Home

Welcome to Shattering the Lens. Please feel free to look around the site. Use the navigation to the left to view the site pages, post categories and archives. I am sure you will find something which will spark your imagination or impress itself upon you. Or, you may find yourself bored and wanting to leave. Either way, I encourage you to leave comments and thoughts. Consider this a reflective pool where each drop of water reflects a different perspective of the world around it. Come and go as you please, add your own tears to the pool if you feel so inclined, or just take a moment to appreciate a perspective which may be different from your own.

Eternity can be found in a drop of water, and it takes even less than that to drown the universe.

ripple

14 thoughts on “Home

    • That’s a very open-ended question. Is there a specific part you’re asking about? I’d probably have a lot to say haha, likely another entire topic overview about it.

      • Okay, cool! I hope you don’t mind my debating with you in the LD category. I just found your website and it has proved very helpful. I found my Neg. framework for the January topic on your post.:)

  1. What is your opinion on the income inequality resolution? It seems every other topic was better than this one…

    • Yeah, I think the resolution is trash. It poses a false dichotomy, and it’s going to be terrible to debate. I wrote a topic overview on it if you want some ideas, but as far as the resolution goes, I’m not a huge fan.

  2. Hi, I’m a debater from Wadsworth attending nationals in LD. Was wondering if a) there would be a post on the nats topic, and/or b) I could email my case to “Ace” just for feedback. it’s no problem if the answer is no:) just wondering. Thank you:)

    • Hi Sophie,

      Congrats on making it to nationals! I won’t be putting up an analysis of the nats topic unfortunately. I also don’t review cases for folks who aren’t students of the academy because it would be unfair to the students. If you want to post arguments here, though, I’d be happy to discuss with you. Or if you’d like to do a camp or something to get you ready for nationals, go ahead and contact the academy. Thanks, and congrats again!:)

      • Currently my affirmative values justice with the criterion of human dignity, and my negative also values justice with the criterion of the social contract. On my affirmative the basic thesis is that to achieve justice, the universal good, one must have human dignity, and the best way to achieve dignity is through recognizing immigration as a human right. By recognizing immigration as a human right, one can right many wrongs prevalent all over the world that exist because immigration is not recognized as a human right (I discuss these in my contentions.) On the negative, I argue that justice can only be upheld if the state and its citizens uphold their social contract to each other, and that the affirmative infringes on the social contract. By recognizing immigration as a human right, which are rights much less restricted than other types of rights, the state is not able to close its borders to foreigners if it deems this necessary, though under the social contract the state has duties to promote the interests of its current citizens over noncitizens.

      • Hi Sophie,

        From the way you describe your cases, they seem fine, but they do seem pretty standard. The structure is solid, and the frameworks are good, but it isn’t anything remarkable. You’re going to run into a lot of different arguments at nationals, so you should be prepared for that.

        For the affirmative, be sure to clearly define justice. What is the universal good? And why is it best achieved through human dignity? A universal good seems more like a utilitarian concept.

        For the negative, your VC shouldn’t just be the “social contract.” Every society outside the state of nature has a social contract, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good one. You also shouldn’t admit that immigration is a “restricted” right, because that’s admitting that it is already some kind of right. You will also need to explain how open borders can harm a nation’s population.

        Other than that, the structure is good. I hope this helps. Good luck!

Leave a question or comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s