[eDebate] Kentucky Fellows Debate
Sun Jul 16 13:18:27 CDT 2006
THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
Lexington, KY, July 16, 2006
GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT
SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS.
In the final Kentucky Fellows Debate, Fellows Jamie Berk and Kyle Davis of
Montgomery Bell Academy on the affirmative faced off against Matt Fisher,
Glenbrook North, and R.J. Giglio, Caddo Magnet on the negative. Following
the debate, Instructor Geoff Lundeen, West Georgia University, filed the
"In the 3rd fellows demonstration debate, Jamie Berk and Kyle Davis of
Montgomery Bell Academy faced off against Matt Fisher and R.J. Giglio of
Glenbrook North and Caddo Magnet, respectively. Jamie, the first
affirmative, introduced a plan which had the Supreme Court overturn "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell", claiming advantages of military and societal homophobia,
as well as multiple scenarios for the collapse of U.S. military readiness.
(Interestingly, the affimative solvency cards defended overturning DADT on
equal protection grounds, but the plan took no stance on that question.)
Fisher's 1nc contained a few throw-away procedural arguments, as well as a
criticism which said that a). the way the affirmative portrayed
self-expression and 'the contact hypothesis' as the remedy to heterosexism
ignores the fluid nature of sexuality, and b). that the affirmative's
utopian imaginaries resulted in inevitable cycles of violence and genocide.
The 1nc alternative concerned the "fluid sexuality" component of the
criticism, but was later described as being about "recognizing the
inevitability of conflict/antagonism". The aff did not do the best job of
pointing this out, or holding the negative to the 1nc alternative.
Kyle's 2ac was in this critic's opinion, the best speech in the debate. He
successfully did all of the following: advanced a number of theory arguments
re: the framework of the debate, defended a permutation with clearly
articulated net benefits, leveraged his case advantages as disads to the
alternative, questioned the ability of the alternative to solve, link turned
the negative's arguments about self-expression, and generated more external
offense against the alternative. The one area the 2ac was lacking was in
answering the "militarism/heg." component of the criticism.
R.J. capitalized on this, making it a large focus of the negative block, and
also won the race to calling the other team Hitler. The affirmatives light
response to various link arguments here may have been damning, but the
negative was equally light in explaining how their fluidity of sexuality
alternative solved for their heg style link arguments. The 1nr read blocks.
The 1ar made up some lost ground on the Heg. debate, spending a good chunk
of time on that page, efficiently dismissed the "framework" debate which was
going nowhere, and sat down on the permutation and some net benefits. The
2nr zeroed in on 2 arguments the 1ar did not respond particularly well to--
1.) Their link argument about "putting a happy face" on the military, and
2). A "no value to life" impact argument. The 2ar was another excellent
speech, but complicated issues even further by spending most of his time on
an extensive overview, which caused coverage problems towards the end.
The student ballot was 28-14 for the negative, no doubt largely due to
"value to life" impact argument, as well as the 2ar's time allocation
problems. Despite all of that, I think I would probably have voted
affirmative in this debate, because of both excellent impact comparison work
done by the affimative (and not by the negative), as well as inroads into
the alternative's ability to achieve it's own goals."
More information about the Mailman