contextuality challenge at Mardi Gras

Rob y946
Mon Feb 15 07:33:16 CST 1999

After having such blast at Mardi Gras, I must thank Scott for all his hard
work during the tournament.  The only problem we had with the tournament
was during the sixth round, where the negative runs our plan except with
the states as the actor instead of the federal government.  After killing
any type of competitiveness the counterplan might have with perms and no
mutual exclusivity cards, the 2nc stands up and argues for 8 minutes that
we have taken our solvency author out of context and that we our author
really advocates state use only.  Achten, our judge, then had to read the
73 page article. (Thanks to Scott we were able to get a copy of the article
from his Lexis hookup, unfortunately he had to take his IE tab offline
setting them back about 45 minutes.)  Acten agreed the article said pretty
much what we had said, that the author does advocate the federal government
as an actor.  Unfortunately, they were given the drop and double zeros.  My
question is how common is this on the circuit?  I've never been through one
before, what rules apply to "contextuality challenges"?  What happens if
this happens again, with the same evidence...can we use our ballot from the
round to prove a precedent has been set or that were right?  A lot of
questions that I wish someone could answer.

                        Rob Layne
                        Truman Debate

P.S.  Congratulations ENMU.  Way to go on your win and Ken could you
forward the rest of those cites?  Thanks.

More information about the Mailman mailing list