crowns, the OU/Towson round...these are more noise than signal. I mean, look at the regular season (since that was when the majority of the "backlash" activity took place): GSU finals = Harvard d. Northwestern Kentucky = Northwestern d. Michigan Harvard = Northwestern d. Georgetown USC = Harvard d. Cal CSUF = Northwestern d. Towson Texas = Gtown d. Wake Forest Now, granted, Harvard BoSu and Cal MS were dirty K debaters, but you'd be hard pressed to defend that Harvard and Cal don't count as part of the old guard. There are probably also pretty good args that the kind of academic criticism they engage in are typical of and reify White scholarship. I would consider Wake as a school to be part of it too, but Wake LW is an exception to that rule. So, out of 7 majors, that's what? 4 won by Northwestern, 1 by Gtown, and 1 by Harvard. 2 Black/non-traditional teams in finals (not totally sure how best to describe Wake LW) out of a possible 14. If we expand it to semis, then out of 28 possible slots available, Black teams accounted for only 5 (Towson, Wake, Rutgers, OU, and West Georgia each reached semis or better exactly once) of those. ~18%. Factor in CEDA (all Black everything) and the NDT (Gtown d. Michigan) and you have Black teams this year winning 1 out of 9 majors, claiming 4 out of the possible 18 spots (~22%) in the finals, and claiming 9 out of 36 (~25%) of semis spots. Now, you can look at these results, and draw many different conclusions. Maybe this reflects a bias in the judging pool against Black teams. Maybe this shows a fundamental flaw with MPJ. Maybe this shows that if the traditional schools had turned up in force at CEDA, the outrounds would have been shaken up from the influx of policy judges they brought with them. But you know what it doesn't show? That Black teams have been successful to the point that traditional powerhouses are feeling threatened. Yeah, Hardy tried to start his own tournament, but that's one dude. If Northwestern, Harvard, Gtown, Michigan, MSU, Kansas, Emory, Wake, Mary Wash, Dartmouth, Kentucky, Cal, and Iowa all really were unwilling to cede literally any ground to Towson, OU, Rutgers, West Georgia, Vermont, and Fresno St, then every tournament would either be like the NOPD (policy-only) or CEDA ("we won't dignify the tournament by coming"). For gods sakes, the PRL was floated, and nobody wanted to do it.
  2. 2AC: "First on T - (proceeds to read K of T)." "On to the K - first arg is Framework."
  3. MrMarantz

    Mod Elections

    That's quite enough of this talk. Back to your homes, all of you. Disperse!
  4. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4_Pbx9mvWPY&ei=JtWDUeOAGYTCrgHG_YHwDw&usg=AFQjCNHGx8Dyp0bxquCfEhvxyXyp1KaG8A
  5. Why was a coach judging his own team?
  6. Man, this thread has devolved into vacuousness, but you know what? Everyone has shown remarkable restraint in not asking how this will affect terrorism impact brinks. So, maybe there is hope for this community after all. Now, back to whatever ridiculous debate you were having about nihilism.
  7. Also Beckley (hegemony) went to Emory.
  8. 1. Chechnyan terrorists will attack the Olympics, UK retaliates with nukes 2. Afghan destabilization leads to resurgence of Taliban, who collapse Afghan economy, which leads to...afghan destabilization 3. Nuclear/chemical plant explosions 4. Loss of the Internet causes global health crisis 5. Attempts to curb overpopulation cause de-fertilization
  9. I believe it's a holdover from the WGLF filter. Or to prevent people from posting threads like HELP PLZ NEED HEG GOOD CARD BY TOMORROW THX
  10. I saw "tooling the 1ar" and immediately assumed this was going to be a thread about neg block strategies.
  11. The way I've seen this run was: Plan: The United States Supreme Court should rule X policy unconstitutional/determine that X policy is outside the bounds of Congress/the President U: ACA will be ruled constitutional on a 5-4 vote L: Plan is unpopular, drains institutional capital IL: Institutional Capital is key to ACA being ruled constitutional I: ACA k2 X impact "What is institutional capital?" I hear you ask. Essentially, it's the idea that the court is responsive to public opinion/the opinions of other parts of the government. It's got some great empirical defense (see Roberts, ACA decision)
  12. This is a fairly common strat against Courts affs. I'm not sure you would be able to spin a link to non-courts action.
  13. This is my favorite video about LARPing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjj3b1mcjpE
  14. This post is to making sense as steamboat is to microphone.
  15. "You're not a very good line-by-line debater...well, I mean you're not very technically proficient. You just kind of throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks."
  16. Why did you name drop Nate Silver for no reason? He predicts the opposite of what you do.
  17. MrMarantz


    As for citing: Horovitz 9 Bruce, quals, 2/9/09, "Starbucks Hopes Food Perks up Sales; Struggling Chain Unveils Menu Deal to Halt Slide," USA Today, Lexis Nexis, accessed 7/29/12
  18. You forget, Loyola graduated.
  19. Round 7 at Harvard, senior year. We were 3 up, so we knew we couldn't break. We're neg. Decide to run Fight Club, as it was the last round of the last major tournament we'd ever go to. Naturally, considering the fact we had never run it (or Nietzsche, or any other kind of 1-off K), we were unsure of how to do it (read: decided to be total idiots about it). 1AC: Some quasi-critical case, whatever. CX: "Do you attempt to alleviate suffering?" "Yes." "Ok, that's all I wanted to ask." Partner and I simultaneously take off jackets, loosen ties, and roll up sleeves. 1NC: Partner proceeds to read Fight Club 1NC while roaming around the room, alternating between shouting and really intense near-whispers. As he does so, he throws the pieces of paper he's reading from down on the ground. Whenever he returns to the podium, he stops and glances up to look into the eyes of our opponents while he reads. When he finishes, the floor is strewn with the 1NC cards. He offers to donate the time he has left over to our opponent's 2AC. We ended up winning. We really shouldn't have. And hence my signature.
  20. Oh man, I was so sure this was going to be an elaborate masturbation joke based on the thread's title.
  21. Should PIC. Aaaaaaand ASPEC
  22. Truth. Spence is where it's at. Spence 4 – Matthew Spence, Co-Founder and Director of the Truman National Security Project, October 4, 2004, “Policy Coherence and Incoherence: The Domestic Politics of American Democracy Promotion†Yet evaluations of American democracy promotion efforts often give scant attention to the complex interaction of various arms of the U.S. government. Discussing the “American approach†to democracy promotion risks implicitly assuming the U.S. government is a rational, unified actor that is implementing a single, internally coherent democracy promotion policy. To the contrary, the American government does not have one democracy promotion policy or strategy, but rather several policies, which interact in complex and often unexpected ways. That is, several different bureaucratic actors within the U.S. government promote democracy using different strategies, resources, tools, and levels of coordination. In short, this paper argues that it is difficult to understand the effects of American democracy promotion abroad without examining the bureaucratic context from which the policy emerges at home. Which actors within the U.S. government are involved in promoting political and economic change abroad? What strategies and conceptual models guide them? What tools and resources do they bring to bear? How does the interaction of American bureaucratic politics affect the impact of American democracy promotion? Articulating this mix of goals, strategies, and resources helps explain incoherent patterns of outcomes on the ground. This paper explore these questions by reference to the U.S. government’s most ambitious democracy promotion efforts of the past decade: the effort to rebuild its former Soviet enemies into a democratic allies in the 1990s. Yet the patterns of American bureaucratic politics are not unique to this democracy promotion effort. While American democracy promotion has changed in tone and substance under the watch of George W. Bush, American domestic politics has powerfully shaped American democracy promotion in similar ways in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. In the 1990s. American policymakers at the highest levels had a clear vision of their desired outcome in the former Soviet space: stable democracies that would no longer threaten the West. But three obstacles complicated policymakers’ attempts to translate strategy into tactics: domestic political constraints in mobilizing resources for the task, competing policy goals, and conceptual uncertainty about the meaning of democracy promotion. Since no consensus existed in the early 1990s about how to promote democracy, bureaucratic policymaking filled this conceptual gap. This produced not a single U.S. preference or message in support of democracy on the ground, but instead many policies, which often interacted in unexpected ways. The sheer range of official American activities to promote democracy meant that the U.S. could either wield enormous power to convince other governments to change their behavior, or send weak and disorganized signals that realized little of America’s potential for influence.
  23. Your analysis is excellent, but since you haven't implemented it I'm only 10% convinced.
  24. The first sentence sounds like a Craigslist m4w ad.
  25. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Colorado isn't the best place for people accustomed to national circuit tournaments. The exception to this is The Mile High tournament at Denver East (co-hosted by George Washington High), which will be gradually adding TOC bids to various events over the next few years (I believe that LD's bid will be added in 2013), and overall has better quality judges. Other than that, most tournaments will be dominated by lay judges, so you're going to have to adapt to that.
  • Create New...