[eDebate] Kentucky National Debate Institute Staff Debate

JW Patterson jwpatt00
Fri Jul 7 10:57:12 CDT 2006


THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
 
Lexington, KY, July 7, 2006

GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT
SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS.

In the forty-sixth annual staff debate at the Kentucky National Debate
Institute, Instructors Rueben Schy, University of Kentucky, and
Cyrus Ghavi, Emory University, defended the affirmative and Mike Gentile,
University of Kentucky, and Geoff Lundeen, University of West Georgia,
defended the negative. Following the debate, Jonathan Warsh, a fellow from
Groves High School in Beverly Hills, Michigan filed the following report on
behalf of all the Fellows:

" Cyrus ?Kanye West ain?t got nothing on me? Ghavi initiated the debate with
a 1AC about increasing incentives to enlist in military service by
shortening the deployments to two years. The affirmative argued that because
of recruitment short-falls, the military accepts low quality (Mike
Gentile-esque) troops, and that the resulting lack of strong recruits, our
readiness is doomed. If, however, recruits were allowed to serve for only
two years all our enlistment woes will be solved. In an Ali like return to
the ring, Mike Gentile engaged Cyrus in a heated cross-x about whether, if
our troops are really as dumb as the aff claimed, allowing them to serve
short deployments and have less training was really such a hot idea.
            
Geoff ?I Swear the ?TS? in My Screen-Name Has Nothing To Do With Being Top
Speaker at the TOC ? Lundeen took the podium to offer a wide assortment of
negative arguments, including a politics disad claiming that although
democrats are winning now, the plan would have bipartisan support and
popular policies (distinct, as soon noted, from bipartisan ones) are key to
a republican turn-around (Oh yea, and republicans are bad. Ob-v.); a disad
that argued that the retired generals are revolting against rumsfeld because
of his attempts at making the army into a lean fighting machine, and that
such a revolt is all that it preventing a military strike against iran; a
kritik that argued that the state is bad; and an intimidating wall of case
arguments (i.e. 6), bringing his card total for the speech to a monstrous
10.  After the 1NC, we soon came to believe Lundeen?s explanation that TS in
fact stood for Too Slow. The cross-x of the 1NC proved to be mildly
entertaining, but noticeably absent were any questions regarding the
negative?s 4 minute kritik, whose link evidence was written by Stefan
Bauschard in the NFL Rostrum.
         
   The 2AC refused to be convinced by the two card 1NC on statism that the
NEG was going for the disads. Lundeen?s strategic (?) concession in the
cross-x that the politics disad had no internal link may have tipped the AFF
off. Reuben Schy (voted nicest person ever by the fellows lab) stood his
ground, insisting that realism was not only inevitable but also pretty good.
The AFF cross-applied khalizhad, that giant among IR theory scholars, to
prove that whatever hippie nonsense the neg was ranting about, it would lead
to proliferation and nuclear wars, and thus that the NEG should go sell
crazy somewhere else. He also argued that Iran strikes were good, because
nuking the suckers now would prevent worse nukes later.
           
The 2NC, resolutely sticking with the ?we?re going for a disad, no honestly
we are? trick, went for ?the general?s revolt,? kicking politics. Either the
2NC or the 1NR went for the case, and Lundeen returned to extend statism.
Acting on the well-known tenet of humor that any good joke is worth
repeating (many times) Lundeen began the 1NR overview with an argument that
the NEG?s Stefan bauschard evidence was preferable because of the
(k/c)ritical qualifications of its author. Proceeding quickly to relevance
he pointed out that the aff had conceded the ?extinction inevitable under
the statist system? arguments in that titan of an impact card (marko), and
that the under-cover alternative of dissidence against the state that marko
advocated was our only hope. The 1NR also argued that the AFF?s discourse of
(so-called) ?proliferation? was racist. Reuben shook his head in disgust.
            
The 1AR stuck with the ?impact turn? strategy on the K. The lack of
response, however, to the Marko impact/alternative discussion would soon
figure prominently in the principled dissent of three of the judges. Cyrus
also demolished the General?s disad (not to be confused with General?s
Chicken **Joke by Jamie Berk) enough to deter Mike ?I <3 the DA? Gentile
from going for it. 
            
The 2NR went for the kritik. Among the old favorites that those reading the
1NR paragraph will remember: state leads to extinction; critical dissent can
supplement the realist system and provide a counter to the violence of the
state; prolferation discourse is racist. In a bid to make the abstract
critical debate more accessable, Gentile analyzed the Marko impact in the
context of Iran strikes, a move that turned out to be a mistake.
            
The 2AR, personally offended by the negative?s claim that he could not
access his hege impacts, spent a good deal of time describing how bad a
world would look without US power projection. The crux of the speech
centered on a strategic cross-application of the Iran impact turn. Pointing
out, correctly, that the AFF had impact turned Iran strikes, Reuben claimed
that this proved that everything that Marko said was bad was in fact good.
He also inserted a few sneaky because they werent anywhere else in the
debate not-even-in-any-of-the-2AC-cards arguments about the NEG alt leading
to transition wars.
 
The decision, which was made in a record 15 seconds  (in some cases this
briskness was kinda involuntary), was something to something for the
Affirmative. The fellows voted 11-3 for the AFF, with the resident K hacks
(pronounced kay-hax), Bill Gerath, Jamie Berk and Kyle Davis sitting. On a
funny side-note, the fellows have sat Jamie Berk in all three of the demo
debates, including an overwhelming 9-1 decision in the last debate. In this
case, however, he happened to be ?right?. Those voting NEG felt that the
shiny, right-out-of-the-box newness of some of the 2AR arguments mitigated
their persuasiveness, and also that the gi-normous impact claims outlined in
the Marko cards outweighed. Those voting AFF were either having off-days, or
were simply towels, in the executive opinion of Board Room Directors Mike
Gentile and Geoff Lundeen.
 
***Any and All unfunny jokes are invariably attributed to Jamie Berk"


Sincerely,
JW Patterson 
KNDI Director 






More information about the Mailman mailing list