Why does it sometimes seem that there is an inverse relationship between how stupid an argument is and how successful it is? For the purpose of this discussion I will define argument as a complete position, thus things that count as a stupid argument are things like
-politics
-most K's
-consult or condition cp's
Things that are no doubt stupid but I am not referring to here include
-multiple perms are a voter
-dispo bad
-being aff
Few people would say, in all honesty, that any of the arguments above are objectively good (with the exception of some K debaters probably) and yet many people rely on all or some of them for the majority of their neg debates. Why?
I think it's because these arguments are so flawed in 1 or 2 ways that the neg can sit on those flaws, bury them with a million arguments, and get the aff so far of course that they are conceding crucial issues. I call this the "web of stupidity". Basically the idea here is to make an argument that has 3 or 4 points, one of which is overwhelmingly stupid. The aff will rightly focus on this part of your argument. Then in the block, you extend that argument by reading 10+ arguments in support of it, many of which are in and of themselves stupid. Then the 1AR will zero in on these new stupid arguments , but in the process will drop the original stupid argument and many of your non stupid (relatively) extension arguments. They have become caught in the web of stupid.
What do I mean by this? Let's take consult for example. The aff makes the argument that we should consult but do the plan anyway (lie). The neg reaches into their magic bag of stupid and makes the following arguments
1. This is severance- plan is done now, the perm delayes, that severs now
2. Intrinsic- netiher the plan includes a lie but the perm does
3. Leaks- they will find out we lied, they will be very angry
4. Lying is immoral- so you know, don't do that
5. Multiple perms are a VI- you can't have more than one
6. Prior binding consultation is key to restructure the alliance (card)
7. Default neg on the perm- aff has the burden to prove a net benefit, if we win they say yes there is no reason to risk it
8. The perm violates resolved- proves you aren't super sure
That is quite a bit of stupid. However, there are 2 (maybe 3) arguments in there that compared to the rest are almost gaussian in thier genius. They are the perm fwork arg (default neg) and the substance that prior binding is key (which may rely on leaks, which is stupid but when compared to the others is not so bad). Here is what a 1AR I once saw did in response to these arguments
"Group the perm, its not severance or intrinsic- and if it is reject the argument not the team. Bush is leakproof- nothing he does that he doesn't want to be known publically ever gets out. And lying isn't immoral- its key to prevent war- card"
This is a slightly less wordy version, but with the card this took them about 45 seconds. They have become caught in the web of stupid. They have ignored the only credible arguments in favor of answering absurd nonsense. The fact is you will never beat a consult CP if it takes you almost a minute to extend that argument because at the end of the day most judges say "eh, risk" and vote neg. Unless you do a lot more this fate will befall you because no matter how stupid the neg's args are YOUR STRAT IS ALSO STUPID, both in the arguments you chose to go for and the way you are going about it.
So how do you handle stupid? You don't lower yourself to their level, you just blow through it intelligently.
I once saw a debate where the following happend
-the 1AC read a 6 minute advantage about why uranium was harmful to the environment
-the neg read 1 card that says environmentalists are prone to doomsaying
-the 2AC said this doesnt talk about our advantage -uranium- and moved on
-the 1NR spent 4 minutes reading more generic evidence about environmental doomsaying but didn't read any cards about uranium
What did the 1AR do? I will remember it for as long as I live, he said verbatim "They say doomsaying, I say nay saying".
That was it. Pure genius. I have never ever in my life made an argument that at any point approached this level of astounding awesomeness. What on earth could a judge who decided to vote on this argument explain in their rfd? By brutally blowing their stupidity off the 1AR demonstrated just how dumb the neg's arg was.
When people say things like "lying immoral" the proper response is not to read a 30 second card, its to blow them off with a glib/witty remark a la James Bond. Something along the lines of "Lying good- Santa, Easter Bunny, no you don't look fat in those pants" thats it.
The response to this will be "but what if you have a super strict line by line judge, you have just dropped an argument". Well yes and no- you did not actually engage the substance of an incredibly stupid argument- true. But you did cleverly make the point "this is stupid". I don't know a lot of judges who are anxious to vote on lying immoral and the like when they are responded to in any fashion.
Caveat - in order to pull this off, you must have a minimal amount of "stupid cred". By this I mean, if you are a total joker and all your other arguments in the debate are stupid, odds are you wont be able to get away calling the other team out on a stupid argument for obvious reasons.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
More AT: Zizek
I found this guys blog when doing a follow up search on the deadly jester article posted earlier
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2008/08/zizek-on-violence.html
One good thing about this author- he is a trained psychoanalyst (trained by Lacan in fact) so it should be difficult for the other side to make inane qualifications args.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2008/08/zizek-on-violence.html
One good thing about this author- he is a trained psychoanalyst (trained by Lacan in fact) so it should be difficult for the other side to make inane qualifications args.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Debate Jeet Kune Do
Bruce Lee is the man. I was cleaning up my external hard drive and I found a bunch of Bruce Lee videos I had downloaded a while ago and rather than do the work I was supposed to be doing I re watched them. In particular I remembered watching the video below for the first time years ago and thinking about its applications to debate. For those with short attention spans you can skip ahead to the 3 minute mark.
No style is how I approached debate when I was competing. It was completely un-ideological: whatever I thought would win (stylistically, argument wise etc) I would do it. This arose out of competitive, not philosophical, concerns. If your goal in debate is to win, then no style is probably the approach for you. If you do debate for misguided quasi political reasons, I don't know why you are reading this blog, but you can probably stop.
Even people who inherently understand the theory of this often are blinded by ideology. In the dartmouth podcasts on itunes there is one of John Turner talking about framework. In it he advises you to read the other sides cards to know their arguments so you can defeat them. I agree. Then he talks about how people who never go for politics have a hard time answering it because they don't know the tricks. Preach on brother. Then someone asks him what theory arguments you could make for why the plan should be the focus of the debate... This is where the turner train derails. He says it is difficult for him to do that because during his debate career he was so against it and it bothered him so much that people would make that argument. Cognitive dissonance to table 3. How is it possible that an argument you are unable to explain could bother you so much? Rigid style.
I judged a team whose coaches had "banned" them from going for conditionality bad because they did it too much. In this debate the other side dropped it in the block, but they didn't go for it because their coaches told them not to. Rigid style.
Many 2NC's take what they plan on going for in the 2NC. A smart 1AR then undercovers the 1NR arguments to spend more time on the 2NC, and the 2NC goes for those arguments anyway. Rigid style.
Many purely policy teams read a K in the 1NC and then don't go for it when the other team makes only 2 or 3 bad answers. Likewise K teams sometimes don't go for disads that are poorly answered because they have their heart set on going for fear of death. Rigid style.
These examples are fairly obvious, and I think in the abstract few people would argue that they are "mistakes". Mistakes that could be easily corrected, and yet they happen frequently.
"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.
Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.
Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."
While the above examples are the most prominent, there are many others that are as if not more egregious. The most obvious is insane counterplans, something like an agent CP combined with 4 or 5 advantage counterplans that is also partially plan inclusive. Every time I see one of these debates the aff spends a lot of time on UNWINNABLE solvency deficit arguments. Their only chance to beat these arguments are to
-go for theory- which they are either hesitant to do because they don't think the judge will vote on theory or because they are to lazy to write out answers to the 25 bs reasons the neg gave for why they needed international fiat, conditionality, and plan inclusiveness to balance out the first and last speech...
-impact turn the net benefit- more often than not politics- an argument they should have lots of impact turns to, but are afraid that since the neg gets the block they won't be able to win on them.
Both of these views are rigid and misguided. Lets quickly deconstruct each
A. Judges don't vote on theory- false. This belief comes from a few prominent judges over the last 2 decades being neg leaning on theory- meaning if the neg had a sweet case specific pic and didn't mess up pics bad they wouldn't vote on it. It doesn't mean that every judge in the country will refuse to vote on consult bad. A few short years ago a team won the Glenbrooks on Dispo bad, this year at that tournament almost every debate I saw involved the neg reading 2 CP's and a K all conditional. Now its possible that judges have radically changed in like 5 years, but I doubt it. Neg leaning on theory means judges give the neg a reasonable amount of leeway. Most judges do not think 2 counterplans and a K is reasonable leeway. (obvi there are exceptions)
B. Impact turning is hard- also false. If done correctly, impact turning is the easiest way to win on the aff because it allows you to strategically collapse the debate. Usually affs adopt the following strategy: win the case, win solvency deficit to CP, win defense on DA hoping to win the solvency deficit outweighs. Lets say the neg also extended T and you spend 1 minute on T in the 1AR, that gives you 4 minutes. Whats easier to do in 4 minutes:
-concede the CP solves the case, spend 4 minutes reading impact turns on politics
-Win the case, win a big solvency deficit, win a lot of defense on politics
Correct answer: impact turns. Even if you disagree with that example, the second strategy assumes you theoretically CAN win a solvency deficit. Against an insane counterplan (IC) this is just not possible. Accept it. Move on.
Here is the SP rule of thumb for dealing with IC's- if the CP text takes longer than 20 seconds to read, or includes 2 or more agents one of which is your agent, its time to go for theory or impact turn something.
"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'"
In the dogmatic thinking post I talked about people doing things over and over again because of habit and not critical thought. Another reason people do the same thing over and over again despite poor results is ideological: you will hear someone say something like "I went for T out of principle" or some such similar nonsense. At a basic level you need to decide are you in debate to win or make "principled" ideological stands. Most often this is self deception- you went for T because you were not prepared to go for something else, or because you didn't put the work in ahead of time to make your other strategy viable. Either way, your "fooling" only negatively affects you and your partner.
The last thing I would like to talk about is taking risks. Many people avoid doing something different because they think it is "risky". The problem is that their conception of risk is messed up. An example:
A friend of mine buys about 400 dollars worth of lottery tickets every year. He only spends a few dollars on them a week, but over time that adds up. When I suggested he just put 400 on black at a casino he scoffed at what a ludcirous idea that was.
In gambling (the only real use for math) the concept of expected value is discussed frequently. Expected value can be thought of simplisitically as the amount of money you should expect to win on a bet. If you flip a coin for 10 dollars a flip, your expected value for each flip is 5$, or .5(10) , your odds multiplied by your bet. This doesn't mean every time you flip the coin you get 5 dollars (how could it), it means that is your expected value.
In the lottery example , there is no lottery in the world where betting 400 dollars over the course of the year would give you a higher EV than putting it on black. But since it is only a few dollars at a time the risk is diffused over time, and it seems "less risky", though mathematically it is nonsensical.
Similarly, in debate I think people perceive a change from the normal course of affairs as "too risky". They would rather they keep betting 1 or 2 dollars a tournament as is their habit, then "risk" it on a new strategy. This approach may have some merit in the abstract- instead of deciding to go for the K for the first time in an elim, you may want to go for something you know. However, there are instances where the "habit" approach makes no sense at all (see above), at which point no matter how risky a change is, it has to have a higher EV than staying the course.
Be water
No style is how I approached debate when I was competing. It was completely un-ideological: whatever I thought would win (stylistically, argument wise etc) I would do it. This arose out of competitive, not philosophical, concerns. If your goal in debate is to win, then no style is probably the approach for you. If you do debate for misguided quasi political reasons, I don't know why you are reading this blog, but you can probably stop.
Even people who inherently understand the theory of this often are blinded by ideology. In the dartmouth podcasts on itunes there is one of John Turner talking about framework. In it he advises you to read the other sides cards to know their arguments so you can defeat them. I agree. Then he talks about how people who never go for politics have a hard time answering it because they don't know the tricks. Preach on brother. Then someone asks him what theory arguments you could make for why the plan should be the focus of the debate... This is where the turner train derails. He says it is difficult for him to do that because during his debate career he was so against it and it bothered him so much that people would make that argument. Cognitive dissonance to table 3. How is it possible that an argument you are unable to explain could bother you so much? Rigid style.
I judged a team whose coaches had "banned" them from going for conditionality bad because they did it too much. In this debate the other side dropped it in the block, but they didn't go for it because their coaches told them not to. Rigid style.
Many 2NC's take what they plan on going for in the 2NC. A smart 1AR then undercovers the 1NR arguments to spend more time on the 2NC, and the 2NC goes for those arguments anyway. Rigid style.
Many purely policy teams read a K in the 1NC and then don't go for it when the other team makes only 2 or 3 bad answers. Likewise K teams sometimes don't go for disads that are poorly answered because they have their heart set on going for fear of death. Rigid style.
These examples are fairly obvious, and I think in the abstract few people would argue that they are "mistakes". Mistakes that could be easily corrected, and yet they happen frequently.
"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.
Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.
Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."
While the above examples are the most prominent, there are many others that are as if not more egregious. The most obvious is insane counterplans, something like an agent CP combined with 4 or 5 advantage counterplans that is also partially plan inclusive. Every time I see one of these debates the aff spends a lot of time on UNWINNABLE solvency deficit arguments. Their only chance to beat these arguments are to
-go for theory- which they are either hesitant to do because they don't think the judge will vote on theory or because they are to lazy to write out answers to the 25 bs reasons the neg gave for why they needed international fiat, conditionality, and plan inclusiveness to balance out the first and last speech...
-impact turn the net benefit- more often than not politics- an argument they should have lots of impact turns to, but are afraid that since the neg gets the block they won't be able to win on them.
Both of these views are rigid and misguided. Lets quickly deconstruct each
A. Judges don't vote on theory- false. This belief comes from a few prominent judges over the last 2 decades being neg leaning on theory- meaning if the neg had a sweet case specific pic and didn't mess up pics bad they wouldn't vote on it. It doesn't mean that every judge in the country will refuse to vote on consult bad. A few short years ago a team won the Glenbrooks on Dispo bad, this year at that tournament almost every debate I saw involved the neg reading 2 CP's and a K all conditional. Now its possible that judges have radically changed in like 5 years, but I doubt it. Neg leaning on theory means judges give the neg a reasonable amount of leeway. Most judges do not think 2 counterplans and a K is reasonable leeway. (obvi there are exceptions)
B. Impact turning is hard- also false. If done correctly, impact turning is the easiest way to win on the aff because it allows you to strategically collapse the debate. Usually affs adopt the following strategy: win the case, win solvency deficit to CP, win defense on DA hoping to win the solvency deficit outweighs. Lets say the neg also extended T and you spend 1 minute on T in the 1AR, that gives you 4 minutes. Whats easier to do in 4 minutes:
-concede the CP solves the case, spend 4 minutes reading impact turns on politics
-Win the case, win a big solvency deficit, win a lot of defense on politics
Correct answer: impact turns. Even if you disagree with that example, the second strategy assumes you theoretically CAN win a solvency deficit. Against an insane counterplan (IC) this is just not possible. Accept it. Move on.
Here is the SP rule of thumb for dealing with IC's- if the CP text takes longer than 20 seconds to read, or includes 2 or more agents one of which is your agent, its time to go for theory or impact turn something.
"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'"
In the dogmatic thinking post I talked about people doing things over and over again because of habit and not critical thought. Another reason people do the same thing over and over again despite poor results is ideological: you will hear someone say something like "I went for T out of principle" or some such similar nonsense. At a basic level you need to decide are you in debate to win or make "principled" ideological stands. Most often this is self deception- you went for T because you were not prepared to go for something else, or because you didn't put the work in ahead of time to make your other strategy viable. Either way, your "fooling" only negatively affects you and your partner.
The last thing I would like to talk about is taking risks. Many people avoid doing something different because they think it is "risky". The problem is that their conception of risk is messed up. An example:
A friend of mine buys about 400 dollars worth of lottery tickets every year. He only spends a few dollars on them a week, but over time that adds up. When I suggested he just put 400 on black at a casino he scoffed at what a ludcirous idea that was.
In gambling (the only real use for math) the concept of expected value is discussed frequently. Expected value can be thought of simplisitically as the amount of money you should expect to win on a bet. If you flip a coin for 10 dollars a flip, your expected value for each flip is 5$, or .5(10) , your odds multiplied by your bet. This doesn't mean every time you flip the coin you get 5 dollars (how could it), it means that is your expected value.
In the lottery example , there is no lottery in the world where betting 400 dollars over the course of the year would give you a higher EV than putting it on black. But since it is only a few dollars at a time the risk is diffused over time, and it seems "less risky", though mathematically it is nonsensical.
Similarly, in debate I think people perceive a change from the normal course of affairs as "too risky". They would rather they keep betting 1 or 2 dollars a tournament as is their habit, then "risk" it on a new strategy. This approach may have some merit in the abstract- instead of deciding to go for the K for the first time in an elim, you may want to go for something you know. However, there are instances where the "habit" approach makes no sense at all (see above), at which point no matter how risky a change is, it has to have a higher EV than staying the course.
Be water
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Aff Vs. The K
Not necessarily a devastating card, but definitely a start to a good aff framework/defense of US action. I am interested in checking out this Levy book
Seattlest 9-24-08
Sep. 24, 2008 ( delivered by Newstex) -- Bernard-Henri Levy looks pretty much like you'd expect: a rail-thin Frenchman with a rather dashing coif of hair, who walked to the podium at Town Hall last night wearing a designer suit with his white dress shirt unbuttoned down to the navel (his signature), like a rock star looking to get his (mostly salt-and-pepper haired) groupies' panties in a twist. And in France, where Levy is a star of gossip pages, known only as "BHL," he is something of a rock star. But Levy is also a leading public intellectual who came to prominence in the late 1970s as a anti-Communist liberal and, in contrast to most of the European Left, a leading supporter of Israel. So dashing pretension of the celebrity speaker aside, it was extremely interesting to see Levy only two weeks after seeing Slavoj Zizek speak. Together, these two represent the two poles of the spectrum of the political Left: Levy, the modern progressive-liberal journalist and philosophe; Zizek, the Marxist theorist and radical-chic academic. And yet both have exactly the same message when diagnosing the problems of the modern Left: We're short of ideas and haven't done the leg-work necessary to make ourselves relevant in the post-Cold War world. All of which leaves us thinking that perhaps the real problem is too much thinking. And talking. And arguing. And writing books. Because there couldn't have been more difference between the directions these two international leftist titans are pointing, and anyway, no one seems to be paying attention to them. Levy's appearance was in support of his new book, . In it, Levy seeks to lay out a critique of the problems the Left faces today, the challenges it will have to overcome to remain relevant, and encouraging it to return to its old-fashioned values of internationalism, human rights, and universalism. "Bernard-Henri Levy @ 92Y" by Flickr user . Eloquent despite his accent (the source of a few self-effacing jokes), Levy delivered a passionate call to arms on the above points, complete with fist-pumping enthusiasm. Fundamentally, his argument centered on the corruption of those values and their impact on global politics. Internationalism and human rights, which should be universal, have been corrupted by multiculturalist tendencies and the demands of "realist" foreign policy; all of a sudden, equal rights for women??"a standard in the West??"is a cultural-imperialist imposition on sovereign cultures in the Middle East, say. And the trick works both ways: Whereas once the left was about breaking down boundaries and liberating peoples, now the rhetoric has been adopted by nationalists, afraid of international institutions like the U.N. or the E.U. co-opting their sovereignty and corrupting their unique culture through global capitalist exploitation. Oh, and speaking of all that imperialism, this has engendered an almost conspiracy-panic amongst leftists who are all convinced the U.S. is an imperial power (or at least wants to be), and who see in every act and in every policy a subtext of ruthless self-interest and expansionism. It's on this point that Levy chose to defer to his new book, reading a lengthy passage that begins several years ago with Levy taking part in a discussion on a radio show in France. The subject is the Darfur genocide, and Levy's fellow talking-head a French liberal-leftist and co-founder of the international human rights group Doctors Without Borders. Levy was arguing strongly on behalf of taking direct action (with the potential for military intervention) to stop the genocide, while his opponent, despite his ostensible dedication to human rights, was against it. Ultimately, he lets drop the words "America" and "empire," and Levy sees the truth for what it is: His opponent??"a personal friend??"who should share his dedication to supporting the victims of genocide, is willing to abandon the Darfuris to their fate because he's convinced that whatever America wants to do (and America said plenty about wanting to do something about Darfur) must be a vicious extension of imperialist aims. And this line??"as all do, it seems??"leads to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. The second part of the excerpt he read from concerned the Sept. 2001 U.N.-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa. For those who've forgotten (which should be just about everyone, because this stuff is all terribly unimportant), the conference descended into chaos because numerous nations, primarily Muslim, wanted a discussion of whether Zionism constituted racism. Western nations balked, a lot of high-minded people traded pot-shots, and the nothing that would have occurred either way happened, and the whole sorry affair was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11. But in Levy's telling, Durban was a watershed moment, when the left's increasing hostility to Israel revealed itself for the modern anti-Semitism it, apparently, is. What of all the other victims of genocide and racism? he asks, naming off friends or representatives of one ethnically cleansed group after another. What of them and their suffering? Ultimately, he concludes that we've reached a point where anti-American conspiracy-mongering and a latent anti-Semitism have raised the Palestinians' suffering to the non plus ultra of oppression, for which the American empire, with their British poodles and Israeli clients, bear responsibility, and every other racist, cruel, oppressive, chauvinistic government is therefore absolved of any culpability, and their victims silenced, their suffering suppressed. Now, we don't mean to suggest that we don't think Levy has a bit of a point on all this, particularly given the proclivity of lefties to assume that whatever America does must be nefarious and evil (despite all available evidence to the contrary), nor with the willingness of many such people to see more good than there actually is the Ahmadinejads and Chavezes of the world. But the Durban conference? Really? We're reminded of a comment Zizek threw back at a questioner who rambled on endlessly about the crimes of the Bush administration and so on, and then asked "can you comment on that?", desperate to have someone more important than her say, "Why yes! I totally agree, you were right, and everything you think is true and accurate!" Instead, Zizek explained in his patient, professorial way (which made the rather devastating response somehow nicer-seeming) that the tendency of the left to fall back on moralistic arguments really just revealed the poverty of our side, the lack of real initiatives or politics or narratives or ideas that could actually have a real impact on the world. Not having read Levy's new book, we can't really evaluate his arguments (Christopher Hitchens offers ), but to judge by Levy's talk, it sounds like he could do a bit more of the intellectual heavy-lifting himself. Newstex ID:
Seattlest 9-24-08
Sep. 24, 2008 ( delivered by Newstex) -- Bernard-Henri Levy looks pretty much like you'd expect: a rail-thin Frenchman with a rather dashing coif of hair, who walked to the podium at Town Hall last night wearing a designer suit with his white dress shirt unbuttoned down to the navel (his signature), like a rock star looking to get his (mostly salt-and-pepper haired) groupies' panties in a twist. And in France, where Levy is a star of gossip pages, known only as "BHL," he is something of a rock star. But Levy is also a leading public intellectual who came to prominence in the late 1970s as a anti-Communist liberal and, in contrast to most of the European Left, a leading supporter of Israel. So dashing pretension of the celebrity speaker aside, it was extremely interesting to see Levy only two weeks after seeing Slavoj Zizek speak. Together, these two represent the two poles of the spectrum of the political Left: Levy, the modern progressive-liberal journalist and philosophe; Zizek, the Marxist theorist and radical-chic academic. And yet both have exactly the same message when diagnosing the problems of the modern Left: We're short of ideas and haven't done the leg-work necessary to make ourselves relevant in the post-Cold War world. All of which leaves us thinking that perhaps the real problem is too much thinking. And talking. And arguing. And writing books. Because there couldn't have been more difference between the directions these two international leftist titans are pointing, and anyway, no one seems to be paying attention to them. Levy's appearance was in support of his new book, . In it, Levy seeks to lay out a critique of the problems the Left faces today, the challenges it will have to overcome to remain relevant, and encouraging it to return to its old-fashioned values of internationalism, human rights, and universalism. "Bernard-Henri Levy @ 92Y" by Flickr user . Eloquent despite his accent (the source of a few self-effacing jokes), Levy delivered a passionate call to arms on the above points, complete with fist-pumping enthusiasm. Fundamentally, his argument centered on the corruption of those values and their impact on global politics. Internationalism and human rights, which should be universal, have been corrupted by multiculturalist tendencies and the demands of "realist" foreign policy; all of a sudden, equal rights for women??"a standard in the West??"is a cultural-imperialist imposition on sovereign cultures in the Middle East, say. And the trick works both ways: Whereas once the left was about breaking down boundaries and liberating peoples, now the rhetoric has been adopted by nationalists, afraid of international institutions like the U.N. or the E.U. co-opting their sovereignty and corrupting their unique culture through global capitalist exploitation. Oh, and speaking of all that imperialism, this has engendered an almost conspiracy-panic amongst leftists who are all convinced the U.S. is an imperial power (or at least wants to be), and who see in every act and in every policy a subtext of ruthless self-interest and expansionism. It's on this point that Levy chose to defer to his new book, reading a lengthy passage that begins several years ago with Levy taking part in a discussion on a radio show in France. The subject is the Darfur genocide, and Levy's fellow talking-head a French liberal-leftist and co-founder of the international human rights group Doctors Without Borders. Levy was arguing strongly on behalf of taking direct action (with the potential for military intervention) to stop the genocide, while his opponent, despite his ostensible dedication to human rights, was against it. Ultimately, he lets drop the words "America" and "empire," and Levy sees the truth for what it is: His opponent??"a personal friend??"who should share his dedication to supporting the victims of genocide, is willing to abandon the Darfuris to their fate because he's convinced that whatever America wants to do (and America said plenty about wanting to do something about Darfur) must be a vicious extension of imperialist aims. And this line??"as all do, it seems??"leads to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. The second part of the excerpt he read from concerned the Sept. 2001 U.N.-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa. For those who've forgotten (which should be just about everyone, because this stuff is all terribly unimportant), the conference descended into chaos because numerous nations, primarily Muslim, wanted a discussion of whether Zionism constituted racism. Western nations balked, a lot of high-minded people traded pot-shots, and the nothing that would have occurred either way happened, and the whole sorry affair was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11. But in Levy's telling, Durban was a watershed moment, when the left's increasing hostility to Israel revealed itself for the modern anti-Semitism it, apparently, is. What of all the other victims of genocide and racism? he asks, naming off friends or representatives of one ethnically cleansed group after another. What of them and their suffering? Ultimately, he concludes that we've reached a point where anti-American conspiracy-mongering and a latent anti-Semitism have raised the Palestinians' suffering to the non plus ultra of oppression, for which the American empire, with their British poodles and Israeli clients, bear responsibility, and every other racist, cruel, oppressive, chauvinistic government is therefore absolved of any culpability, and their victims silenced, their suffering suppressed. Now, we don't mean to suggest that we don't think Levy has a bit of a point on all this, particularly given the proclivity of lefties to assume that whatever America does must be nefarious and evil (despite all available evidence to the contrary), nor with the willingness of many such people to see more good than there actually is the Ahmadinejads and Chavezes of the world. But the Durban conference? Really? We're reminded of a comment Zizek threw back at a questioner who rambled on endlessly about the crimes of the Bush administration and so on, and then asked "can you comment on that?", desperate to have someone more important than her say, "Why yes! I totally agree, you were right, and everything you think is true and accurate!" Instead, Zizek explained in his patient, professorial way (which made the rather devastating response somehow nicer-seeming) that the tendency of the left to fall back on moralistic arguments really just revealed the poverty of our side, the lack of real initiatives or politics or narratives or ideas that could actually have a real impact on the world. Not having read Levy's new book, we can't really evaluate his arguments (Christopher Hitchens offers ), but to judge by Levy's talk, it sounds like he could do a bit more of the intellectual heavy-lifting himself. Newstex ID:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Top 5 ways to boost your speaker points that require no practice and can be done instantly
1. Don't steal prep. As a debater I had a general contempt for people who did this. As a judge I will wreck your points if you do so. Prep stealing includes
-talking to your partner
-looking for evidence
-asking your opponents questions
A trend seems to be emerging whereby debaters think that if you do any of those things while
-walking to the podium
-pausing after giving the roadmap right before your speech
-you do it quickly
it is somehow not prep theft. It is.
2. Give a good roadmap. How hard is that? Answer: not very. If you have to
-count the number of off slowly taking more than 2 seconds to do so
-retrieve more than 0 flows you forgot to bring up with you
-take prep more than once during the roadmap process
-be reminded by your partner you are dropping an entire sheet of paper
you are not giving a good roadmap. You have not adequately prepared for your speech. In California at local tournaments we still get the ballots with the check boxes on them and the last time I looked at one organization was one of the 6 categories. That means theoretically you could get a 25 based solely on poor organization. I will do everything in my power to bring this back.
Another thing- call case flows the same thing. There is nothing worse than when the neg has like 6 sheets of case, and the 2AC gets up to give their order and insists on using the stupid names they gave those things in the 1AC instead of the things the neg called them. Here's a hot tip- during the 1AC I was playing solitaire because I assumed the neg would go for a K or T pos. Then they surprised me and argued against your case, so I had to label tabs what they called them. Now you get up and where the neg said Hegemony you feel it is important to correct them and call it "competitiveness" and then what the neg called "economy" you call "aerospace". Well guess what- your advantages are both stupid and BOTH THE SAME THING. Now I have no idea which set of 1NC arguments you are answering where so odds are high I will just vote neg on sever perms bad to avoid having to figure it out.
3. Don't be a jerk during cross-x. Most people understand that this means being civil, but it means more than that. The best example I can think of is I once watched a debate where immediately after reading his 1AC Strauss took an enormous bite of a sandwhich and was unable to speak for some time. His cross-xer, one Jonah Feldman, correctly declared "shenanigans" on this practice. If you are the person being asked questions you have a duty (at least in my mind) to answer them in a reasonable, honest answer. Things that do not fulfill this duty include
-lying about what evidence says
-pretending you cant find evidence when asked to read part of it
-ignoring questions you dont want to answer
-saying "we don't take a stance" in response to straightforward obvious questions that you clearly have to take a stance on given your 1AC (most egregious example I can think of is not trivial things like who does the plan but things like after reading a war with china advantage refusing to answer the question how do we know china is a threat-NEWSFLASH- that doesn't get you out of the link after you said so in your speech genius- it probably makes it much worse that you label them a threat for no explained reason. 2nd most egregious example, quote as close to accurately as I can remember
2NC: What countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: Yes you do, you read a proliferation advantage
1AC: Yes, that's not relevant to our advantage
2NC: What? That doesn't make any sense, explain what you mean
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: What do you mean, you don't take a stance on what countries or you don't take a stance on what not relevant to our advantage means
1AC: .... both
)
4. Know what your cards say. Ok maybe I lied in the title a little. But I generally think that you should not have read a card in your speech that you had not read prior to said speech. I.e. at some point you should have either cut that card (god forbid), organized that card into a block because you thought it was good, or at least highlighted the camp file you were going to read in your speech. Now I'm not saying if you read a card about the statistical rainfall around rivers in the middle east to answer water wars and someone asks you what those statistics were that you need to know it off the top of your head. But if you say "Obama spending capital now" in the 2AC, and the neg says "on what" you should probably be able to answer that without looking at the card.
No I take that back, you actually DON'T have to have read the card beforehand. It would be nice, but not required. You should remember what the card you read 5 minutes ago says even if you just read it for the first time.
5. Avoid stupid acronyms/abbreviations etc. When in doubt say the full word. Where is the line? Its hard to say. Is obvi ok? Obvi. Tix is definitively not ok. Dispo is, but condo rubs me the wrong way (why is condItionality condo and Condoleeza Rice condi?) Efficiency during speeches is important, but in your roadmap you have all the time in the world to say "poli".
-talking to your partner
-looking for evidence
-asking your opponents questions
A trend seems to be emerging whereby debaters think that if you do any of those things while
-walking to the podium
-pausing after giving the roadmap right before your speech
-you do it quickly
it is somehow not prep theft. It is.
2. Give a good roadmap. How hard is that? Answer: not very. If you have to
-count the number of off slowly taking more than 2 seconds to do so
-retrieve more than 0 flows you forgot to bring up with you
-take prep more than once during the roadmap process
-be reminded by your partner you are dropping an entire sheet of paper
you are not giving a good roadmap. You have not adequately prepared for your speech. In California at local tournaments we still get the ballots with the check boxes on them and the last time I looked at one organization was one of the 6 categories. That means theoretically you could get a 25 based solely on poor organization. I will do everything in my power to bring this back.
Another thing- call case flows the same thing. There is nothing worse than when the neg has like 6 sheets of case, and the 2AC gets up to give their order and insists on using the stupid names they gave those things in the 1AC instead of the things the neg called them. Here's a hot tip- during the 1AC I was playing solitaire because I assumed the neg would go for a K or T pos. Then they surprised me and argued against your case, so I had to label tabs what they called them. Now you get up and where the neg said Hegemony you feel it is important to correct them and call it "competitiveness" and then what the neg called "economy" you call "aerospace". Well guess what- your advantages are both stupid and BOTH THE SAME THING. Now I have no idea which set of 1NC arguments you are answering where so odds are high I will just vote neg on sever perms bad to avoid having to figure it out.
3. Don't be a jerk during cross-x. Most people understand that this means being civil, but it means more than that. The best example I can think of is I once watched a debate where immediately after reading his 1AC Strauss took an enormous bite of a sandwhich and was unable to speak for some time. His cross-xer, one Jonah Feldman, correctly declared "shenanigans" on this practice. If you are the person being asked questions you have a duty (at least in my mind) to answer them in a reasonable, honest answer. Things that do not fulfill this duty include
-lying about what evidence says
-pretending you cant find evidence when asked to read part of it
-ignoring questions you dont want to answer
-saying "we don't take a stance" in response to straightforward obvious questions that you clearly have to take a stance on given your 1AC (most egregious example I can think of is not trivial things like who does the plan but things like after reading a war with china advantage refusing to answer the question how do we know china is a threat-NEWSFLASH- that doesn't get you out of the link after you said so in your speech genius- it probably makes it much worse that you label them a threat for no explained reason. 2nd most egregious example, quote as close to accurately as I can remember
2NC: What countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: Yes you do, you read a proliferation advantage
1AC: Yes, that's not relevant to our advantage
2NC: What? That doesn't make any sense, explain what you mean
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: What do you mean, you don't take a stance on what countries or you don't take a stance on what not relevant to our advantage means
1AC: .... both
)
4. Know what your cards say. Ok maybe I lied in the title a little. But I generally think that you should not have read a card in your speech that you had not read prior to said speech. I.e. at some point you should have either cut that card (god forbid), organized that card into a block because you thought it was good, or at least highlighted the camp file you were going to read in your speech. Now I'm not saying if you read a card about the statistical rainfall around rivers in the middle east to answer water wars and someone asks you what those statistics were that you need to know it off the top of your head. But if you say "Obama spending capital now" in the 2AC, and the neg says "on what" you should probably be able to answer that without looking at the card.
No I take that back, you actually DON'T have to have read the card beforehand. It would be nice, but not required. You should remember what the card you read 5 minutes ago says even if you just read it for the first time.
5. Avoid stupid acronyms/abbreviations etc. When in doubt say the full word. Where is the line? Its hard to say. Is obvi ok? Obvi. Tix is definitively not ok. Dispo is, but condo rubs me the wrong way (why is condItionality condo and Condoleeza Rice condi?) Efficiency during speeches is important, but in your roadmap you have all the time in the world to say "poli".
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Digging yourself out of a hole
Ooops, the 1AR dropped the politics DA. If you are like I was when I debated, you have heard stories of such a thing happening and then an "amazing" 2AR will somehow save the day and the aff will still win. It is difficult to imagine how such a thing can happen for most people, and it was for me too. Having judged debates for a while now, it is much easier to see how these things happen and can happen pretty frequently. This relates a lot to the hustling/short game example I gave in the dogmatic thinking post, because people who understand the concepts I am about to explain generally womp those who don't, and the victims never have any idea what hit them. So here are some quick concepts and then we will get into examples
1. Impact assessment vs relative impact assessment- Impact assessment is "our da is fast, big etc". Relative impact assessment is a specific comparison between two impacts expliaining why your's is more important.
2. Certainty vs near certainty- the differance between 100% and 99% is negligable. The differance between 100% and 50% is obviously bigger. Everyone can agree on this. The problem comes in more gray areas. I have heard some pretty funny statistical explanations in debate, I will now try to crudely explain some statistical concepts to illustrate this point that if taken to the absurd could easily result in you sounding stupid, so try and use a little thought. If you are really into math you can easily find lots of books/websites that will go into much greater depth than I will here and maybe even find some cards.
Also, I am going to talk about risks in terms of numbers. Many people think this is stupid, but it is tough to do it any other way.
The neg has a disad. You have a defensive answer. The judge decides that this reduces the risk of the disad by 1/3rd and so they give the disad 66% risk of the impact (extinction).
The neg has a disad. You have 2 defensive answers. The judge decides tha tthis reduces the risk of the disad by 2/3rds, and so they give the disad 33% risk of the impact (extinction).
This is a bit of an essentialization, but lets assume your 2 defensive arguments were one about the uniqueness and one about the link. So there is a 2/3rd chance of uniqueness and a 2/3rd chance of a link. Does this mean there is a 1/3rd chance of the disad?
No. Probabilities for sequential events are mutliplied (more precise explanation) so it is (2/3) (2/3) = 4/9. Thats 44%. Seems better for the neg right? Might be something the neg wants to point out. Thats almost a jump from 1 in 2 chances to 1 in 3.
Here is another way this might play out. The aff wins one defensive arg that reduces the U to 1/3, and the link to 2/3. Left to their own devices some judges might say "ok, the da is 1.5/3, or 50%. In reality the disad should be 2/9 or 22%. The margin of error is even greater here.
Lets assume there is a disad, an add on, and an advantage at the end of a debate. An error of 10-15% in calculating hte risk of each is a possible swing of 45%. Thats huge. And yet very few if any debaters ever make an argument about how to quantify or measure risk other than "they dropped it its certain".
3. Not all extinctions are created equal- teams rarely differentiate impact magnitude anymore, it seems enough that they read a card that says the word nuclear in it somewhere and that means extinction. Or the word "civilization", "survival" etc. Rarely is this evidence making the claim that every person in existance will cease to exist, usually because the impact in question does not have the ability to kill everyone. Regional environment impacts and wars involving non nuclear powers come to mind.
Getting to the point. The 1AR dropped a politics disad with a middle east impact (steinbach). The 2NC gave a weak impact overview with args like "our disad is immediate, it turns the case- war means we won't promote renewables" etc. The aff has a US-china war advantage (with one of those sea of fire impact cards) the neg is winning minimal defense against. The 2NR says the following for impact comparison
"Politics is cold conceeded, that means its 100% risk of extinction. Don't allow any new 2AR arguments. They've conceeded our steinbach card- middle east war causes extinction. Our disad happens faster than the case- also conceeded. The 1AR conceeded that the disad turns the case- war in the middle east means the US would not promote renewable energy anymore- totally takes out the case. If we win 1% defense to the china advantage then you instantly vote neg because we outweigh, just the fact that we read evidence there should be enough"
This isn't a great 2NR, but I am essentializing to make a point and don't really care to type out a 5 minute speech. Here is how I would give the impact analysis in the 2AR:
"Yes, we boned politics, but that doesn't mean game over. Impacts need to be evaluated by a function of probability times magnitude- just because they get 100% of politics doesn't mean you auto vote neg if we can reduce the probability of thier impact. The 2NR claim that their disad has an extinction impact is false- their evidence says quote "a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability". Nowhere does it say a middle east war ends every life on earth. Lets talk for a minute about what a "new argument" is. If in the 2AR I said "no link, obama doesn't push the plan", that is a new argument. Pointing out a factual inaccuracy or logical hole in the negatives statement is not a "new argument". If the other team has not made a complete argument, we don't have the burden of responding to it. Plenty of examples of this exist- judges won't vote on disads if you don't extend the impact, they won't vote on dropped theory arguments if you don't explain why you have to reject the team and not just the argument etc. You can only vote on a complete argument, and a complete argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. They have no evidence or warrant for thier claim that middle east war causes extinction. None. Zero. This is not a complete argument and should be given zero weight as such. Second, the claim that war prevents us from solving similarly has no warrant- no explanation has been given at any time for why a war in the middle east would stop domestic production of alternative energy. Finally, their "1 percent" doctrine is ludicrous- you need to weigh the relative impacts- i.e a quantified risk they are winning vs the risk we are winning. Lets assume you give this crappy impact card the weight of killing everyone in the middle east - thats 190 million people. Between the US and china there are 1.5 billion people. Our Bangkok post evidence says a US china war causes an all out nuclear exchange turning all of asia into a sea of fire. Lets assume that only kills 1/2 the total population, 750 million people. In order to win our impact outweighs we only need to win that it outweighs their disad we only have to win a little more than a 25% chance of our advantage. Finally, impact comparison is not a new argument. It's the job of the final rebuttals to weigh things out and resolve them fore you. The 2NR had a shot to do so, just because they didn't doesn't mean we can't. They don't need a 3NR- us arguing the case outweighs the dropped disad isn't only a predictable 2AR argument- its the ONLY argument we could concievably make. That the 2NR didn't do a better job trying to shut this down is their fault, not ours. "
This isn't even that good of an overview, but you would be amazed at the wonders those kind of arguments can pull off.
You might think this is a stupid exercise in futillity, but having been around debate for a while I can with confidence state the following
1. The number of people who think "true not new" > the opposition
2. The number of hyper strict, line by line oriented judges <> the number you think would
1. Impact assessment vs relative impact assessment- Impact assessment is "our da is fast, big etc". Relative impact assessment is a specific comparison between two impacts expliaining why your's is more important.
2. Certainty vs near certainty- the differance between 100% and 99% is negligable. The differance between 100% and 50% is obviously bigger. Everyone can agree on this. The problem comes in more gray areas. I have heard some pretty funny statistical explanations in debate, I will now try to crudely explain some statistical concepts to illustrate this point that if taken to the absurd could easily result in you sounding stupid, so try and use a little thought. If you are really into math you can easily find lots of books/websites that will go into much greater depth than I will here and maybe even find some cards.
Also, I am going to talk about risks in terms of numbers. Many people think this is stupid, but it is tough to do it any other way.
The neg has a disad. You have a defensive answer. The judge decides that this reduces the risk of the disad by 1/3rd and so they give the disad 66% risk of the impact (extinction).
The neg has a disad. You have 2 defensive answers. The judge decides tha tthis reduces the risk of the disad by 2/3rds, and so they give the disad 33% risk of the impact (extinction).
This is a bit of an essentialization, but lets assume your 2 defensive arguments were one about the uniqueness and one about the link. So there is a 2/3rd chance of uniqueness and a 2/3rd chance of a link. Does this mean there is a 1/3rd chance of the disad?
No. Probabilities for sequential events are mutliplied (more precise explanation) so it is (2/3) (2/3) = 4/9. Thats 44%. Seems better for the neg right? Might be something the neg wants to point out. Thats almost a jump from 1 in 2 chances to 1 in 3.
Here is another way this might play out. The aff wins one defensive arg that reduces the U to 1/3, and the link to 2/3. Left to their own devices some judges might say "ok, the da is 1.5/3, or 50%. In reality the disad should be 2/9 or 22%. The margin of error is even greater here.
Lets assume there is a disad, an add on, and an advantage at the end of a debate. An error of 10-15% in calculating hte risk of each is a possible swing of 45%. Thats huge. And yet very few if any debaters ever make an argument about how to quantify or measure risk other than "they dropped it its certain".
3. Not all extinctions are created equal- teams rarely differentiate impact magnitude anymore, it seems enough that they read a card that says the word nuclear in it somewhere and that means extinction. Or the word "civilization", "survival" etc. Rarely is this evidence making the claim that every person in existance will cease to exist, usually because the impact in question does not have the ability to kill everyone. Regional environment impacts and wars involving non nuclear powers come to mind.
Getting to the point. The 1AR dropped a politics disad with a middle east impact (steinbach). The 2NC gave a weak impact overview with args like "our disad is immediate, it turns the case- war means we won't promote renewables" etc. The aff has a US-china war advantage (with one of those sea of fire impact cards) the neg is winning minimal defense against. The 2NR says the following for impact comparison
"Politics is cold conceeded, that means its 100% risk of extinction. Don't allow any new 2AR arguments. They've conceeded our steinbach card- middle east war causes extinction. Our disad happens faster than the case- also conceeded. The 1AR conceeded that the disad turns the case- war in the middle east means the US would not promote renewable energy anymore- totally takes out the case. If we win 1% defense to the china advantage then you instantly vote neg because we outweigh, just the fact that we read evidence there should be enough"
This isn't a great 2NR, but I am essentializing to make a point and don't really care to type out a 5 minute speech. Here is how I would give the impact analysis in the 2AR:
"Yes, we boned politics, but that doesn't mean game over. Impacts need to be evaluated by a function of probability times magnitude- just because they get 100% of politics doesn't mean you auto vote neg if we can reduce the probability of thier impact. The 2NR claim that their disad has an extinction impact is false- their evidence says quote "a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability". Nowhere does it say a middle east war ends every life on earth. Lets talk for a minute about what a "new argument" is. If in the 2AR I said "no link, obama doesn't push the plan", that is a new argument. Pointing out a factual inaccuracy or logical hole in the negatives statement is not a "new argument". If the other team has not made a complete argument, we don't have the burden of responding to it. Plenty of examples of this exist- judges won't vote on disads if you don't extend the impact, they won't vote on dropped theory arguments if you don't explain why you have to reject the team and not just the argument etc. You can only vote on a complete argument, and a complete argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. They have no evidence or warrant for thier claim that middle east war causes extinction. None. Zero. This is not a complete argument and should be given zero weight as such. Second, the claim that war prevents us from solving similarly has no warrant- no explanation has been given at any time for why a war in the middle east would stop domestic production of alternative energy. Finally, their "1 percent" doctrine is ludicrous- you need to weigh the relative impacts- i.e a quantified risk they are winning vs the risk we are winning. Lets assume you give this crappy impact card the weight of killing everyone in the middle east - thats 190 million people. Between the US and china there are 1.5 billion people. Our Bangkok post evidence says a US china war causes an all out nuclear exchange turning all of asia into a sea of fire. Lets assume that only kills 1/2 the total population, 750 million people. In order to win our impact outweighs we only need to win that it outweighs their disad we only have to win a little more than a 25% chance of our advantage. Finally, impact comparison is not a new argument. It's the job of the final rebuttals to weigh things out and resolve them fore you. The 2NR had a shot to do so, just because they didn't doesn't mean we can't. They don't need a 3NR- us arguing the case outweighs the dropped disad isn't only a predictable 2AR argument- its the ONLY argument we could concievably make. That the 2NR didn't do a better job trying to shut this down is their fault, not ours. "
This isn't even that good of an overview, but you would be amazed at the wonders those kind of arguments can pull off.
You might think this is a stupid exercise in futillity, but having been around debate for a while I can with confidence state the following
1. The number of people who think "true not new" > the opposition
2. The number of hyper strict, line by line oriented judges <> the number you think would
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Good Articles 11-20-08
U.S. intel office adds warming to warnings: Report looking out to 2030 cites danger of water, food shortages
A U.S. intelligence report coming out Thursday — and likely to grab President-elect Barack Obama's attention — is adding a new variable to the "traditional" mix of factors expected to destabilize the world into the near future.[break]Issued by the National Intelligence Council, the "Global Trends 2025" report includes warnings tied to climate change, the man behind the report said this week and in recent speeches.
The overall theme of the report is that the United States will have less influence across the globe at a time of growing climate, water and energy stresses, Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC and deputy director of national intelligence, indicated in recent weeks.
Oil falls below $53 on fears of deep recession
Oil prices fell below $53 to almost a two-year low Thursday as investors, worried by plummeting stock markets, priced in lower crude demand as the global economic downturn shapes up to be the worst in decades.Light, sweet crude for December delivery was down $1.23 to $52.39 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midday in Europe. The contract fell 77 cents Wednesday to settle at $53.62, the lowest since January 2007.
Oil could fall to $40/bbl in 2009: Deutsche Bank
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices could fall to as low as $40 a barrel next year as more efficient refining capacity comes online and production costs for some regions fall, Deutsche Bank said in a Wednesday research note."The most underappreciated issue is the combination of poor demand with major new refining capacity additions and the extent to which that will undermine light sweet crude prices," the bank said in the note outlining the downside risk to its 2009 oil forecast.
Palin, Alaska grapple with lower crude prices
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – Falling oil prices will take a bite out of Alaska's state budget and put a damper on oil-field investment, Gov. Sarah Palin told a conference of major North Slope oil operators on Wednesday.Palin, the Republican party's vice-presidential nominee for the recent U.S. presidential election, said the days of oil-revenue budget surpluses are over.
"It's a wakeup call. We preached, when oil was at $140, that we had to prepare for the day when prices would drop," Palin told reporters. "We realized it today."
Frontline considering avoiding Suez due piracy
LONDON (Reuters) - Norway's Frontline, one of the world's biggest oil tanker owners, is "definitely considering" instructing its fleet to avoid the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal because of piracy, its acting chief executive officer said on Thursday.
China mulls tax options to reform oil pricing
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese policy makers may decide to increase a refined oil consumption tax rather than impose a new fuel tax, as some market participants are expecting, official sources familiar with the issue told Reuters on Thursday.The consumption tax, currently levied on seven refined oil products rather than just the retail staples of gasoline and diesel, is paid by refiners and importers, who pass the cost on to their customers.
Nigeria army repels gunmen at Escravos oil terminal
LAGOS (Reuters) - The Nigerian military repelled an attack by gunmen in speedboats on Thursday close to the Escravos crude oil export terminal, a major facility in the Niger Delta operated by U.S. energy giant Chevron."They came in about 10 speedboats. The attack has been repelled," Brigadier General Wuyep Rimtip, a commander of the joint military taskforce in the western Niger Delta, told Reuters, adding two of the attackers' boats had been sunk.
Koch, Shell book supertankers for oil storage
DUBAI — U.S. oil trader Koch and Royal Dutch Shell have booked supertankers to store millions of barrels of crude, prompted by falling demand....Sliding demand and poor refinery profit margins have left sellers facing the choice of offering deep discounts to move barrels or risk paying for storage to sell later.
“All this oil has to go somewhere, especially if the refiners aren't running at capacity,” a Singapore-based crude oil trader said.
Statoil mulls closing Asia oil product trade arm - source
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Statoil Asia Pacific, trading arm of Norway's StatoilHydro ASA, is considering closing its oil products trading division, industry sources said on Thursday, as trading activity slows amid the global financial crisis.
Russia wants Ukraine to repay $2.4 bln gas debt
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has ordered gas export monopoly Gazprom to ask Ukraine to pay back its gas debt to Russia, which Gazprom estimates at $2.4 billion, local agencies reported on Thursday."We need to fully clarify ourselves with Ukraine's debt and recover it on a good-will or compulsory basis. Because it is stated in the current legislation and within the frames of our bilateral relationships," Interfax quoted Medvedev as saying to Gazprom's chief executive Alexei Miller at a meeting in the Kremlin.
Norway oil fund says it's on prowl for stocks
OSLO — Norway's $300-billion (U.S.) sovereign wealth fund will remain a big buyer of equities after raising its holdings to 1.25 per cent of European stocks and about half that proportion in markets elsewhere, its chief said.Commonly known as “the oil fund”, the Government Pension Fund – Global invests Norway's oil and gas wealth in foreign stocks and bonds for when the “black gold” runs out. It held 0.77 per cent of Europe's stocks at the end of 2007.
Automakers can't afford to develop hybrids
LOS ANGELES — The arrival of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks promising cleaner air and more energy independence is being set back as automakers worldwide scramble to hoard cash in an industry meltdown.Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Japan's Nissan Motor and France's Renault, on Wednesday warned that automakers "can't find the financing" for aggressive development of so-called green cars.
A sea of unwanted auto imports
LONG BEACH, California: Gleaming new Mercedes cars roll one by one out of a huge container ship here and onto a pier. Ordinarily the cars would be loaded on trucks within hours, destined for dealerships around the United States. But these are not ordinary times.For now, the port itself is the destination. Unwelcome by dealers and buyers, thousands of cars worth tens of millions of dollars are being warehoused on increasingly crowded port property.
..."This is one way to look at the economy," Art Wong, a spokesman for the port, said of the cars. "And it scares you to death."
Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum'
BP is keen to play up its investment in alternative energy with images of wind turbines and plants. But no amount of clever advertising can hide the fact that its billions of pounds of profit and investment is still all about fossil fuels.
Vietnam begins operating new oil field
HANOI, VIETNAM (AP) - Vietnam has opened a new oil field that will boost national crude oil output by 21 percent by the end of this year, officials said.
Peak Everything: Waking Up To The Century Of Declines
Everything in 20th century America pointed toward progress, growth, goods and services. Each generation enjoyed bigger houses, more cars and higher standards of living. Parents assured their kids, “You’re gonna’ have a better life than we did.” The human race raised its eyes to the moon, and amazingly, walked on it!Up until 1975, Americans assumed everything and anything--possible!
However, in the 21st century, as the adage laments, “Everything that goes up, must come down.”
Here is some disturbing news. According to Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, next year is tipped to be "peak oil" year. This means that from 2009, fossil fuel extraction will start tailing off globally – most rapidly in western Europe. Pessimists say the situation will be acute by 2020.It takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food in Western culture. "Anyone can see that this is not sustainable," says Holden, who predicts that the big issue for coming years will be "food security".
Use flower power to save Europe's bees: EU lawmaker
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Honey bees, whose numbers are falling, must be given flowery "recovery zones" in Europe's farmlands to aid their survival, a leading EU lawmaker said Wednesday.Bees pollinate numerous crops and scientists have expressed alarm over their mysterious and rapid decline. Experts have warned that a drop in the bee population could harm agriculture.
Australia: Lower speed limit to tackle obesity crisis, say experts
SPEED limits in suburban streets should be slashed to 30km/h to encourage pedestrians and cyclists and tackle the obesity epidemic, experts say.Griffith University transport planning researcher Matthew Burke said cutting speeds from 50km/h on local streets would not only reduce road trauma, it would also curb obesity rates by encouraging more people to walk and cycle.
Australia: Street design rethink to cope with changing population
AS southeast Queensland grapples with unprecedented population growth, one engineer is redesigning our streets to change the way we get around.It may change how vibrant suburbs are and whether our streets are safe for kids to play in. Ultimately it will affect whether you can buy the type of house that suits you.
Transition Towns - special feature
GREEN thinking people across Taunton, Wellington and West Somerset are getting together to tackle major environmental issues at a local level through the Transition Towns initiative.The scheme has been has been adopted across the area to make the community more aware of major environmental issues including peak oil and climate change.
Google CEO Schmidt lays out U.S. energy ideas
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should use part of any future economic stimulus package to connect wind turbines and solar energy to the nation's electricity grid, said Google Inc Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, an advisor to President-elect Barack Obama.
Crown Estate plans tidal power future in Scotland
The Crown Estate has invited proposals from developers to install the UK's first commercial marine power sites in the area around Pentland Firth in north Scotland.This first round of development is intended to generate 700MW of clean electricity from wave and tidal sources by 2020.
Concerns emerge about environmental effects of wave-energy technology
Tapping the power of waves and tidal currents to generate electricity is promoted as one of many promising alternatives to the fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.But no one knows exactly how the technologies will behave in the water, whether animals will get hurt, or if costs will pencil out. The permitting process is expensive and cumbersome, and no set method exists for getting projects up and running.
Wal-Mart in wind energy deal with Duke Energy
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc said on Thursday that it had entered into a partnership with Duke Energy to have wind power supply up to 15 percent of its energy load for roughly 360 of its stores and facilities in Texas.
U.S. company auctions 300,000 U.N. carbon credits
NEW YORK, Nov 20 (Reuters) - U.S.-based online exchange World Energy Solutions Inc said on Thursday it has completed an auction for carbon credits that can be used for compliance under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
BRUSSELS - THE Arctic offers new energy and fishing resources as a result of global warming and new technology, the European Union said on Thursday.Melting ice also presented new navigation possibilities such as a short route to the Pacific Ocean, the EU executive said.
Politicians persuaded to save Canada boreal forest
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Politicians actually listened when experts told them to protect Canada's boreal forest, a potent weapon against global warming, and the plan for this vast green area could work on some of the world's other vital places, scientists told Reuters.
Canada wants North America cap-and-trade system
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Conservative government, shifting positions in the wake of Barack Obama's election as U.S. president, said on Wednesday that it would work to develop a North America-wide cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.The Conservatives, who walked away from the Kyoto protocol on climate change after taking power in 2006, have until now focused on cutting the intensity of emissions rather than imposing outright curbs.
Governors pledge to fight global warming together
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, his counterparts in 12 states and regional leaders from four other countries signed a declaration Wednesday pledging to work together to combat global warming, a move Schwarzenegger said will help push heads of state to curb their nations' greenhouse gas emissions.
Colombian VP says cocaine destroying rain forests
Colombia's vice president said Tuesday that Britain's middle classes, who recycle and haul shopping home in reusable cloth bags, should realize that they are destroying the rain forests by taking cocaine."These people, who have good jobs and drive a hybrid car or cycle to work because they care about the environment, may go to party and do some lines of coke and they are thinking it is no problem," Francisco Santos told The Associated Press Tuesday. "They are absolutely unaware of the ecological impact of their drug taking and we want to change that."
Climate change momentum fading: Asia-Pacific survey
LIMA (AFP) – Climate change is fading as a priority in the Pacific Rim as the gloomy state of the global economy takes precedence, a survey of opinion leaders showed Wednesday.The private Pacific Economic Cooperation Council released an annual survey of leaders in government, business and media ahead of a summit in Peru of 21 Asia-Pacific nations, which account for more than half the global economy.
Paul Wagler: Obama's One-Time Opportunity: to Restructure the American Economy
With worldwide equity markets down by 40 - 50%, it seems virtually certain that we are already falling into a depression. Hopefully it will be far smaller than the Great Depression of the 1930's
The Real Source Of Washington Corruption
Spencer Ackerman nails it. It's the think-tank lunch:
Here I'm going to reveal an open secret in Washington. The best free lunch in town -- by far -- is at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. I remember a panel discussion on Iraq a couple years ago at which AEI wheeled out a massive amount of succulent, just-grilled chicken shwarma. Rice that had been seasoned. With almond slivers! The whole thing displayed a stunningly real Middle East expertise, or at least what a Washington Jew thinks passes for real Middle East expertise. And that is how you succeed in this town...
America’s First Green President?
The world expects Barack Obama to do more for the climate and the environment than George W. Bush. But can the next president of the United States deliver climate friendly energy and environment policies in the depths of a recession?
Google CEO Schmidt lays out U.S. energy ideas
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should use part of any future economic stimulus package to connect wind turbines and solar energy to the nation's electricity grid, said Google Inc Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, an advisor to President-elect Barack Obama.
Canada wants North America cap-and-trade system
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Conservative government, shifting positions in the wake of Barack Obama's election as U.S. president, said on Wednesday that it would work to develop a North America-wide cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.
Searaser floating pump will use the ocean's waves to generate power
from Engadget byOil could fall to $40/bbl in 2009: Deutsche Bank
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices could fall to as low as $40 a barrel next year as more efficient refining capacity comes online and production costs for some regions fall, Deutsche Bank said in a Wednesday research note.
Auto Industry Bailout Vote Canceled By Senate
WASHINGTON — A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers _ and millions of Americans' jobs _ after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. President George W. Bush has "no appetite" to act on his own.
Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: The Methane Bomb is Ticking: Here's an Energy Plan to Defuse It
Writing for the Yale School of Forestry website a few weeks ago, award winning journalist Susan Stranahan interviewed a Norwegian scientist, who noted that methane is beginning to seep up from the melting submarine permafrost of the shallow Arctic continental shelf. What little data exists -
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Good Articles 11-19-08
Moore’s Curse and the Great Energy Delusion: It is delusional to think that the United States can install in 10 years wind and solar generating capacity equivalent to that of thermal power plants that took nearly 60 years to construct.
“Energy transitions” encompass the time that elapses between an introduction of a new primary energy source oil, nuclear electricity, wind captured by large turbines) and its rise to claiming a substantial share (20 percent to 30 percent) of the overall market, or even to becoming the single largest contributor or an absolute leader (with more than 50 percent) in national or global energy supply. The term also refers to gradual diffusion of new prime movers, devices that replaced animal and human muscles by converting primary energies into mechanical power that is used to rotate massive turbogenerators producing electricity or to propel fleets of vehicles, ships, and airplanes. There is one thing all energy transitions have in common: they are prolonged affairs that take decades to accomplish, and the greater the scale of prevailing uses and conversions the longer the substitutions will take. The second part of this statement seems to be a truism but it is ignored as often as the first part: otherwise we would not have all those unrealized predicted milestones for new energy sources.[break]
Consumer prices in record decline
Inflation falls by a record 1% in October, worrying economists that falling prices will become a disturbing trend.
Byron King: Unsustainable Energy Trends
Just over the horizon, things are about to become dicey. This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) will release a new report on the future of world energy. In its World Energy Outlook, the IEA will state categorically that "Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable."There's not much wiggle room in that statement. According to the IEA, despite the recent fall in oil prices, the medium- and long-term outlooks for energy supply are grim. Conventional oil output is destined to decline. Demand will still grow, however, especially in the developing world. And the twain shall only meet by prices rising to clear the market. "It is," as our Arab friends like to say, "written."
Russia: Electricity Providers Face Bankruptcy
Electricity suppliers across the country are cracking down as the number of delinquent private and corporate customers surges. They have little choice.The dilapidated industry is mired in debt linked to unpaid consumer bills and the multibillion-dollar investment programs that investors signed onto when they acquired electricity assets from the state during the privatization of Unified Energy System, which wrapped up just weeks before the financial crisis struck. A chunk of the industry also operates on a system of short-term loans — funds that have dried up in the crisis.
Kyrgyzstan: Energy Crisis Threatens Country's Stability
It is the main topic of conversation at every dinner table in the country. After nine months of erratic blackouts and broken government promises, the Kyrgyz are growing restless. Many are even saying the situation is worse than before the Tulip Revolution in 2005.
Jordan: Cabinet addresses fuel crisis
AMMAN - The Cabinet on Tuesday looked into alternatives to the controversial pricing mechanism of oil derivatives, which was adopted after fuel subsidies were removed in February, a government official told The Jordan Times after the Cabinet’s weekly meeting.He added that the government discussed the current crisis in the local market due to a severe fuel shortage that prevailed over the past few days, adding that authorities are considering feasible solutions and alternatives “to neutralise the profits and losses of gas station owners” when updating fuel prices.
Owners of hijacked tanker in ransom talks-Saudi FM
ROME (Reuters) - The owners of a hijacked Saudi supertanker with a $100 million oil cargo are in negotiations over a possible ransom payment, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said on Wednesday.
With gas prices dropping, commuters get back in their cars
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority just released their statistics for October ridership: with the exception of the subway, ridership fell slightly from September as gas prices began their free-fall.
Medvedev Warns Crisis Is Spreading
MOSCOW -- President Dmitry Medvedev warned that the crisis gripping Russia's banks and capital markets has spread to the real economy and pledged to use the Kremlin's still-massive oil wealth to provide more state aid for stricken industries.His comments, his frankest on the subject yet, came as the World Bank cut its growth forecast for Russia next year by more than half because of the country's acute dependence on oil prices. The bank said it expects the ruble to keep softening as it tracks oil prices lower.
Ruble May Slide 13% Against Basket on Oil Decline, Survey Shows
(Bloomberg) -- The ruble may weaken 13 percent by the end of next year as the plunging price of oil and the erosion of Russia's current-account surplus compels the central bank to devalue the currency, a survey of analysts and investors showed.
Oil prices fall below $54 a barrel
VIENNA, Austria – Oil prices slipped further Wednesday, dipping below $54 on fears of global economic weakness that have sent crude down more than 60 percent in four months.But analysts suggested that prices might be bottoming out as they moved closer to the psychologically significant $50 mark.
Consumer Prices in U.S. Probably Tumbled as Spending Slumped
(Bloomberg) -- The cost of living in the U.S. probably slid in October by the most in almost six decades as fuel costs plummeted and retailers discounted merchandise to entice shell-shocked customers, economists said before a government report today.Consumer prices probably dropped 0.8 percent last month, the most since 1949, after being unchanged in September, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Excluding food and energy, so-called core prices may have risen 0.1 percent for a second month.
Shell, Aramco, Petrobras Speed Project Spending Cuts
(Bloomberg) -- The biggest oil companies including Saudi Aramco, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Petroleo Brasileiro SA are accelerating spending cuts and delaying projects as the world enters a recession, said Morgan Stanley & Co.As many as 44 projects have been delayed and faced cuts in investments as of Nov. 18, compared with 19 in a Nov. 5 report, analysts Theepan Jothilingam and James Hubbard said in a note today.
Aramco projects unscathed by crisis
"All our projects are long-term projects and not short-term ones therefore we don't see an impact," Abdullah Naim, vice president for petroleum engineering and development at the state-run conglomerate told Al Arabiya television."We don't think this crisis would be a long one. It will be a short one. It will pass like previous ones did," he added.
Petrobras postpones 28 rig tenders
Brazilian state oil company Petrobras has postponed construction tenders for 28 deep-sea drilling rigs to the coming year.The rigs were to be tendered exclusively to Brazilian construction companies this year.
Chevron Says Nigeria Oil Link Breach May Halt Exports
(Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. oil company, suspended export obligations on some Nigerian production following a pipeline breach at the Escravos oilfield.The so-called “force majeure” clause, invoked yesterday after the loss of 90,000 barrels a day last week, will last until Dec. 31, company spokesman Scott Walker said in an e- mailed statement.
China to impose fuel tax "very soon": paper
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will impose a long-awaited fuel tax "very soon," the head of National Development and Reform Commission's (NDRC) Energy Research Institute said in comments reported on Tuesday by the China Daily."The announcement will come very soon, and actually specific plans have already been suggested to the government long ago," Han Wenke, director general of the research body, was quoted as saying.
On Sunday, "60 Minutes'" Steve Kroft asked President-elect Barack Obama if the astonishing drop in gas and oil prices made dealing with energy issues "less important." Obama responded forcefully: "It makes it more important." He observed that there is a cycle of "shock and trance" in American attitudes toward energy. When gas prices go up, there's a "flurry" of activity, but when they go back down, well, never mind.That's exactly what I want to hear from my president, because the truth is that the current low gas and oil prices are engendering a false sense of security. We are being set up for an even more painful energy crisis in the very near future.
No plans to restore broad drilling ban
WASHINGTON – House Democrats have no interest in restoring the broad ban on oil and gas development off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts but will seek to "delineate areas available for drilling" when Congress returns next year, the second-ranking Democrat in the House said Tuesday.
With the global mortgage and climate crises making sprawl less and less sustainable, planning issues can no longer be consigned to the fringes of progressive politics. Barack Obama seems to realize this and promised during his campaign that if elected, he would establish a White House Office of Urban Policy. At a meeting of African American columnists last week, Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett confirmed such an office would exist but didn't give more details.
Vietnam president in Venezuela to boost energy ties
CARACAS, (AFP) – Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet arrived in Venezuela where he was set to promote oil and gas cooperation during a two-day official visit, the first by a head of state from the communist nation.
Indian navy destroys pirate boat, more ships taken
MOGADISHU (Reuters) – An Indian warship destroyed a pirate ship in the Gulf of Aden and gunmen from Somalia seized two more vessels despite a large international naval presence off their lawless country.The buccaneers have taken a Thai fishing boat, a Greek bulk carrier and a Hong Kong-flagged ship heading to Iran since Saturday's spectacular capture of a Saudi supertanker carrying $100 million of oil, the biggest ship hijacked in history.
The explosion of piracy off Somalia this year has driven up insurance costs, made some shipping companies divert around South Africa and prompted an unprecedented military response from NATO, the European Union and others.
Suspected US missile strike kills 6 in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – A suspected U.S. missile strike hit a village deep inside Pakistani territory Wednesday, officials said, killing six alleged militants and indicating American willingness to pursue insurgents beyond the lawless tribal regions.
China eyes cheaper electricity for aluminium firms
HONG KONG (Reuters) - China's electricity producers have started cutting the fees at which they sell power to aluminium producers, smelter and power sources said on Wednesday, which could help smelters avoid further output cuts and boost flagging demand for electricity.The aluminium industry in the world's biggest producer and consumer of the metal uses around 6 percent of the country's electricity output, but has been cutting back sharply in the face of lower prices.
GM's possible bankruptcy weighs heavily on Detroit
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Devastating.That's the word being used to describe the impact on Michigan and its largest city, Detroit, should financially ailing automaker General Motors file for bankruptcy protection.
Consumers will suffer if GM goes under
Higher car prices, the end of incentives and vehicle shortages could occur if GM and other Big Three automakers don't get a bailout, according to experts.
Will Detroit's cash crisis kill the electric car?
With its cash dwindling and U.S. auto sales crashing to 25-year lows, GM has joined Ford Motor Co and Chrysler LLC in seeking $25 billion in federal handouts, which are under consideration this week by the U.S. Congress.That has critics concerned that a meltdown for Detroit could delay the rollout of green cars like the Volt. Others see a chance to prod GM and rivals to move faster as a condition of providing funding the industry says it needs to survive.
Toyota will show hybrid vehicle fueled by CNG
Toyota will reveal a Camry hybrid concept at the Los Angeles Auto Show with an engine that uses compressed natural gas.The concept signals that Toyota's hybrid technology will be used with engines that operate on a variety of fuels.
Sumitomo Rubber plans tires free of oil
TOKYO (Reuters) - Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd, Japan's second-biggest tire maker, plans to start selling in Japan tires that include no petrochemical materials by 2013, a company spokesman said on Tuesday.The company has set a medium-term strategy to fight climate change by introducing a tire which uses as little raw material made from oil as possible and at the same time that spins more smoothly to save more fuel than a conventional tire.
German group SolarWorld bids 1bln euros for Opel car plants
FRANKFURT (AFP) – German solar energy company SolarWorld has prepared an offerfor the four German auto factories owned by Opel, a division of US giant General Motors, worth one billion euros (1.26 billion dollars), a statement said on Wednesday.The solar panel maker would offer 250 million euros in cash and 750 million euros in the form of a bank credit under certain conditions, the statement said.
The Impact Of The Slowdown In Construction Of Wind Generation
The last few months have seen a significant stalling in plans and proposals to build new wind-based power generation. These delays and cancellations have significant implications for two important components of American energy: (1) the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) that have been passed in many states and (2) the reliability of the North American electric grid.
U. S. greenhouse gas regime will impact exporters
As if a credit crunch and recession aren't enough for Canadian manufacturers to deal with. Now those exporting to the United States have to watch how their greenhouse gas emissions will impact their business.
UK: Financial crisis gives green builders a welcome boost
Government climate change targets and the financial crisis are giving green builders added incentive.
Rainforest nations want coordinated carbon effort
MILAN (Reuters) - Rainforest nations will lobby the United Nations to set up a single body to coordinate the use of carbon credit trading to stop deforestation at a conference next month in Poland, an official from the countries said on Tuesday."A new body should be built to coordinate initiatives (on cutting emissions from deforestation) that are going around now," Federica Bietta, Deputy Director of New York-based Coalition for Rainforest Nations, which represents about 40 countries, told Reuters on the margins of a deforestation conference in Milan.
Green groups ramp up attacks on oil sands
CALGARY - Environmental organizations in Canada and the United States are stepping up their campaign to derail Alberta's oil sands and seeking funding from deep-pocketed endowments, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Schwarzenegger opens climate summit with Obama
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opened his international climate change summit on Tuesday by upstaging himself with an even bigger political star — President-elect Barack Obama.Schwarzenegger, a Republican whose efforts to combat global warming in California have generated worldwide acclaim, wants to show that governments can balance environmental protection and economic growth. He hopes his summit will influence negotiations over a new climate treaty during a U.N. gathering in Poland next month.
UK: MPs pass landmark climate change bill
LONDON (AFP) – MPs have given final approval to a bill committing Britain to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 -- the first country to have such a legally binding framework on climate change.Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said on Tuesday that the bill, which must now be signed into law by the queen, "makes Britain a world leader on climate policy".
Bush Tries to Kickstart U.S. Oil Shale Development
WASHINGTON, DC - The Bush administration finalized regulations to govern the commercial development of oil shale on federal lands on Monday, rebuffing concerns that the rules are premature and ignoring the serious environmental concerns about tapping the resource.
A New Chapter but Same Old “Solutions”
American President-elect Barack Obama sent a video-taped message to a conference on climate change in Los Angeles yesterday that, under his administration, he would to promise a “new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change”, leading to a “new era of global cooperation” on the issue.
The perils of cheap oil
...On Sunday, "60 Minutes'" Steve Kroft asked President-elect Barack Obama if the astonishing drop in gas and oil prices made dealing with energy issues "less important." Obama responded forcefully: "It makes it more important." He observed that there is a cycle of "shock and trance" in American attitudes toward energy. When gas prices go up, there's a "flurry" of activity, but when they go back down, well, never mind.The Impact Of The Slowdown In Construction Of Wind Generation
The last few months have seen a significant stalling in plans and proposals to build new wind-based power generation. These delays and cancellations have significant implications for two important
Crude Oil Is Steady Amid Forecasts of Increased U.S. Supplies
Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil was little changed in New York amid forecasts that a report will show U.S. oil supplies increased for an eighth week as a recession erodes global demand.
Will Detroit's cash crisis kill the electric car?
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Call it an economic and environmental murder mystery in the making: Will a cash-strapped Detroit kill the electric car -- again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
