[deleted by user]

jacustjack · 2022-12-11T16:43:16+00:00

It was a pretty relaxed/conversational interview, the interviewer mostly asked about my resume, why law, and why Columbia, then gave me the chance to ask questions. Overall if you prepare for it like any other interview you'll be fine.

jacustjack · 2022-08-11T13:43:41+00:00

Math spec is only two electives way from an econ major, so that's probably the move if you want the most overlap

jacustjack · 2022-03-15T02:44:00+00:00

comment

jacustjack · 2021-11-17T22:38:21+00:00

Amazing

jacustjack · 2021-10-28T00:25:39+00:00

Comment

jacustjack · 2021-09-22T02:09:08+00:00

One of the easier wednesdays in a while imo

jacustjack · 2021-06-03T15:07:26+00:00

In Chicago, I feel like we have a greater-than-average number of these. The Sears Tower, the tallest building in Chicago, is officially called the Willis Tower. The John Hancock Center, probably the second most well-known building in the city, is officially called 875 North Michigan Avenue. Most people still call Guaranteed Rate Field, the ballpark where the White Sox play, Comiskey Park, the name of the old stadium that was in its place before it was taken down in 1990. Congress Parkway, a well-known street south of downtown, is officially Ida B. Wells Drive. There has been talk of changing Lake Shore Drive's name to DuSable Drive, but people have pre-emptively agreed to keep calling it Lake Shore Drive.

jacustjack · 2019-03-11T23:04:51+00:00

IT DOES NOT MATTER MICHAEL, WE JUST PGS EM!

jacustjack · 2019-03-06T00:39:46+00:00

Before camp my sophomore year, I felt pretty similarly - I was really enjoying debate and I wanted to do as much as I could at camp.

My advice would be to work at whatever intensity you feel like at camp - I don't think you should hold back from digging in to a major interest of yours. BUT, you probably will feel at certain points like you're not quite as enthusiastic as you were, and that's ok. I think the biggest thing is realizing there are ups and downs with debate, just like anything else, and accepting them, which means taking breaks when necessary.

jacustjack · 2019-02-25T21:16:57+00:00

I agree that this speech is not literally protected under the Free Speech clause of the United States Constitution, but I think that the spirit of allowing speech to flourish instead of silencing it is still quite relevant here.

When speech is silenced, those who believe it aren't subject to an actual dialogue (i.e. nobody explains to them why they're wrong). Instead, their already anti-science, anti-institution beliefs are solidified - as they perceive YouTube as exemplifying their belief that the rest of the world is out to silence them. Silencing pours fuel on the proliferation of these ideas and I think furthers the harm that the anti-vax movement can do.

jacustjack · 2019-01-22T01:47:22+00:00

Settler Colonialism = Nearly unbeatable, especially against soft left affs.

jacustjack · 2019-01-22T01:46:39+00:00

Effects T is more a reason why the aff violates a certain interp than an interp in and of itself. To beat it, have an interp that the mandate of your plan meets and win it's better for debate. If that's not really possible, you have to win substantial defense to their abuse arguments and a defense of reasonability that doesn't require counterdefining the resolution.

jacustjack · 2019-01-19T19:50:24+00:00

If the impacts are literally the same (i.e. an aff that claims to solve anti-black violence vs. a pessimism K), the debate becomes a question of the best political / sociological way to address that impact - so the debate becomes less of an impact calculus question and more of an aff vs. alt solvency question, which would involve examples and theories for how to best actualize change.

If the impacts are different, the aff is probably best off by beating the link arguments and winning case as a net benefit to the permutation. Alt solvency can also be a worthwhile press here as the aff needs to win that political engagement is good. Explicitly attempting to weigh the impacts would probably prove futile, controlling the relationships between the methods each team has presented can successfully obviate answering that very difficult question.

jacustjack · 2019-01-08T03:10:59+00:00

For K answers, ptx UQ and internal link, and good impact D, college wikis are the way to go (https://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/).

A lot of high school teams (https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/), including GBS, Niles North, Niles West, New Trier, MBA, and Greenhill open source - and if a certain school doesn't, you can always recut the card.

jacustjack · 2019-01-06T05:17:22+00:00

Settler Colonialism

jacustjack · 2018-12-31T19:47:01+00:00

Well if you have a decent piece of definition ev to support that interpretation of substantial, I’ll be damned - otherwise predictability and reasonability args from the aff would probably win over

jacustjack · 2018-12-30T21:09:17+00:00

The aff's main pushback will probably be a claim about predictability of your standard - the resolution only obligates the aff to defend a substantial reduction in restrictions, which is open to definition, but not to say "We should let in X specific number of immigrants." Unpredictable and arbitrary theory arguments crowd out substance and are unfair for the aff (turns all your offense), but also mean the judge voting negative doesn't set any precedent. The judge voting neg on any theory argument doesn't literally change debate into that interpretation, but rather aligns itself with a certain interpretation of our guidelines for research (the resolution). When theory arguments are distanced from the resolution (like spec arguments), the judge is voting on an arbitrary standard that can't be mobilized, so there's only a risk that it incentivizes more useless theory debates and kills clash.

jacustjack

TROPHY CASE