Blogs

Guest blog by Alex Gulakov.. (full post at the3nr.com)

...Returning to how a debate round might look like, debaters would likely “flow” the speech of their opponent by entering the keywords of that argument as the center bubble in the argument web. From that, the most relevant associations from the root you’ve assembled in your reading on the topic will pop-up and you can pick and drop analytics and “cards” you find relevant to form your own speech. These wouldn’t really be cards in the format we use today. They would not be taken or “cut” from their original source in any way. The root could also change dynamically as the source on the internet might be updated. This way, you could browse the source your opponent used, and maybe make a contextual indict of that. This note would be tagged on to that article so that everyone using the same garden as you would instantly have that indict visible as well. Your research would be “cutting for” every part of the topic at once, since you wouldn’t be researching files with a narrow topic but reading good articles overall and tagging paragraphs and sentences that might be relevant to this or that in the future. Much like online social bookmaking, multiple users could tag part of an article and you might be suggested the most popular tags or related article snippets....

I gave a lecture this morning on the affirmative cases that have been written at camps to date. This lecture got me thinking about what it means for affirmative plans to be "for persons living in poverty."

This has always been a significant issue in my mind because most (maybe all but six or seven) social service programs are not designed exclusively for persons who fall below the poverty line according to the federal poverty guidelines.