Debating Forms, my 2 cents

I remember participating in a debate where I had to take a position I knew (and everybody else with common sense would know) was wrong.  However setting aside that notion, I started a decent research and armed myself with an abundance of facts and counter-facts. That combined with some slew side stepping of points I couldn’t win and some humor/ridicule I was able to win.  I did feel a little dirty afterwards but also knew that if the opponent had done a little more research and had been a little bit sharper I would have lost. Heres some more debating techniques: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html

The reason I remembered it was after watching the docu/movie Resolved 2007

In that movie they describe 2 different types of debating

  • The classical almost clinical chessform type with clear affirmatives and negatives.  The goal is to win which is determined by amount and strength of arguments/counter arguments.
  • The ‘identity-purpose-method’ type or I’d like to call it the pursuit of a solution.  The goal is to learn by understanding the problem and try to solve it using back and forth arguments for both.

In my opinion the first one is suitable for when you are bound to a time frame and you know the question is small enough to resolve within that timeframe. The second one is applicable to larger questions which aren’t that obvious to resolve at glance and require deeper investigation. This will require more time and is less suitable for a timed competition. Basically I see the types as different algorithms to solve a certain question/resolution both provide a good output provided they are used on the right question/resolution.

On a side note, I still find the fast debating style in competitions utterly ridiculous. If we acknowledge that it is a sport and the winner is not always right then it wouldn’t hurt to bring some eloquence and charm back to bring in more spectators.

Advertisements

Procrastination

www.exocomics.com

I had to smile when I saw this, very recognizable.

From www.exocomics.com


Bad Hairday

So I decided to finally look up how and why hair behaves like that:

The science of hair according to shampoo makers:
http://www.pg.com/science/haircare/hair_twh_toc.htm

After reading that, you might want to turn bold which

  • Saves you money on haircuts, shampoo and conditioner, water & electricity (blowdryer) and styling products
  • Time to force it into shape in the morning (time being variable since it depends on the type of cut)

But I did get out of it:

  • I probably should use conditioner (thought it was just marketing for extra sales)
  • Don’t blow dry your hair to boiling levels (due to the water hair contains)
  • Hairspray coating is very effective against humidity and heat, keeps your hair in shape

Memorization

Mathemagician Arthur Benjamin on TED

(for squaring its easier to break up: (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2)

Blindsolving the Cube tips

….another link wich I forgot (oh how ironic)

-work in progress-


The universe behind the eyes

A brief encounter

locked onto her eyes

I lost myself

between new constellations

too soon I woke up

in a reality

missing that universe


Accomplishments

I just realized why I like science over the arts. Its mostly because with science the accomplishments are direct and simple to state. Whether it is an experiment in the lab, a calculation or something you’ve build that works, you get a direct feeling of having accomplished something real and forever. Whilst with the arts like organizational or social, the accomplishments are not so easy to point out and might take a while to form and be recognized. I think there was some philosophical theory posing that a man is defined by its actions thus making a man of science more definable then a man of arts. I feel more comfortable being easy to define and thus having a clear sense of progress (an accumulation of accomplishments). Maybe my view changes over the years but for know I am still eager to accomplish something big that would echo my definition in the century’s to come. Most scientific accomplishments live forever, we unfortunately don’t.

So after reading what I wrote, I realized accomplishments sounds like an ego trip however that is not the case. The core driver behind scientific accomplishments is basic curiosity answering questions and challenges (why..?, how..?) every answer found is another step/action/accomplishment forward with the ultimate goal to have satisfied your curiosity. I can imagine life after that becomes rather dull  (just like a magic trick that loses its power once revealed how it works) or frustrating (Knowing why and how something happens but also knowing you can’t ever control it).