Sept/Oct Resolution: What will it be?
posted by Bietz on August 6th, 2007
SANTA MONICA, Cali. - With the week off between VBI@LMU and Session II (where a great deal is time spent preparing and debating the September/ October resolution), there is some time to discuss and perhaps openly root for potential resolutions. Here is our list of possibilities:
Resolved: In United States courts, victim impact statements ought to influence sentencing.
Resolved: The precautionary principle ought to guide environmental regulations.
Resolved: The United States government ought to allocate humanitarian aid to foreign nations based on the need of recipients rather than its own interests.
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.
Resolved: In the United States public university admissions, socioeconomic disadvantage ought to be a higher priority than race.
Resolved: In the United States, the federal government ought not limit the autonomy of local school districts to determine their own curriculum.
Resolved: On balance, in its trade agreements the United States ought to value the welfare of workers in developing countries over its economic gains.
If you are interested in seeing a list of ALL the resolutions that were debated, going back around twenty-five years, you can by clicking here.
Popularity: 3%
no more tag found, sorry
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm and is filed under Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Posted from: 72.215.65.119
August 6th, 2007 16:00
Thanks for starting this topic, Bietz!
An interesting consideration for September/October topics (and one of the reasons I really love the new voting system for the topics, which goes into effect after this one) is that in most of the country, novices will learn to debate based on this topic. Given this, I’ve always preferred topics that clearly address “fundamental LD conflicts.”
I think the death penalty topic is, for that reason, a really good choice. (The precautionary principle topic might also be, especially in relating the principle to in-round weighing.)
Posted from: 68.126.252.231
August 6th, 2007 16:23
I don’t like the impact statement resolution nor the local school districts resolution. All of the others seem fine.
Posted from: 71.60.209.85
August 6th, 2007 16:34
i like the death penalty one a lot.
Posted from: 69.249.89.159
August 6th, 2007 16:41
gah, why so much “united states?”
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 6th, 2007 17:28
please not precautionary principle
Posted from: 24.90.53.128
August 6th, 2007 17:29
I had a dream that it was trade agreements.
Posted from: 69.249.94.148
August 6th, 2007 17:45
i really like the death pentalty one.
Posted from: 68.117.56.85
August 6th, 2007 18:55
im a fan of trade agreements.
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
August 6th, 2007 18:59
precautionary principle will be pretty fun to hear, but DP is probably a better topic. Although the DP topic will get incredibly boring after Ghill…
Rap Narrative feat. Mumia Abu Jamal FTW!
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 6th, 2007 19:08
PP or DP. Calling it now though…it’s gunna be PP
Posted from: 74.36.139.147
August 6th, 2007 19:13
I want the death penalty.
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 6th, 2007 20:04
hoping for trade agreements
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 6th, 2007 20:04
ok christian…that can be arranged
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 6th, 2007 20:05
wait…sorry they don’t execute 12 year olds
Posted from: 66.166.238.223
August 6th, 2007 20:43
i’m calling the precautionary principle aswell.dp wouldnt be that bad too although i do think it will get boring after a while
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
August 6th, 2007 20:44
Will the November/December topic be chosen from this list as well?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 6th, 2007 21:42
inmates and the environment… how dreadfully boring.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 6th, 2007 23:10
I just got the res.
Resolved: Sean Wynn is the greatest person to have ever lived rather than the greatest person to have lived in modern civilization.
A classic LD resolution leaving barely any room to negate.
Posted from: 71.60.209.85
August 7th, 2007 07:07
To DFK,
From what I’ve heard, Nov/Dec will come from the other list of resolutions.
Courtesy of Sean Wynn, http://www.theldboards.org/theboard/viewtopic.php?t=790
Posted from: 75.35.110.144
August 7th, 2007 08:10
HAHAHA sean wynn
wynn is a wynner
hmm but cavemen were pretty cool so idk
Posted from: 67.101.67.230
August 7th, 2007 10:24
I talked to NFL last week. The NOV/DEC resolution will absolutely come from the new list, not from these.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 7th, 2007 12:45
Yea Garb, I mean it’s almost impossible to negate with this resolution. It’s asking the age old question: Is Sean Wynn a better man than Jesus Christ? Answer:Duh!
Posted from: 66.157.153.132
August 7th, 2007 13:51
‘without sean wynn’s ancestors, there could be no sean wynn.’ most stock neg arg, i’m callin it right now.
ps why does the email field still say ‘will not be published’?
Posted from: 69.128.231.108
August 7th, 2007 15:07
This one: Resolved: The United States government ought to allocate humanitarian aid to foreign nations based on the need of recipients rather than its own interests and the other very similar one: Resolved: On balance, in its trade agreements the United States ought to value the welfare of workers in developing countries over its economic gains. Both seem interesting if only because IR topics are usually pretty sweet, but it seems incredibly biased for the affirmative; I haven’t really thought about it in-depth, but it would seem that the negative’s substantive, comparative ground is very limited–realism or global capitalism, I guess. However, given the advantage that negative’s have these days, that might not be a bad thing.
Resolved: In the United States public university admissions, socioeconomic disadvantage ought to be a higher priority than race.
We debated this one at the championship group–it is tough b/c there isn’t much unique ground, but it’s really relevant for high school debaters since we’re all looking at colleges and such.
Precautionary principle and death penalty would probably both be fine, especially since they have very well-defined contexts, which makes researching easier and debate rounds more relevant.
The anticipation is killing me.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 7th, 2007 17:01
yea mangus, you are right we’ll see that one a lot, but Sean Wynn is a greater man than his ancestors so that argument fails on basic knowledge.
Posted from: 71.35.109.44
August 7th, 2007 17:18
my bet is on the argument that the resolution is non-sensical because sean wynn cannot be compared to anything, even himself.
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
August 7th, 2007 18:00
race in college admissions=winnnnnnnnar
Posted from: 68.117.56.85
August 7th, 2007 18:35
to Devin Race
It is very possible to negate welfare of workers. It can break down to a property rights debate tho.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 7th, 2007 20:27
Mangus, I disagree man. Stock NC is Sean Wynn is not a person. Sean Wynn cannot be described with words other than Sean Wynn. To call Sean Wynn a person would be to compare him with all of us, which completely devalues all of superior intelligence, badass-ness, and good looks.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 7th, 2007 20:28
*all of ‘his’ superior…
Posted from: 71.35.109.44
August 7th, 2007 21:14
his implies that sean wynn can be catagorized.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 7th, 2007 21:30
I think on the negative, I’ll run a kritik of the resolution, that to even assume that statement ever false is utter madness. It’s a logically true statement.On the Aff I’m just gonna give 6 minute staredown with the judge, ending the round in the AC.
Posted from: 74.36.139.147
August 7th, 2007 21:43
Sean Wynn doesn’t exist.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 7th, 2007 22:21
Stare down strat is the shit. Fuck, Sean, why don’t you just do that in every single round?
Posted from: 208.42.174.75
August 7th, 2007 23:18
what is the precautionary principle?
is it something along the line of “ruh rohz be careful”?
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 8th, 2007 00:07
I may be mistaken but the precautionary principle pretty much says; If a principal or action dares to question the amazing-ness of Sean Wynn, in the absence of a scientific consensus that his amazing-ness can even be questioned.The burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
Posted from: 205.206.176.198
August 8th, 2007 01:48
the precautionary principle is characterized by a reversal of the burden of proof in environmental regulation. basically, instead of researchers or investigators having to prove after a product’s introduction that it is harmful, the proponents of that product must prove to a reasonable extent that it would not harm the environment upon which it is released. basically, better safe than sorry.
there are various other characteristics that are used from definition to definition, such as a democratic decision making process which includes all affected parties, proof of necessity of the product, and many other things.
here are a few of the standard definitions:
The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, January 1998, http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.
The Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, June 1992, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
August 8th, 2007 08:43
hahaha
Posted from: 66.193.242.110
August 8th, 2007 15:22
I totally want the precautionary principle. That will be the greatest topic ever.
Posted from: 68.117.54.66
August 8th, 2007 15:23
autonomy of schools FTW
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 8th, 2007 17:07
I like the idea of the dp topic, but the wording makes me hurt on the inside.
I like the schools one.
The rest suck.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 8th, 2007 18:07
Sean, no. You may not be mistaken.
Seriously, the trade agreements is the best topic in my opinion.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 8th, 2007 18:47
In all seriousness, the schools topic is hands down the best.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 8th, 2007 19:03
all i’m saying is that people will die if i have to talk about
A. The environment
B. The death penalty
C. Anything but Sean Wynn
body count ftw.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 8th, 2007 20:47
The trade relations topic is too long and contextualized. I just personally don’t like topics like that, in any debate format.
I also debate in a lay-judge heavy local circuit, and a lot of arguments that I would be inclined to make on a topic like that would go right over their heads.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 8th, 2007 20:49
wtf is the “precautionary principle” anyway?
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 8th, 2007 21:01
i believe sean wynn already defined the precautionary principle. you should pay more attention sir.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 8th, 2007 22:27
yea fool, the precautionary principle is defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as:A moral and political principal that if a policy or action dares to question the amazing-ness of Sean Wynn, in the absence of a scientific consensus that his amazing-ness can even be questioned.The burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
Posted from: 66.157.157.40
August 8th, 2007 23:02
WTF IS GOOGLE???????
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 9th, 2007 01:57
Mangus, what is that word you just used? I’ve never heard of it. I’m so confused. I also heard Wikipedia, library, and encyclopedia today as well. Never heard of any of them.
The trade res isn’t that long, and besides, that’s probably a good thing, unless you like 1AR’s that say the res is a tautology, corporations are made of individuals, which is an a priori reason to affirm. Contextualizing is better for in depth debate.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 9th, 2007 07:58
Just cus Noone else bet on it im placeing my bet on Impact statements.
Truely though i would love to have death Penelty debates. I cant wait for all of the debates of:
“Ought implies a moral obligation.
The value is justice, defined as giving each their due”
CX will be amazeing.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 10:49
…..you serious Tkachov? that’s a pretty gimp ass argument.
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
August 9th, 2007 11:18
Point: Sean Wynn.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 12:33
Thanks smitty
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 9th, 2007 14:02
-.-v
In all seriousness I would place my vote for death penelty: It seems like one of those easy “Pick up and debate” topics that people would like. Especially to the coaches who then dont need to take hours explaining to thier novices what on earth is PP.
Posted from: 65.33.216.205
August 9th, 2007 14:52
idk nick, it might be a good thing if novices had to actually do some research before debating.
Posted from: 71.104.129.167
August 9th, 2007 15:16
They could do research on the death penalty so that way they wouldn’t start out hating research with a fiery passion.
Posted from: 70.137.157.38
August 9th, 2007 16:03
I don’t like any of the U.S. resolutions because LD is supposed to be about philosophy, not current events and policies. DP is a bit… old. The PP isn’t bad. Novices aren’t stupid, so they would’t have a very hard time figuring out “what on earth is PP”. I myself didn’t know it before I read this thread a minute ago, but I wouldn’t have a problem writing a case on it if I had to start right now.
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
August 9th, 2007 16:15
Anonymous–Why the hell can’t a topic about the U.S. or about current events be evaluated philosophically? Isn’t philosophy supposed to be used to guide our policy decisions to make the real world better? I think most reasonably intelligent people would agree that there is no reason to argue and debate about esoteric/philosophical issues unless we attempt to apply them to the real world.
BTW, my money is on the trade agreements topic.
Posted from: 70.137.157.38
August 9th, 2007 16:27
“Isn’t philosophy supposed to be used to guide our policy decisions to make the real world better?”
Actually, no. Political desisions of the USA government are generally based on utilitarian principles , not philosophy, they have to be, beacause that’s what the constitution says. And debate about util should occur in policy, not LD.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 16:46
is utilitarianism not a philosophical premise nigga? Read some Hume and Sidgwick before you post again Anonymous
Posted from: 65.2.37.240
August 9th, 2007 17:39
Wow, utilitarianism is not a philosophy. HAVE YOU EVER DEBATED A RESOLUTION ANONYMOUS? Since when is utilitarianism only limited to policy?
Moreover, while I agree that utilitarianism does help guide policy decisions, it is not the only thing that influences policy makers; many things influence policy makers including deontology, justice etc. Supreme court decisions are based upon constitutionality. I agree with Sean, READ MORE before you comment and impose your conception of what debate ought to be.
Posted from: 65.2.37.240
August 9th, 2007 17:41
“many things influence policy makers including deontology, justice etc.”
~To avoid obfuscation of my point I mean that decisions are influenced by individuals” principles of justice, morality, etc.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 9th, 2007 17:54
I don’t know what year you’re in, or for that matter who you are, Sean Wynn, but I’d say that was a pretty offensive way to introduce yourself to the community (using the n- word). It’s not “cool” and it won’t get you bids (of which you apparently have…none); quite the contrary, it makes you look like a total ass. Until you can say “scoreboard”, I’d be a little more thoughtful about things like that, especially as to who might be reading your posts.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 9th, 2007 18:05
hey tard why don’t you shut up until YOU can say scoreboard
Posted from: 66.157.157.40
August 9th, 2007 18:07
tardevan-
i think you might want to meet sean wynn before you make posts like that. you should go back into hiding now. no, seriously.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 9th, 2007 18:50
It doesn’t matter who he is, Mangus. It’s unacceptable. And further, it doesn’t matter who I am either. Regardless of the people involved, or the forum (online, public, private, debate, the real world), it’s a word and a way of thinking that’s, again, unacceptable.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 9th, 2007 19:02
i’m pretty sure “nigga” carries a different connotation than the word you’re thinking of. dipshit.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 9th, 2007 19:14
Ardevan, I have no idea who you are, but I already know that you are a total douche.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 9th, 2007 19:19
The ensuing flamewar is inane; I’ve said what I needed to say. It’s unacceptable, and occurs far too frequently in this community- period.
Posted from: 69.249.89.159
August 9th, 2007 19:19
why are you advocating censorship
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
August 9th, 2007 19:24
ardevan–what do you mean it occurs too frequently in this community? are you saying the debate community is racist?
Posted from: 75.68.104.189
August 9th, 2007 19:49
yeah, sean wynn is definitely entrenching racism in the debate community…
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 9th, 2007 19:50
tardevan you are so stupid. sean wynn runs a k about black empowerment for christ’s sake.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
August 9th, 2007 20:04
“Until you can say ’scoreboard’, I’d be a little more thoughtful about things like that, especially as to who might be reading your posts”
I’m a little confused on this point. Are you saying that one can only use controversial language if one has TOC bids?
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 9th, 2007 20:06
In all honesty i would love to meet Sean Wynn as i have never heard of him/seen him until today. But seeing as how hes from U-Ok i would think hes a judge/Coach of some sort. But if your a debater, Sean, By all means go to the NE Ill be happy to debate you there.
As socially unacceptable Sean’s post was the rest of the posts seem no more so acceptable.
LD is not Philosophy. Who ever told you that is mistaken. LD is VALUES DEBATE. ie: Which do we VALUE more. Sure you could run a particular philosopher because they value the same principle that your position does but it doesnt mean that its Kant vs Jesus (LOL @ Jesus K).
Also one more thing: YOUR IP ADDRESS IS CLEARLY POSTED RIGHT UNDER YOUR NAME. SO “are your kidding me” or should i say “Wade” The fact that you live @ 575 Morosgo Drive Atlanta GA means that Mangus can come to YOUR house to smack you upside the head.
Posted from: 66.157.157.40
August 9th, 2007 20:07
mr yaghoubi-
before you go completely bill o’reilly status on us and refuse to say anything, i have a question:
does nietzsche’s “the gay science” argue that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality?
youre just wrong. period.
jmm
Posted from: 66.157.157.40
August 9th, 2007 20:08
also - i agree with wade. and thats not his address. someone needs a lesson in WHOIS.
Posted from: 65.33.216.205
August 9th, 2007 20:09
Dear Nick Tkachov,
Wade lives in Alabama.
Love,
Jake
Posted from: 68.117.71.35
August 9th, 2007 20:15
Nick- When you click on the IP you get the address of the persons provider. For example I am pretty sure that Jake doesn’t live in Herndon Virginia yet thats what I get when I click the IP.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 9th, 2007 20:16
XD Whoops. didnt see that one.
Sorry i forgot how to do the tracking with command prompt. Thanks for the reminder.
Ya but i would still love to know whois Sean Wynn.
(Pun intended)
Posted from: 65.33.216.205
August 9th, 2007 20:19
lol?
P.S. Can I say the n-word now???
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 9th, 2007 20:28
I think we all need to listen to George Carlin. The man has alot to say about Language.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 9th, 2007 20:51
“I’m a little confused on this point. Are you saying that one can only use controversial language if one has TOC bids?”
Jon, in retrospect, I can understand the confusion, and the answer is obviously no- what I said was different from what I intended to say. That last part was in reference to the fact that I, as well as several other people it seems like, don’t know who the person was. Hence, when “introducing” oneself, one ought to be more “thoughtful”; this is added to the fact that he can’t reply with “scoreboard”, (as some others who are offensive might, and have). It was more of a general statement about being rude in public, but sorry for any unintended consequences. I’d actually prefer to not discuss this in this forum, but if anyone else has concerns, they can email me, as several have already.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 9th, 2007 20:57
“Until you can say “scoreboard”, I’d be a little more thoughtful about things like that, especially as to who might be reading your posts.”
sorry dude i dont think you can come back from that one. we all know what your post meant.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 9th, 2007 21:08
You are pathetic, “dude”. I attached my name to my original post when I took issue with someone; the reasons why you can’t do the same are, unfortunately, clear to all.
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 9th, 2007 21:13
Now that we have established that Ardevan makes no sense at the very best, can we revert back to the discussion about the topics? On that note, Trade Agreements all the way.
Posted from: 76.187.77.128
August 9th, 2007 21:15
If I got more bids than Tardy can I call him Tardy?
But seriously, I do not understand how you can dare to elevate yourself to the position of the language police? What claim to universal moral authority do you bear? Whither is the excellence of thought that supports your claim that this use of language is unacceptable? By what standards do you judge and where are they erected from?
Finally, how dare you welcome a member of the debate community in that manner?
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
August 9th, 2007 21:18
I think we all learned a valuable lesson. Persian/Arab people are arrogant and must be put in internment camps until their food isn’t bland.
GO CURRY!
I vote PP but i also voted Gore, so who knows where my vote will go.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 9th, 2007 21:23
Sean Wynn is going to fuck up some fools next year. Sean was not introducing himself. He didn’t say, “Sup, I’m Sean Wynn and I like to say n____!” Just because you’ve never heard his name doesn’t mean a. you are better than him b. you are allowed to criticize his behavior or c. you are the final say in this matter. Get your facts straight before posting.
Also, don’t even say that your post didn’t mean what it said. You’re a debater. C’mon, you really don’t know how to express what you mean?
On a side note, I agree, trade agreements is my favorite topic as well.
Posted from: 24.29.156.219
August 9th, 2007 21:32
“I think we all learned a valuable lesson. Persian/Arab people are arrogant and must be put in internment camps until their food isn’t bland.”
just cause you don’t like ardevan doesn’t mean you have to be racist. I’m not trying to be a language authority, but that wasn’t funny at all
Posted from: 76.166.60.58
August 9th, 2007 21:49
ahhhhhh first flame war of the season…
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 9th, 2007 22:05
and i missed it. classic.
i love the way some nutjob had to throw in “LD IS VALUE DEBATE” when it was totally unapplicable.
sean wynn can call me a nigga all he wants.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 9th, 2007 23:01
I love these flame wars. Dude, Rebar, same man.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 23:38
iight so while I’m out making money some pretentious scarsdaler thinks it’s cool to speak my name without knowing me…..since when is that cool?
1.You go to scarsdale, they are only allowed to have three cool people in attendance at one given time and homie those three were at NSD, sorry man.
2. I can say nigga all I want, it’s not faux pas for me to say it, apparently you don’t know what “social privilege” is man. I speak from mine and that comes with it, you don’t know me so take them shoes off ya teeth and stop running ya mouth.
3. I wasn’t introducing myself, if you look all the way back to the TOC I have been posting
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 23:41
4. If it makes you feel better
Name:Seantaylor Roswell Wynn
Location:the OK
School: Norman High
Grade:12
Height:74.5 inches
Weight:plenty
Race:Black, of Zimbabwean heritage
Bids:130,896,567
Summer Institute:National Symposium for Debate
Week 3:Why sure
Style:Nihilist
…may I talk now massa? please suh? please lemme speaks on these fancy electronic inter web boards suh…please
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 9th, 2007 23:49
you’ve been officially hit with some knowledge. consider yourself blessed
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 9th, 2007 23:59
oh, and to the scoreboard thing, my nigga it doesn’t matter how many bids you had last year, I hadn’t heard a word saying how amazing you were nor a breath about you until I got home thirty minutes ago, but people were blowing up my sidekick all day stating how wack you were, one statement was to the effect of, “man he thinks he’s amazing but he’s really not, scarsdale only has three cool kids,like you know how ******* hates ******** well he REALLY REALLY REALLY hates this guy”….I know how to say scoreboard actually as well, they’ve let us learn to read for about sixty years now man.
Posted from: 70.56.7.128
August 10th, 2007 00:42
ardevan,
yo, quit while you’re ahead.
much love,
maeshal
ps: sean wynn is spartacus
Posted from: 205.206.176.198
August 10th, 2007 00:44
“There is a motto circulating these days: Real Black Folks Work. And where else can you find real black folk except in the killing fields, which is, by definition, the place for nonproductive consumption-the end of work? The killing fields, then, are the place of non-work for complete consumption of needless workers. Real black folk are already dead, walking around consuming themselves in search of that which is no longer possible, that which defines them. Understand that the killing fields are everywhere; and whoever is born after us in the killing fields will belong to a higher history, the history of the nigga. You all are upset by this because you don’t know what it is to be a nigga. A nigga is that which emerges from the demise of human capital, what gets articulated when the field nigger loses value as labor. The nigga is unemployed, null and void, walking around like . . . a nigga who understands that all possibility converts from capital, and capital does not derive from work.”
-Ice T
Posted from: 70.56.7.128
August 10th, 2007 00:55
oh and nick tkachov, can i debate you too? no philosophy, i promise. personally, i think that shit is DUMB. who even reads that stuff, anyway?
Posted from: 205.206.176.198
August 10th, 2007 01:03
“As socially unacceptable Sean’s post was the rest of the posts seem no more so acceptable.”
sorry, man. i guess we forgot that a black kid at a debate tournament could still make people blush.
“LD is not Philosophy. Who ever told you that is mistaken. LD is VALUES DEBATE. ie: Which do we VALUE more. Sure you could run a particular philosopher because they value the same principle that your position does but it doesnt mean that its Kant vs Jesus (LOL @ Jesus K).”
maybe it’s just that some systems of values make no sense.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 01:18
yea wtf to this man going on a rant about “VALUE” debate…I know what debate is man..apparently you don’t because spending four minutes stating why societal welfare is better than ethical egoism went out around 1987.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 10th, 2007 08:11
Sorry, My coach taught me in way that it was in 1987.
But if you think that you know what debate is more than i do by all means, go ahead and explain it all to us. You seem to be the great master debater as all of the other people on this forum have been saying.
And even if its not values debate then what is it?
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 09:30
the only master debater around here is you homie
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 10th, 2007 09:32
I find the reactions on this thread amusing; if that’s the state we’re in when someone objects to the use of the n-word (receives ad-homs and worse), then I think there are bigger issues than racism affecting the debate community (namely, idiocy). Someone used an offensive term, I thought it was inappropriate, and called the person out on it. The rest of you are all pretty juvenile.
And Sean, as I clarified, it doesn’t matter who you are. I’ll quote myself in an email I sent to someone on the matter:
“Yes, he is [entrenching racism]. It doesn’t matter if he runs “a black empowerment k” orwhatever he might do; I know for a fact that the use of the n word inthe debate community has real effects- it is much more prominent inthis community than in general society. Further, even if he DOES run those arguments,the fact that I’ve never even heard of him (considering I travel adecent amount, or at least hear most of what goes on in the “nationalcircuit”) means that he is reaching a far greater amount of people byposting online than he does via in-round arguments. Also, I’d say thatrunning a black power kritik is completely at odds with teh use of then-word, but that’s a whole nother debate, one which he was clearly NOTengaging. It wasn’t an intellectual use of the word, it was a casual,flippant instance- which is in my mind all the more harmful because itmakes people think they can throw it around without consequences.”
But then again, no one, save a few who already contacted me, is actually interested in discussing this on a slightly mature level, so this (and other posts) were probably in vain. And I’m going to go as low as to throw around stupid disses over the internet- I think insulting my teammates (saying there are only 3 cool kids on Scarsdale) is just ridiculous and over the line too.
And mjocon, that was an interesting card/idea. Who is the author? There are strong hints of Bataille in there.
Posted from: 69.118.237.25
August 10th, 2007 09:34
And I’m *not going to go as low…
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 10:00
who said I run a black power kritik?
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 10:32
Well, I want to sound mature and say I hate responding to flame wars, but I love it. However, Ardevan allow me to clear something up for you, and everyone since apparently it’s a huge problem in the debate community. There is a huge difference between the word nigger and nigga, I suggest anyone who thinks me saying nigga as the same as someone calling me a n****r that you read “On the Question of Nigga Authenticity” by R. A. T. Judy
However Ardevan, you probably haven’t heard of anything I’ve been doing in round because the season hasn’t started yet….ask anyone who was at NSD though, including the only three cool kids who go to scarsdale senior high school, and they’ll tell you about me in-round man. To clarify though:Wade, it’s not a black K or empowerment K or race K….it’s just da project.
Posted from: 76.187.77.128
August 10th, 2007 10:40
Hey Ardy, btw Sean did not use the N-word. This has been pointed out before. But thank you for quoting yourself. 1. The n-word in the community has real effects. What are these effects? How do these effects link to what Sean actually said. Why do you want to steal the word nigga from the black community? What did they ever do to you? 2. I think that you are making some gross miss assumptions about Sean’s ability to compete next year. Why will Sean be unable to engage the community next year with da project?
I think it is fascinating that you find a quote/card from an article that elucidates the genealogical development between the N-word and the term nigga, yet you seem to have no grasp upon this development. While the N-world arises to commodity the African American and reduce him to slave, the term nigga works to, in some ways, subvert the established order of power in work in the commodifying practices entrenched in our language. Nigga attempts to grant authenticity when previously there was only commodity. Perhaps you will find it interesting.
I hope that you find this engaging rather than discover it as tactile hating.
On the Question of Nigga Authenticity
R. A. T. Judy
boundary 2, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Autumn, 1994), pp. 211-230.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-
Posted from: 207.172.73.91
August 10th, 2007 11:06
Before I say anything about Ardevan/Sean and that discussion, Nick, please shut up. At the beginning of the year Lynne gave a big speech discussing appropriate comments on internet boards because of Gabe, please do not make Maggie give one because of you.
Anyhow, I think this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Ardevan’s original comment that people shouldn’t use that word on internet forums isn’t a reason everyone should be attacking him for it. The way he phrased this position as an attack on Sean is unacceptable but since then he’s been willing to discuss the issue and all anyone seems interested in doing is bashing Ardevan. It’s also a shame that this discussion has gone so over the line as to insult Scarsdale as a school because of a comment that Ardevan made…
If you take issue with what Ardevan initially said, how he said it, or whatever, you should talk to him about, or actually address what he is saying instead of making broad attacks about his character.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 11:14
can’t I do both?
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 10th, 2007 11:23
Ya, This flame war has gotten out of hand.
I say we put it behind us. People post stupid stuff on the internet (See: Jason’s post) and a little slip up isnt something that we should hound dog people on.
Im genuinely surprised that noone has instituted Godwin’s law yet. .
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 10th, 2007 11:56
Yeah, I agree, next time I’m clearly losing an argument, I will say “This is just gotten out of hand.”
Please stop running away from the truth.
Posted from: 207.172.73.91
August 10th, 2007 12:07
There is a difference between taking issue with Ardevan not understanding that there is a difference between those two words, and people just making broad attacks about Ardevan’s character and his team/school. If you think Ardevan’s wrong you can tell him without also insulting him. But maybe you’re right, next time I’m in a debate I will just make fun of my opponent’s family and hope for the best.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 10th, 2007 12:35
“Yeah, I agree, next time I’m clearly losing an argument, I will say “This is just gotten out of hand.””
I dont mind losing an argument (god knows ive lost many arguments) but i mind when people start involving things that have nothing to do with that argument and then putting them into bad light.
Scarsdale has nothing to do with philosophy vs values and Ardy’s character has nothing to do with what he is saying.
Im saying that people are starting to portray them selfs in ways that would be advised against.
Posted from: 68.229.55.157
August 10th, 2007 13:06
Ok, I can agree with that. I do think that if Sean wants to make a legit argument here, he should leave out attacking Scarsdale and whoever this kid Ardevan is. However, I would just like to see both people, ie. Aredevan AND Sean, come to terms on here.
Posted from: 24.161.65.19
August 10th, 2007 13:08
Anyone who supports the use of the N Word is tacitly supporting some view of racism. Throughout history, the N word was used as deroggatory language referring to individuals , namely blacks, who were looked at as subhuman.
Now that you have some backround knowledge, stop using the N- word. Not only is it immature, it’s unnecessary and offensive. Like I’m wondering how people can support the use of that word, privatley or publicly. This is insane and it needs to stop. Listen to Ardevan and Jason. And no, I don’t have a bid, but that shouldn’t matter. This isn’t a matter of debate ability at this point.
ps. There are definatley more than 3 cool Scarsdale debaters. That debate you lose.
Posted from: 70.56.7.128
August 10th, 2007 13:30
thank you for providing us a history of the word “nigga”, now we all know the truth behind the racial epithet.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 13:58
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaahahhaahahahahahahahaahaha that frontline report “Matt” gave is the funniest shit ever.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 14:11
Whoever you are Matt, I can assume from your presence you aren’t well versed in black culture so you really have no say in what should or shouldn’t be supported. I don’t see what the big fuss is man you niggas are acting like some rookies man.Chill.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 10th, 2007 15:24
I’m surprised someone has not yet posted Derrida card about how words are arbitrary. Racist slurs dont exist
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
August 10th, 2007 15:24
Whoa I had no idea that the n-word was used in an offensive manner at some time in history, that’s some background knowledge you can def take to the bank.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 10th, 2007 15:25
btw, above post is not my advocacy. I prefer to stay neutral in such tense situations :P
Posted from: 75.73.214.91
August 10th, 2007 15:29
Varun: I’ve been living my life thus far as if my words have no external consequences, which is probably why I had NO idea that the n-word used to be offensive! I blame Derrida for indoctrinating me with his straightforward statement of the nature of language.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 10th, 2007 16:11
it was a joke :(
Posted from: 24.161.65.19
August 10th, 2007 17:02
“hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaahahhaahahahahahahahaahaha that frontline report “Matt” gave is the funniest shit ever. ”
That funny ‘frontline report’ I gave was because you guys either a. don’t know anything about the meaning of that word(hence the ‘report’) or b. Don’t care (which I assume is the correct choice)
So I was just filling you in.
By the way, I realize that the n.word is used frequently in black culture and seems to have no derogatory meaning. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or any less racist.
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 17:27
I think some people need to lighten up or at least become more realistic. While you may think your intentions are noble, you should probably realize that this is not the ideal forum for mobilizing a linguistic movement. As evidenced by the intense backlash to the moral police, which has quite clearly been counter-productive to what they wanted to accomplish in the first place-namely Ardevan.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 10th, 2007 17:49
Thats the problem “wow”…the more places this is allowable, the worse it gets.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 10th, 2007 18:01
….I can’t control my tongue anymore…you have no idea what you are speaking about man just stop talking.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 10th, 2007 18:11
Yea Ill stop talking when you stop thinking its perfectly fine to call people n. and making really obscene comments.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 10th, 2007 18:32
hey i’ve got this brilliant idea: how about you guys stop ranting about your moral high ground and actually answer corbin and sean’s arguments
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 19:01
Psychologically, Matt, you are using your self-constructed moral pedastool to tell others how to act. Does it make you happy to tell others that they have violated your moral boundaries? Even more so, do you feel good knowing that on a debate forum you were able to challenge the use of a word that you feel is so socially insidious?
By the way the self-constructed moral high ground that you stand on and that you use to make the comments you have, is the rationale people use to establish words like “nigger” and prevent the usage of words that liberate people -e.g. “nigga”.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 10th, 2007 19:11
The word nigga liberates people??! Enlighten me. Seriously.
I’d be more than happy to discuss this with anyone outside of a debate thread, but since this is where the convo is happening, why would i post anywhere else. And I don’t stand on a moral pedastool. I’m am just arguing about what I think is right and wrong as are many other people on this thread. If I am on a ‘moral pedastool’ for thinking a word is derogatory, that same line of thinking is used for those who think it’s perfectly acceptable. We have differetiating opinions on this; but I don’t think that puts any of us on this so called pedastool.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
August 10th, 2007 19:16
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-3659(199423)21%3A3%3C211%3AOTQONA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 10th, 2007 19:34
damn shweezy, you’re killin these foo’s. call you pacman, those ghosts is blue.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 10th, 2007 19:39
while our best liberal impulses may be to cry out against the appearance of oppression, we often forget that oppression in the form of totalizing goals or policies is just as harmful if not more so, hiding within the acceptable guise of social utility. to quote (roughly) deleuze and guattari:
it is all too easy to be against the fascist without, while harboring fascism in your own flesh and blood, your speech acts and the goals of your groups.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 10th, 2007 19:44
Wow we are all facists. youre cool
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 19:46
I don’t act on a pedastool by thinking that I should be able to use certain words…but you do stand on a moral pedastool when you decide for others if those words are right or wrong…
Posted from: 76.216.11.238
August 10th, 2007 19:51
it’s pedestal. btw.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
August 10th, 2007 19:52
They are wrong because the way they used to be used was wrong.
Posted from: 128.36.76.38
August 10th, 2007 19:55
I though this was supposed to be a discussion about the potential sept-oct topics…
Clearly few here are experts of discussing the nuances of race theory, linguistics or stuff like that. I’ll save my opinion about the difference between the n-word and “nigga” (of which I’m on both sides of the actually), but this is no place to have this discussion, as evidenced by the “high-quality” discourse happening here.
(This is exactly why I hope the race in admissions topic does NOT get picked, LDers
tend to lack the analytic sophistication and tact to deal with such issues carefully…as I’ve seen over the years of coaching)
Instead of having this debate here, go read some books, get educated about the subject and discuss it offline…
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 20:01
Ok so because you decide that a word was used wrongly in the past we should not use that word now? By the way the words nigger and nigga are different..notice the letters and the formulation of the words.
That being said, you do have courage to make openly fallacious statements and then completely deny what you said…
I.E. I don’t stand on a pedastool…I just tell me I think they are wrong for no other reason than because I think I am right….
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 20:02
Edit: me=other people
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
August 10th, 2007 20:19
claps to bhill. way to voice of reason this shit.
Posted from: 128.97.179.251
August 10th, 2007 21:20
pedestal
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
August 10th, 2007 21:21
Matt/Ardevan/etc.,
I don’t know if they have black people in upstate New York, but I know they have Blockbuster, so do yourselves a favor and go rent Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled” and Warren Beatty’s “Bulworth”. You might actually learn something.
Posted from: 68.244.238.254
August 10th, 2007 21:57
alex, aka pope aka smitty, scarsdale isnt in upstate ny; we’re in westchester. 20 minutes from the bronx, about 15 to yonkers. how bout la jolla?
and yes, b hill is the voice of reason. corbin, et al apparently have difficulty reading.why not just email me if you something to say as opposed to public posturing?
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 21:59
wow we ahve moral and spelling police thanks john.
Posted from: 68.107.238.89
August 10th, 2007 21:59
edit: ahve to have…wait I should probably leave that to john
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 10th, 2007 22:19
well pedastool kind of made it sound like some poopy concoction :D
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 10th, 2007 22:24
Anyway, about the topic itself, i personally dislike the death penalty topic, and people will disagree with me, but i think that debate could occur in round in most other topics as well. Maybe those debates wouldnt be specific to “death penalty” but they still pose the fundamental question that the death penalty resolution questions, that is, whether or not people lose the right to autonomy or life because of past actions. ex: corps lose right to autonomy because of corporate abuse, or endorsers of domestic violence losing the right to autonomy.The death penalty resolution merely poses a question of retrbutive justice, so why not pick a good resolution and run a retributive Justice advocacy?
Posted from: 75.84.57.212
August 10th, 2007 23:53
psh…all y’all are n00bs! :D
The topic will be R: It’d be cool to kill one dude to save a bunch of other nubs lives.
Posted from: 70.128.102.27
August 11th, 2007 00:28
dear “matt”:
scroll up to post 100 and read it. then you’ll understand why the term “nigga” can be understood as one of liberation.
also, see corbin and sean’s recent posts; the article, “on the question of nigga authenticity” by r.a.t. judy from the journal “boundary” will teach you a lot that you may not already know. it’s accessible on jstor, and i feel most people posting on this thread could afford to learn some things about the meanings and etymologies of various terms beginning with the letter n that refer in some way to black people.
ardy:
that quote was from ice t, actually. it appears in the aforementioned article. the article is fairly heideggerian.
Posted from: 70.128.102.27
August 11th, 2007 00:39
oh, and regarding the actual topic at hand:
varun, i think your understanding of the death penalty topic is somewhat limited. i mean, you’re sort of assuming that people are going to debate retributive justice vs. restorative justice, etc., while there are a multitude of issues regarding constraints on symbolic state power, specific cases in which the death penalty may be necessary to avoid atrocity, the necessity of violence to expose deeper social troubles, etc. that you’re not exploring.
also, a lot of people may approach that camp from a sense that is informed by the empirics of the subject; many affirmative cases on that topic would be about racist and sexist application of the death penalty (how appropriate to the tangential discussion on this thread).
Posted from: 70.56.7.128
August 11th, 2007 01:44
for the record, ardevan’s point isn’t completely blasphemous and stupid. i think he raises some interesting questions, but the way in which he presented them is not something to emulate.
why should sean be able to say “nigga” while others can’t? he calls it “social privilege”, but does that mean sean’s “blackness” (for lack of a better word), precedes his human beingness? will he just become some entity we are enamored by due to his ethnicity?
Posted from: 70.104.140.155
August 11th, 2007 06:56
wtf is the big deal with the scoreboard word? what does it mean anyway and why is it such an honor to use the word
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 11th, 2007 08:18
Is Ardevan going to Ghill????
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 11th, 2007 08:34
The thing with the death penelty topic that i dont like (i think i posted this before) is that it includes “Ought” which most people somehow define as morality (could someone explain this to me?) and Justice, Which 99% of people define as “giving each thier due”.
This can come into conflict as what you are due may not be moral. ie: Sean is due to be smacked upside the head but we dont do it because morality prevents us from hurting people.
A just society may want to kill people but morally its impermissible. It comes down to definitions of if justice = morality. On top of that the aff has more ground than the neg in that they can say that its morally impermissible or that its unjust and sufficiently prove the resolution false.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 11th, 2007 09:15
mjocon- Well, even if there are other factors, your specifics do prove that it can be incorporated into other resolutions i.e. what are the impacts of racism on policy?
Moreover, if death penalty is a mean to stop atrocities, etc, that just devolves into resolution #4, “It is morally permissible kill one blah blah.” It turns into a teleology vs. deontology debate. Many people seem to think that that specific resolution about whether its morally permissible to kill on person to save the lives of many more innocent people is good because it allows us to explore the fundamental concepts of most debate rounds. However, I feel pretty pissed off when someone says, “Go to the AC, he concedes in CX that the AC is teleological, here are 50 answers to teleology.”
In the end, despite how ignorant i am of death penalty thought (lack of better term), i still think the resolution, at its core, will sprout debates about whether util or deontology is better, or debates about retributive justice vs. restorative jsutice.
Its true, the resolution is easy to understand, but I’m not sure how substantive the debate would get at the point where we are readng 20 point blocks on deontology.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
August 11th, 2007 09:18
Moreover, the death penalty topic will be very annoying for a LOT of schools. It is an extremely controversial topic, not to say that others are not, but this specific topic is incredibly controversial to the point where many people following or involved in political debates will sign the ballot in favor of what they think is right.
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 11th, 2007 09:21
“Sean is due to be smacked upside the head”
….seriously my (oh my gosh he’s gonna say it again) nigga?
Posted from: 207.172.73.91
August 11th, 2007 11:48
Sean, just ignore Nick.
Nick, not everyone defines ought as morality, many people define it as indicating desirability, as in I ought to move the chair that’s blocking my way.
Also even if ought is morality, it is the only evaluative term in the resolution. The word just is only there to modify society, so ultimately the resolution is still a question of which action a just society ought to take. So if ought is morality then a just society ought to act morally even if it isn’t just.
Justice here isn’t the value because if the resolution were phrased “a totalitarian state ought to kill people” you wouldn’t value totalitarianism and affirm by saying killing better leads to an oppresive government.
I think the only way the word Just even matters for the resolution is that it potentially lets the negative get out of implementation issues with death penalty. So when the affirmative makes arguments about the DP being applied racistly or geographically or whatever the negative could claim that a just society wouldn’t implement it in those ways. The argument would be that the resolution pressuposes the existence of a just society because whether it is a just society or not would affect the outcome of the resolution in the same way that you would evaluate the use of nuclear power differently depending on whether it was a just state or a fascist one using it.
Anyhow I debated the resolution at camp last year. It was good and I don’t think it collapsed to the types of debates that Varun is talking about. Also I think that the problem of it becoming a debate about teleology/deontology could apply to any resolution insofar as your case is probably one of the two.
Posted from: 209.6.250.227
August 11th, 2007 12:56
“….seriously my (oh my gosh he’s gonna say it again) nigga?”
Sorry i needed an example, i could have used jason but he didnt do anything (hence isnt due anything)
And it lost its effect the second time around.
Im pretty sure that most judges arent going to make this into an issue of personal politics. they are usualy better than that.
Jason, Disirability makes sense. I just keep hearing that “ought is morality” from some people.
But ya i think that justice is the value here. What else is the resolution trying to achive? Sure you could weight the cost/benifits to see if a society should do something but the fact that its a just society implies that it wants to do what is more just. So the debate would come down to weither a just society would do it.
So it comes down like this: A just society should do things that is just because in a just society justice is desireable. therefore even if we ought to do something because its desireable then we do what is most just because justice is what we desire. The value is still justice.
But thats a good idea, Getting out of implimentation problems with the “justice”.
$5 to the person that starts thier NC with: “BECAUSE JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL I NEGATE!”
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 11th, 2007 13:04
I’ll give you five dollars if you never speak again.
Posted from: 192.246.232.117
August 11th, 2007 13:26
this is by far the most entertaining flame war i’ve ever read
and congratulations to crobz, who has solidified his position as the poet laureate of the debate community
Posted from: 129.15.131.248
August 11th, 2007 13:32
corbin, are you coaching this year? lol
Posted from: 207.172.73.91
August 11th, 2007 13:54
Nick… why does the nature of the actor in this case decide what they ought to do. The example I gave was that if the resolution were phrased “a totalitarian government ought to kill people” we wouldn’t affirm it and say that yes they ought to kill people because it better allows for oppressive governments. Like what I ought to do and what a killer ought to do are the exact same, i.e. we both ought not kill people. Just because it’s a just society doesn’t mean that it ought to achieve justice. FOr example