So I have some google wave invites and was thinking about how to dole them out in a just manner and I thought perhaps a little bit of a contest. The rules and description are below.
UPDATE- if you have to email me to ask what google wave is you should first familiarize your self with google…
Ok so this is basically an evidence quality contest. The idea being it is some what like the ol ev challenge at evtub but since I have done my best to repress all memories of evtub we won’t call it that. So i’m gonna give you three categories of a “card”. To win you must cut the best card you can find that supports the argument for it, and it has to be a card we haven’t heard before. So if a category was “realism inevitable” and you submitted murray you wouldn’t get credit even though Roy would think it was the best card of all time.
You should both paste the card in the comments so that people will know when someone has beaten them to a card, and email the card in a word document (since the comments don’t allow formatting) to firstname.lastname@example.org. Some things that will make your card stand out would be
-not being from google news
I tried to come up with some broad categories that would be useful to everyone (based on debates I have seen and discussions that have come up recently)
Judging- I may consult Roy/Batterman if there are some close calls but generally it will be in-genuine so as not to collapse my leadership.
1. Word Pics- this can either be a card that they (or the style of argument they represent) are good or bad, either way. But the card should make some kind of argument either for or against them. Obviously as previously mentioned it can’t be something we’ve heard of so a Butler or frameworks institute card won’t count.I’ll also lump in here reps K good/bad since the judge choice discussion has gotten some heat and the 2 styles of cards are related.
2. Predictions Good/Bad- as per Batterman on the podcast, try to find some better cards then monkeys throwing darts. Cards that obviously we have heard of include Kurasawa, Fitzsimmons, Bleiker etc. This category will probably be harder than the above since the threshold for what is a good card will already be higher.
3. Epistemology- this can be either an aff card that you would read when the neg reads a k of epistemology (in the sort of vein of the 2AC K post from a bit ago) or a neg card about the importance of epistemology- but again, has to be an unknown.