![]() ![]() I don’t fault coaches and students that hold to traditionalism. That student’s students will then learn all of the original coach’s “rules” plus the next generations “rules” and things just keep going from there. Then, once that student starts teaching others, their philosophy of debate will be built on their coach’s rules, plus things the student learned from experience. There is a process to it: a coach teaches a student about how debate works without explaining why it works. ![]() This is often the de facto philosophy of many debaters and coaches. This is the philosophy of debate based on all of the “rules” about debate that have accumulated over the past several decades. Then there is the fourth camp–what I’ll call traditionalism. Will putting together a hodgepodge of different debate theories based on what seems to make debate best on a case-by-case basis really make debate better? When debaters disagree on what makes debate the best (as they often do) you have a very subjective debate on going on–and many pragmatists say that this should be argued about regularly in debate rounds! I can’t think of a way to make debate worse than regularly arguing (in front of parent and community judges no less) about what is the best way to approach debate, with our only metric being “what we think would make this debate round better.” A Fourth Camp: Traditionalism My basic concern with pragmatism is that my focus in debate is on the truth, but I can’t help but note that pragmatism is also not pragmatically a good idea. I can’t help but make one more argument against pragmatism. That philosophy is concerning to me for the reasons discussed in the last post. There is also a third category of thinking that says rather than picking one of these two options, we should just go with what makes debate better on a case by case basis. The resolution sets the boundaries for what plans can be proposed, but once the affirmative proposes their plan, the plan becomes the “resolution for the round.” The debate then becomes centered around that plan, and whether it is a good or bad idea. Planism is the idea that debate is centered around the plan. For example, if I prove that sneaker tariffs are an import policy and prove that we should remove sneaker tariffs, I have proven that we should reform our import policy, hence proving this year’s NCFCA resolution. Because policy resolutions call for reforming policy, the AFF proves the resolution true by proposing a policy that is an example of the resolution, and proving that the policy is a good idea. The AFF’s burden is to prove that the resolution is true. Resolutionism (also called “rez-centrism”) is the idea that debate is centered around the resolution. There are two main camps: resolutionism and planism. ResultsĪre found to be remarkably stable against resolution.Today we are going to look at what AFF needs to prove to win a Team Policy round. (2010) at a 3 sigma level, thus indicating that our stellar disksĪre still too massive for the Dark Matter halo in which they reside. However, the baryonĬonversion efficiencies in our simulations differ from the relation given by Stars kinematicallyīelonging to the bulge form early, while disk stars show a clear inside-outįormation pattern and mostly form after redshift z=2. Gas is found to dominate at the centre of galaxies, with star formation ratesįollowing the observed Schmidt-Kennicutt relation. ![]() Gas profiles are relatively flat, molecular \approx 0.2), extended stellar and gas disks, flat rotation curves and We obtain spiral galaxies with small bulge-over-total stellar mass ratios (B/T (2-3) * 10^ Msun, both available at several resolution levels. Sets of zoomed-in initial conditions of isolated cosmological halos with masses The massive outflows needed to avoid the over-production of stars. ![]() A kinetic feedback prescription generates Thermal energy from SNe is injected into the local hot phase, so as to avoid Unresolved scales, where mass and energy flows among the components areĮxplicitly followed by solving a system of ordinary differential equations. Thisĭescription is based on simple multi-phase model of the interstellar medium at With the GADGET-3 TreePM+SPH code, where star formation and stellar feedbackĪre described using our MUlti Phase Particle Integrator (MUPPI) model. Download a PDF of the paper titled Simulating realistic disk galaxies with a novel sub-resolution ISM model, by Giuseppe Murante and 5 other authors Download PDF Abstract: We present results of cosmological simulations of disk galaxies carried out ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |