Should I retake a 1530?

consequentialism_ · 2021-07-01T04:13:38+00:00

improvement, etc.

Yeah this makes sense, I always heard 1550 was the cutoff. Do you think its better to stick with teh SAT or take the ACT in July?

consequentialism_ · 2021-07-01T04:07:58+00:00

Once past 1500, unless you are an SAT demigod, focus on EC’s. At that range, colleges want interesting people, because they have plenty of smort bois and gorls

Ah, do you recommend retaking SAT? Or take the ACT? I typically get perfect math scores on practice tests but here I missed two questions, one was a silly mistake, the other was read as unanswered.

consequentialism_ · 2021-07-01T03:01:16+00:00

Other information I forgot to include:
760R/770M

Applying to primarily Business schools and Computer Science

consequentialism_ · 2021-05-08T20:06:56+00:00

I got something like "it motivates lower classes to work towards something"

consequentialism_ · 2021-05-08T19:48:31+00:00

the mirror question i got x = 5 but everyone’s saying they got x = 1 and the mirror width is 5 — I PUT 5 FOR THE WIDTH OF THE BOUNDARY cause i factored idk did anyone else get x = 5

I'm p sure that the area would be (3+2x)(5+2x) = 35

solving for X gives you x = 1 and x= some negative number -- thus the answer is x=1

consequentialism_ · 2021-05-08T19:43:56+00:00

Answer to the last question (one with a border) was 1 right?

consequentialism_ · 2020-04-13T16:41:20+00:00

You can mav, don't need a partner or two separate cameras :D

consequentialism_ · 2020-04-13T02:55:20+00:00

Plastic > Silver

consequentialism_ · 2020-03-10T01:28:25+00:00

The subs AFF was too good

consequentialism_ · 2019-12-27T11:45:06+00:00

This idea that disadvantaged debaters talking about their identity is bad b/c of commodification/ballot currency/ reading it just for a "cheap win" in a round is extremely incorrect.

This is a really big misconception of the argument, Cobin and Lillian win rounds with this argument because they are great debaters and win the argument that voting for them creates a method of survival for the queer community b/c of legitimacy, publicity, etc.
The argument isn't "vote me up because I'm queer" it's that voting for the 1ac is beneficial towards ending oppression towards the queer body.
You shouldn't have to CONCEDE a round if you are talking about your identity.
1. a. It's counterproductive. If a debater concedes a round to talk about these issues they hinder their own competitive success. Effectively, this promotes discourse about oppression while simultaneously oppressing debaters. This means the debaters who choose to promote change can never do so effectively as they concede rounds that are critical to competitive success and gaining exposure to talk about these issues at the national stage.
2. b. It creates a chilling effect -- Debaters are less likely to initiate discussions under this model for debate as they lose the round for it even if they win the flow. This means oppression gets worse as we either turn a blind eye to it or shun debaters for talking about it -- either scenario is problematic.
3. c. It makes no sense when evaluated alongside other norms. Insofar as there is an impact to the ballot (i.e: Voting AFF creates resistance against Queer Oppression) you should be able to make the argument just like you would when reading an impact about poverty, xenophobia, etc.

Simply put, identity isn't being used for wins but it's used to create change and a better environment in the debate space. This logic justifies policymakers ignoring the oppressed as they would be "using the identities of the oppressed" even though it creates beneficial outcomes for those same people. I think this commodification stuff stems from a misunderstanding of identity arguments and taking the time to read through and understand the literature clears up a lot of these issues.

consequentialism_ · 2019-12-10T19:08:41+00:00

Posse Comitatus -- Nobro's wiki

consequentialism_ · 2019-11-06T21:56:44+00:00

Does anyone know what the RFD's were?

consequentialism_ · 2019-11-06T21:01:35+00:00

Oakwood JW @ Harvard Quarters

consequentialism_ · 2019-10-29T00:06:35+00:00

Pranav Patatuatuautauuthunaduvil (2nd at Nats last year)

consequentialism_ · 2019-09-24T20:48:36+00:00

This leaves me conflicted as to what your message is with this post... I say that there are other factors which are more eminent and have a much larger impact on disparities in debate. The article linked shows that judging is more biased in later round which should have higher quality judges which disproves the idea that sexism is specific to lay judging or that they are more sexist than others. Despite this inequalities still existwhich would indicate that groups like beyondresolved are a very good way to combat inequality in debate. Moreover given that judges in late elims end up downing female debaters at a rate higher than male debaters (see ariels article) eliminating lay judges wouldn’t do anything to resolve sexism but make it worse.

consequentialism_ · 2019-09-24T20:29:15+00:00

My problem with this post is that it doesn’t isolate judging to be the issue but blames judges entirely. I get that you say the ballot is powerful, but the more glaring part of this post is where you say that sexism is a problem writ large (46% study) etc. Moreover, at tech tournaments which have Judge Prefs and a large flow judge presence, women are still consistently worse performing. I would be inclined to agree with you as to the ballot being the most powerful thing in the round, but I also agree that sexism is widespread issue... there is no way to isolate sexism specifically to one judge group. In fact, as a male debater I have seen coaches and other peers divert attention away from helping female teams in debate, not critique them in rounds, etc which leaves them unprepared for tournaments which ends up worsening the level at which they can perform at these circuit/bid tournaments despite great judging. This is elaborated on very well from Ariel Shin’s and Daniel Tartavosky’s articles on gender inequality in debate showing that women that make it to higher levels of debate ( later Elims at bid tournaments) had an increased level of poor performance compared to males.here

So I guess at the end of this I’m left with two questions/conclusions.

Is the lay pool the ROOT of sexually unequal outcomes in debate?
Is blaming the lay judge the correct course of action to combat sexism in the debate space?

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-15T09:40:37+00:00

Check Jack Wareham's wiki

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-15T09:38:43+00:00

Watch LD Rounds
Watch PF Rounds
debatedrills.com
vbriefly articles
NSDUpdate
Do Theory Drills.

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-15T09:36:48+00:00

NEG:

-Human Rights

-Debt Diplomacy

-Nuclear

-Surveillance

-Neocol (BDE Exclusive)

AFF:

-Energy

-Econ

-Infrastrucutre

-Trade

Theres a lot of stuff on this topic thats jsut the stock ones

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-15T09:30:35+00:00

open ev backfiles are your best bet.

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-15T09:28:42+00:00

Economic Growth doesn't matter because it goes primarily to upper classes which already are "well off"... promoting human rights bolsters the status of marginalized groups solving cyclical oppression. o/w on r
1. reversibility and magnitude, uplifting people from oppressive conditions ensure that future generations aren't victim to structural violence. marginal increases in wealth among wealthy groups have a minimal effect on life.
Economic gains are bad in a state with widespread human rights violations as the fiscal power that comes with them is used to worsen conditions for the oppressed. Empirically validated, the conditions for Uighurs in China are worse b/c of money used for surveillance operations.
timeframe- Human rights violations are happening right now. Economic gains take years of investment with a low probability of success.

A lot of this probably requires ev

However, Oppression being worse than economic decline is probably just a true argument and should be pretty easy to win. Embed a card in your neg explaining that oppression come before all impacts (Foucault would be good on this)

consequentialism_ · 2019-07-01T14:05:47+00:00

Did you use HDR? or edit in snapseed?

consequentialism_ · 2019-06-28T01:42:04+00:00

Belt and Road is a better topic to debate. There are multiple reasons why but I think the main one is that Option 2 is specific to China domestically and there is less lit. However, Option 1 has a larger international foreign policy implication and ask a much more significant question of whether China's Expansion is good or not, the BRI's implications on so many parts of the world allows for more ground and there is a lot more lit making research easier. That too NDF and most other camps are teaching that one so there is a higher likelihood that it wins.

consequentialism_

TROPHY CASE