Comments on: Bad Cards #1: The “South China Morning Post ‘96” Disease Impact

By: The 3NR » Bad Cards #3: The “Harrison ‘05/’06″ Legal Debate Blog Cards

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:17:01 +0000

[...] the previous two installments of the “Bad Cards” series highlighted popular but low-quality impact [...]

By: The 3NR » Bad Cards #2: The “Corsi ‘5″ Terrorism Impact

The 3NR » Bad Cards #2: The “Corsi ‘5″ Terrorism Impact — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:21:46 +0000

[...] of articles highlighting popular but poor-quality pieces of debate evidence; the first featured the South China Morning Post ‘96 disease impact. If you’d like to recommend a card for inclusion in this series, please leave a [...]

By: Michael Antonucci

Michael Antonucci — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:42:21 +0000

I think this is a great idea, but it seems to have sort of fallen off the map. I don’t think this particular topic is great for a blog format. People really read blogs top down and ignore most threading and tagging; they aren’t really great knowledge repositories. Even if it’s technically possible, the readership doesn’t work that way.

Is there a less bloggy part of the site, like where it hosts Michigan stuff or whatever?

By: Michael Antonucci

Michael Antonucci — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:09:55 +0000

@Marks

1. The Smith article here: http://www.discovery.org/a/5911 gives the best rundown on Chalko, although it may suffer from some bias problems of its own.

2. I agree with the CX tactic. When it’s an actual slam dunk on a terrible author, it makes the rest of the C-X really fall into place (as well as saving speech time.) A fantastic example of this in practice is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1rAEMDKpE&feature=PlayList&p=EFF85A216EB84ABE&index=0

By: DMarks

DMarks — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:38:53 +0000

Yes! Way to carry the banner…maybe this card will finally die.

An alternative is to question credibility in CX, and then reference in the speech: “Disregard South China Morning Post – that’s CX.” If contested in CX, you can read the evidence there, saving time for your speech. The other team will be hard pressed to defend the author in CX, so there’s no need to waste time in the speech with all the (true) warrants. It’s also effective there since you can point out that he also thinks the Vatican cloned Jesus and he failed med school.

I’d like to see an indict of the Chalko “warming causes the earth to implode” card if you get a chance.

By: kendall

kendall — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:34:15 +0000

Deutsch ‘02 is something I’d like to see an analysis on because it was read so much on the Africa topic.

By: A Miles

A Miles — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:59:48 +0000

Maybe as part of the series you should suggest an alternative card to read.
I think another card that should be added to this series is Beardon. Although there are much better impact cards, people insist on reading this one. The problem with it is (as many people know) it says
“beginning about 2007, on our present energy course we will have reached an 80% probability of this “final destruction of civilization.”
“The 2003 date appears to be the critical “point of no return” for the survival of civilization as we have known it”
He thinks that the only solution to this scenario is zero-point energy, which most agree is a joke. Also, his PHD was bought at Trinity College and University, “a British institution with no building, campus, faculty, or president, and run from a post office box.”