feldsy

Snarf isn't your account almost old enough to be a teenager at this point .

Here ya go sec supplement.doc

I'm hella late, but I'll post my RFD here I vote neg, for a couple of reasons 1) i think neg wins the util debate pretty easily. Cummiskey is read in the 2NC, and the 1ar/2ar doesn't have a response to it besides "deontology is most rational" which never gets explained, so i default to equality/util stuff yada yada 2) There's a ton of ink on on the solvency flow for the plan, but not for the CP. I think there's a high risk that China says no, or is at least pissed off by the plan, whereas its conceded that everyone loves it when the US unilaterally exports more oil. It may not be direct engagement, but the neg has some good spin on why they prevent more Chinese advances 3) The DA link isn't great, but its coherent enough that I feel the risk of Nuke war outweighs aff impacts, especially given the high likelihood of solvency by the. The perm definitely triggers the link (although no chance its severance). There was wayyyyyy to much perfcon by the neg that was pretty unacceptable and I probably would'be pulled the trigger on if aff had called them out on it. Taking heg good and the security K through the block was kinda insane, and not something you should repeat. Also, that perm was not severance, but I had to throw it out anyway because there was no response Aff, I feel like you need to do more work making the advantage scenarios more coherent. Straight off the bat, it seems like helping China export oil while limiting their diplomacy seems pretty contradictory. Also, the Africa module for heg is a little convoluted, and it just seems impossible that losing control over African investments impacts our Heg, and the IL is a little shady. I think you should pick the advantages that work best for you, and sit on those, instead of throwing stuff out to see what sticks. Neg---correct decision to go for the DA/CP, definitely least covered by the 2AC

C'mon, we're all lying to ourselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-admit-it-you-dont-know-what-epistemological-means-either/2016/05/10/060f2e8e-0afa-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html

Have not done any policy (except for judging Harvard JV) in over a year, but I'll judge if ya want

If you want some good explanations on neoliberalism, as well as a response to Squirreloid's argument that its mostly a perjorative term, these two articels from your favorite socialist news site are good explainers. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/chait-neoliberal-new-inquiry-democrats-socialism/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/jonathan-chait-charles-peters-mont-pelerin/ Admittedly, the way neobliberalism is bandied about in debate and academic circles does make it a fairly difficult word to define, and its been misused and abused often. Eh, yes but no. In the Marxist view, most things are caused by the material distribution of wealth. For a Marxist, the explanation for terrorism would probably go along the lines of economic deprivation causes people to do shit to fight back, even if its not just or effective, because they want to lash out against a system that opreses them. Marxism DOES recognize that people can have deeply held genuine ideological beliefs---it just mostly thinks those beliefs are the result of the manipulation of evil capitalists, and are usually used to split the proletariat into fighting each other and prevent them from realizing their true enemies (and source of their problems) is global capitalism. However, Marxists aren't a monolithic group, and I don't think Marx himself would adhere to hyper-orthodox explanations of him that cast economic distrubution of power as the root cause of literally everything ever. However, the core of his argument (which is held by a lot of non-marxists as well) is that economic and material factors are the primary drivers in most social and political movements are conflicts

This The cultural left and the limit of social hope by David McClean We'll never do better than a politician: Climate change and purity by Levi Bryant What is Orthodox marxism and what does it mean to us today by Stephen Tumino Governing advanced Liberal democracies by Nicholas Rose To Change the World, To celebrate life by Todd May

This card isn't very in depth, but provides the useful warrants and talking points regarding the trade impact debate Trade doesn’t solve war---ideology outweighs, history disproves, trade isn’t symmetrical and creates power competition, and interdepence amplifies crises causing more conflictMazhid Kat 2015, King's College London, European & International Studies, “A Conceptual Analysis of Realism in International Political Economy,”4-16-15, e-IR, http://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/16/a-conceptual-analysis-of-realism-in-international-political-economy/ //JBf The main critics of realism are liberals. They argue that growing integration of the world economy and interdependence among states will create a more peaceful and stable global order because aggressive actions will lead to huge economic losses. However, this concept misses several points. Firstly, even greatly economically interdependent states may start wars with one another, as was seen with the British Empire and Germany in the beginning of the 20th century.[xxix] Moreover, interdependence is usually not perfectly symmetrical. In many cases, weak states become more dependent on major powers.[xxx] Leading powers, in turn, use their economic power to promote global regimes more favourable to themselves. Also, interdependence can le[a]d to economic crises becoming more wide spread, which in turn leads to negative consequences in different parts of the world.[xxxi] For instance, the Great Depression in the United States during the 1930s was one of the reasons for huge economic problems in Germany, which were used by Hitler in his rise to power. Finally, some states have ideologies which prevail over economic interests. For example, North Korea conducts a Juche policy of self-sufficiency and Russia continues to experience significant economic losses because of its imperialistic turn.

I feel bad for how much i laughed at this

I mostly agree with Reed, but I don't fully get his critique of identity politics. I understand his critique of race as a "thing" (arguing that race cannot simeoultaenously be a social construct and real), but what the hell does he mean when he says "note, race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do" why do academics insist in writing in bullshit academese. Sigh

I'm finding it interesting how every left-wing article I read is lambasting her, but If i mentally substitute Rachel with Caitlyn then they become very cringeworthy. I don't see how race isn't performative, especially considering it doesn't really exist biologically (or at least not in the way that we construct it), i.e., we see Obama as black when he's really "half white,". The way race is constructed in our society is often based on "passing value" (what race you assume someone is just by looking at them), and not ancestry, although cultural heritage comes from ancestry, and cultural heritage is often intertwined with race. Hmmm. Honestly, I'm still not sure how i feel about this, although I do think a lot of the rather savage left-wing criticism of her is unwarranted, or at least doesn't need to be so nasty Also all of this is accurate and better said than i could say it

Someone should post the original of the rant, i'd love to see what's on it

Essentially- Senate passed TPA+TAA (TAA is a thing that helps workers displaced by trade find new jobs, it was put in as part of the bills to sway dems) House passed only TPA Since House and Senate need to pass the same bill for it to become law, what happens next is More negotiating!

I"ll probably put this up on some other debate websites since this one is dying, but Hi, I'm Jonah Feldman (not the Berkeley coach), and I'd be willing to work as either a judge or a part-time assistant coach to any high schools in the Boston area. I'll be attending Tufts University, to give you an idea of my location. I have 3 years of experience in high school policy debate, and have attended and broken at a number of Bid Tournaments. I have experience with policy, K's, theory, and most facets of modern policy debate. If you're interested, contact me at jonahbfeldman@gmail.com