Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Good

About jsmith36

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/15/1985
  1. For all of those who are interested in Foucault, one of his more interesting articles seems to have anticipated this issue more than 30 years ago. In an article titled "Social Security" (reprinted in Politics, Philosophy, Culture) Foucault says: "I don't see, and nobody can explain to me how, technically, it would be possible to satisfy all health needs however much they may expand. And even though I have no idea where the line ought to be drawn, it would in any case be impossible to allow expenditure to increase at the rate seen in recent years. A machinery set up to give people a certain security in the area of health has, then, reached a point in its development at which we will have to decide what illness, what type of pain, will no longer receive coverage - a point at which, in certain cases, life itself will be at risk. This poses a political and moral problem not unrelated, all things considered, to the question of the right enjoyed by a state to ask an individual to go and get himself killed in war..." Later, in response to a question about whether this would suggest the use of eugenics and the choice of life and death, Foucault responds: "Such choices are being made all the time, even though it is not being admitted. They are made in the logic of a certain rationality and are then justified in various ways." There is much more of interest to the current heath care debate in this article. If anyone around here has read it, I'd love your thoughts and its impact on this debate.
  2. jsmith36

    Ideal paradigm

    I find this extremely interesting. Do you have a cite, or at least a general idea where I might find more of this?
  3. Alright, I want to move on to other debates. Are you forfeiting here?
  4. Meh... I'm fine with judges. It's a VDebate, so I'm not going to sweat it. It's gonna be T and Theory. http://www.mediafire.com/?e314333aa4rx5ba
  5. We need all 3 judges before the 1AR can be posted... strategy choice and such. Anyone wanna judge?
  6. 1. So if I win that saving the economy is good, should the judges vote AFF? If not, why? 2. Why is your Apps 10 card not empirically denied after Libya? 3. Your Goldstein 87 card (the new 2NC one) says we fight wars when we're in a good economic standing. Weren't we in a recession post-9/11? That's all for now. Maybe more...
  7. 2AC http://www.mediafire.com/?1op6h8l3x02le5b ~2549 Order is T, PIC, Relations, NATO, Inherency, Econ, MicroMil, Terrorism, Solvency.
  8. 1. Are there other ways to stop global warming besides strong US/India relations? 2. Your Roach 04 card says "taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming." Is that happening in the status quo, and does it happen in the world of the plan or the counterplan? 3. When your NYT 09 card says "NATO will fold" are you saying that this means NATO will cease to exist, or that it will leave Afghanistan? 4. Why is Afghanistan not critical to any impacts? 5. What is the status of the CP? 6. If the counterplan was an Affirmative case, would it be topical? 7. Why is 1AC #3 that says we're only cutting $352 million not enough to show that we haven't ended our presence, which would save at least $60 billion? 8. Since our evidence says we need to substantially reduce our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to save enough money to save the economy, does 1NC #1 on Econ apply? 9. How is your Goldstein 85 turn not empirically denied? 10. Since 1AC #1 (NPR 11) concede that the US economy is growing now, but 1AC #2 (Seeking Alpha 11) says we need significant budget cuts, what is the impact of the Harding 10 evidence? 11. Does the Godhaven 09 card link to the CP as well? If not, why? 12. What's the warrant behind the Anzera 05 card? 13. Doesn't Anzera concede that the weapons he's talking about are "a space defensive system" meaning not a "space offensive system"? 14. What is the Layne 96 card responsive to? 15. Your Pop 10 card says the Afghan army needs support for 10-15 years. a. What evidence do you read that we will provide that support? b. What is the impact to not giving them that support? c. How much does that support cost? 16. Your 1NC #3 on Econ says econ growth is high now. Your 1NC #8 on Econ says banking market and job losses have been killing the economy. How can these both be true? 17. What is the relevance of the Baker 09 card? 18. What are the warrants behind the Toronto Star 98 card? 19. Where in your Radu 9 card does it say ANYTHING about the economy or economic growth? 20. Does your Mueller 05 card count the 9/11 attacks OR assume new forms of superterrorism? 21. Did you really read a card from 1998 that said there won't be a terror attack? If so, then doesn't the fact that they didn't predict 9/11 mean we probably shouldn't listen to them? 22. You read a bunch of ev that talks about terrorists and nukes, but doesn't Alexander 08 predict other things besides nukes? Do you answer those scenarios? 23. Doesn't your Reuters 10 card link to the CP? 24. Why do we need to prove "uniquness" on an advantage? Did you mean "inherency"? That's all for now... Maybe follow ups. Also, am I correct in assuming you only "read" the highlighted sections?
  • Create New...