Jump to content

feldsy

Member
  • Content Count

    917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by feldsy

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

    Old Security K

    Here ya go sec supplement.doc
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Have not done any policy (except for judging Harvard JV) in over a year, but I'll judge if ya want
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. I feel bad for how much i laughed at this
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Someone should post the original of the rant, i'd love to see what's on it
  13. 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!
  14. 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
  15. feldsy

    Complexity

    Eh, true, but also not true. The thing about warming is that it usually involves a wide range of sub-impacts, which lets you argue that warming causes so many interlocking bad things that extinction, or at least catastrophe, is virtually guaranteed, which allows them to sidestep complexity args. Now, if someone has a scenario that's like warming --> africa destabilization-->war-->Xtinction than complexity is a better arg Against warming affs, it's actually better to frame complexity around their solvency scenarios than the impact scenarios. It's incredibly unlikely that some new technology will suddenly be adopted by companies across the US and governments across the world just because we invested a little more in them (cough OTEC cough). Infrastructure inertia, high costs, tech problems, and uncertain markets all pose barriers, proven by a litany of past gov't subsidized technologies that have failed to displace coal/oil. Especially since there are so goddamn many alt causes to warming, it's very easy to say that linear approaches to warming/environment fail from a solvency perspective But Indict! Tetlock is a hack with biased studies---experts can make reasonable predictions in their own fields(Caplan 05) Bryan Caplan (Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University), Library of Economics and Liberty, December 26, 2005, “Tackling Tetlock”, accessed December 6, 2010, http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/12/tackling_tetloc_1.html# Is my confidence in experts completely misplaced? I think not. Tetlock's sample suffers from severe selection bias. He deliberately asked relatively difficult and controversial questions. As his methodological appendix explains, questions had to "Pass the 'don't bother me too often with dumb questions' test." Dumb according to who? The implicit answer is "Dumb according to the typical expert in the field." What Tetlock really shows is that experts are overconfident if you exclude the questions where they have reached a solid consensus. This is still an important finding. Experts really do make overconfident predictions about controversial questions. We have to stop doing that! However, this does not show that experts are overconfident about their core findings.
  16. feldsy

    Complexity

    I don't think complexity is solely a deleuzian critique---the argument against predictions has been made by a wide range of authors, not just critical theorists, and certainly not just deeluzian critical theorists. also- Policy predictions fail—disregard the long causal link chainsTetlock and Gardner 11 (Dan* and Philip**, Prof of organizational behavior @ the Haas Business School @ UC-Berkeley* and columnist and senior writer**, 7/11/11, Overcoming Our Aversion to Acknowledging Our Ignorance, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/07/11/dan-gardner-philip-tetlock/overcoming-our-aversion-acknowledging-our-ignorance)//EM The editors may regret that short shelf-life some years, but surely not this one. Even now, only halfway through the year, The World in 2011 bears little resemblance to the world in 2011. Of the political turmoil in the Middle East—the revolutionary movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria—we find no hint in The Economist’s forecast. Nor do we find a word about the earthquake/tsunami and consequent disasters in Japan or the spillover effects on the viability of nuclear power around the world. Or the killing of Osama bin Laden and the spillover effects for al Qaeda and Pakistani and Afghan politics. So each of the top three global events of the first half of 2011 were as unforeseen by The Economist as the next great asteroid strike. This is not to mock The Economist, which has an unusually deep bench of well-connected observers and analytical talent. A vast array of other individuals and organizations issued forecasts for 2011 and none, to the best of our knowledge, correctly predicted the top three global events of the first half of the year. None predicted two of the events. Or even one. No doubt, there are sporadic exceptions of which we’re unaware. So many pundits make so many predictions that a few are bound to be bull’s eyes. But it is a fact that almost all the best and brightest—in governments, universities, corporations, and intelligence agencies—were taken by surprise. Repeatedly. That is all too typical. Despite massive investments of money, effort, and ingenuity, our ability to predict human affairs is impressive only in its mediocrity. With metronomic regularity, what is expected does not come to pass, while what isn’t, does. In the most comprehensive analysis of expert prediction ever conducted, Philip Tetlock assembled a group of some 280 anonymous volunteers—economists, political scientists, intelligence analysts, journalists—whose work involved forecasting to some degree or other. These experts were then asked about a wide array of subjects. Will inflation rise, fall, or stay the same? Will the presidential election be won by a Republican or Democrat? Will there be open war on the Korean peninsula? Time frames varied. So did the relative turbulence of the moment when the questions were asked, as the experiment went on for years. In all, the experts made some 28,000 predictions. Time passed, the veracity of the predictions was determined, the data analyzed, and the average expert’s forecasts were revealed to be only slightly more accurate than random guessing—or, to put more harshly, only a bit better than the proverbial dart-throwing chimpanzee. And the average expert performed slightly worse than a still more mindless competition: simple extrapolation algorithms that automatically predicted more of the same.
  17. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/01/section-215-patriot-act-expires-surveillance-continues-fisa-court-metadata/ looks like there's still some ground
  18. TPA is basically theonly real thing up and running right now i think. Maybe NSA reform, though i'm unsure how the scenario would play out and how Obama PC would interact with it. Iran Sanctions, immigration, and Keystone are def not things right now.
  19. The details are still largely unknown, but from what I've pieced together it looks like a lot of the policy team was caught illegally drinking (one post implied they spent a night in jail), which, on top of their previous problems with Title IX, led the Whitman administration to basically can the whole program.
  20. Is this less true for other forms of debate that aren't policy (like Parli)
  21. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're attacking someone's testimony, isn't that by definition attacking the argument is making, not their personal character, which makes it not an ad-hominem?
  22. Technically, arguing that something is untrue because its advocate used a logical fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself. Just because person A uses adn ad hominem against person B does not mean that what person B is advocating is a good idea nor does it mean that all of Person A's arguments are invalid
  23. I can judge if you want. Fair warning, I'm not the most experienced or literate K debater in the world. PM me when the debate's done
  24. Putting "eco" in front of any word and making it an instant new K
×
×
  • Create New...