Monthly Archives: July 2010

Judging Hypothetical

Team A is negative. They read a very complex and sophisticated kritik, that all comes from 1 author. Team B is affirmative, and in the 2AC they read 5 or 6 sort of stock K answers and then a card just tagged “Neg loses”, that goes on for about a minute.

In response to this card the neg says a lot of spin that sounds very good about why this piece of evidence is wrong and doesn’t understand what their K is about.

The 1AR goes only to this piece of evidence and says the following:
“Look, we have no idea what the neg is saying. However, we have a card that is soo good it will make you crap your pants. Not only is it directly responding to what they are saying, it specifically indicts their author and goes through point by point every argument in the 2NC overview and refutes it. I would explain the warrants, but quite frankly, I don’t get it. However, we debated this K at the last tournament and didn’t understand it then either. We spent a whole month researching answers and after reading 20+ books on the subject we found this amazing card. The neg may sound good, but ultimately every argument in the 2NC in response to this card is unevidenced, made up on the spot drivel from a high school student- it may sound good, but there is no real substance behind it. The purpose of the judge is to decide what arguments were the best- we have by far read the best arguments, in order to vote negative you have to decide that we should lose even though we made the best argument, simply because we didn’t understand it. This defeats the whole purpose of a research based activity and punishes us for spending time reading about the topic instead of about obscure philosophy”.

The 2NR Says (amongst other things) the following:

“Their evidence misses the boat- our K makes three key arguments, which are A, B, and C. This indict doesn’t respond to thee arguments because of …..” And then gives a long winded explanation.

Is this debate winnable for the aff at this point in your mind?

Assume the 2AR says more of the same the 1AR said.

You call for the neg cards and the 1 aff card. Upon reading the neg cards, you find that they do clearly make arguments A, B, and C and explain them well, just like the negative said.

Now you look at the aff card. You actually crap your pants. Never before in your life have you seen an on point response that is this good. The card clearly identifies A, B, and C as arguments made by the neg author, and then deconstructs them in such a devastating way that you would bet your life that they are not only false, but that the opposite is true. Assume the neg cards nor the aff card speaks to the “spin” placed on the evidence by the negative.

How do you vote and why?

Freely Available Summer Institute Lecture List Updated

The list of freely available lectures from this year’s summer debate institutes has been updated this morning and now includes 49 lectures from four institutes. It would take almost three full days to watch all of these videos. Students and coaches should give a big “thank you!” to Cal, Emory, Georgetown, and Texas for sharing these lectures freely. If any other institutes are sharing their lecture videos online, please post a note in the comments and we will add them to the master list.

Keep Sending in K answers

The consolidated K answer project has gotten a lot of good responses with a few people in particular going above and beyond and contributing quite a bit.

But there is always more to do! Please email in any contribution you can- cards, cites, books/articles that look good.

Especially for the sort of stock K args that cross over to many different K’s like
-predictions fail
-value to life
-ontology/epistemology/methodology
-reps/language key
-serial policy failure/error replication
-defenses of empiricism and qualifications
-root cause
-terminal extinction impacts like modernity/rationality/technology/neoliberalism/militarism/biopower cause extinction

deathtothek@gmail.com

Anyone at a University Lib have access to this?

(update- found by bricker)

This looks like a pretty bad ass dissertation, and theoretically some schools should have access to it through their proquest dissertation subscription. If anyone at a university for the summer for camp can find it I would appreciate it.

or this

(found by bricker)

or
The heterarchical society: Explaining and understanding post-Cold War international relations
by Singh, Deepak, Ph.D., University of Miami, 1996 , 299 pages; AAT 9716714
or
Critical realism: An ethical approach to global politics
by Lee, Ming-Whey Christine, Ph.D., Duke University, 2009, 280 pages; AAT 3386694

Viewing Computer Deal

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/36332/toshiba-satellite-l455s5000-laptop-intel-celeron-processor-900-cpu-2.2ghz,-3gb-ddr3,-250gb-hd,-15.6-hd-ws-lcd-(1366-x-768)

slickdeals.net

Toshiba Satellite L455-S5000 Laptop: Intel Celeron processor 900 CPU 2.2GHz, 3GB DDR3, 250GB HD, 15.6″ HD WS LCD (1366 x 768) $300
Hat tip- Sadagopal

The Forer Effect and K impacts

From wikipedia:

The Forer effect (also called the Barnum Effect after P.T. Barnum‘s observation that “we’ve got something for everyone”) is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, and some types of personality tests.

A related and more generic phenomenon effect is that of subjective validation.[1] Subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectancy, or hypothesis demands a relationship. Thus people seek a correspondence between their perception of their personality and the contents of a horoscope.

An article quoted on the dish today has a more specific application

The tendency to believe vague statements designed to appeal to just about anyone is called the Forer Effect, and psychologists point to this phenomenon to explain why people fall for pseudoscience like biorhythms, iridology and phrenology or mysticism like astrology, numerology and tarot cards.

The Forer Effect is part of larger phenomenon psychologists refer to as subjective validation, which is a fancy way of saying you are far more vulnerable to suggestion when the subject of the conversation is you.

How does this relate to K impacts? Read on to find out

Continue reading