Do any of you ever still judge debates? If so, you may know if current debaters are actually using the following arguement to define the word 'significantly' with a very low number.
I remember that at least half of the resolutions that I debated in HS included the word 'significantly', a derivitive of the word 'significant'. According to the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently under 'Significant Risk of Terror Activities' - airlines are at an even higher risk.
Do you remember the kinds of definitions you used as an indication of significant? Was a common one 20%? I remember practically laughing off a definition of 2%. But what does significant risk mean in this instance? Does it mean that we will experience, first hand, a terrorist threat every five days? (that would be roughly 20%, I guess) And what constitutes terrorist threat? Is it a bomb at the grocery store* at least twice a week? Is it busting a terror cell in the UK that planned to attack the US? Because I think in the past year at least, there have been no bombs in American stores and only two busted terror cells - and both were busted early on in their planning.
But we're still at 'Significant Risk', not in Iraq, where bombs actually blow up several times a week and routinely kill multiple individuals, but here, in the United States. Here, my biggest daily risk is getting in an accident on the 680 Southbound, right before the 580 interchange - that or hitting some terrible traffic. The current terror level alert is watering down our language, but more importantly, it is reducing our ability to be prepared for actual threats. If we adjust to a level of Significant, or even High, how much more important will it be to us if the level goes up to Severe?
But, with that in mind, it seems like the same machine that took us to war with Iraq is gearing up for war with Iran. Believe it or not, I'd actually like to believe my government, especially since it is supposed to be by the people, of the people, and for the people. The problem is that everything I hear goes against my logic. When someone does ask a question, it is answered with the accusation that we don't trust the government. But it has become clear that we cannot. I think I will defer to Jefferson to figure out what might be necessary in that situation.
*I presume that we use grocery stores, or malls, in the same way Iraqis use marketplaces
2.12.2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't remember what percentage affirmatives considered "significant"...but as a negative, I always went with something ridiculously high, like 75%. That way, no aff plan could possibly be significant. :)
I recall 20% as being heavily used among the Affs. I judged a (ritzy suburb) debate tourney just before Xmas, and I don't recall any numbers being tossed around regarding anything's significance.
Being a judge in the suburbs is absurd. They give you a room full of delicious food, a fridge full of various cold sodas, waters, and juices, and $100 for judging a total of 5 hours. Seriously, I wish I could make it a full-time job. It makes me melancholy though, thinking back to our early morning bus trips and long lost debate loves.. :) Oh, debate.
~L
In the sciences a result that is statistically significant has to be at least above 90%, usually 95-98%. That means that the chances of your result simply being the product of chance are very low, 5-2%.
I seriously doubt the risk of a terrorist attack is 20%. It might be 20% for the entire U.S., but your chances of personally experiencing a terrorist attack are much, much lower.
I'm at the point where I don't believe a goddamn word that comes out of Chimpy's mouth. He could tell me that the sky is blue and I'd look out the window to check.
Post a Comment