[eDebate] DCA BIO- Scott Phillips

Roy R. Levkovitz rlevkov
Sun May 14 22:21:13 CDT 2006

this bio has no offensive things with regards to gender or sexuality, and
really just makes fun of MSU alot, so go ahead and enjoy it


Scott Phillips DCA Bio
By Roy Levkovitz

If you are looking for a bio that will tell ridiculously funny stories about
scott check out his DCA bios for 2005, 2004 and 2003, this is not the bio for
you.  Scott is (I believe) the only 4 time recipient of a top 10 DCA (sure he
had 5 tries, but still that?s pretty damn good)

To recap those bios: scott is still the fattest vegetarian you will ever meet,
he still believes killing humans is ok, he has debated for a very long time
(like when bush meant first bush) he still went 8-0 at the kentucky round robin
twice (editors note: Stephen and I decided going 8-0 again would be to clich?.
and noticed, emory lacked many 3rd place results, so we decided we?d take 4th) 
Scott is really fast, he ended MSU SS?s Copeland run on ?you don?t meet your
own counter interp?, he has won debates on ?CP to wish away the affs harms? in
response to ?fiat takes out the politics link? and many more other randomly
funny things about him, and oh yeah his dream relationship is living in Utah
with his two favorite women, greta and wolmer.   

Onto this year?s bio.

This bio is basically a big fuck you to all the people who?ve said stupid shit
like ?he just wins cause he?s so technically good? or ?he just wins cause he?s
so fast? or ?whatever he might be good but he wins on bad arguments? or
?whatever he wins, but he does no work, I do work, I should win? or ?whatever
cyrus carried that team? ok, nobody said the last thing, but wouldn?t it be
funny if someone did? The only person ridiculous enough to say something like
that was 
 well im gonna make fun of him later, so I?ll save it

I will preface this with the fact that I am extremely biased, scott is a good
friend, a life partner, and the little spoon in our relationship, but he?s also
the best debater I?ve ever seen debate (hold on, sorry, just got an email from
Tristan, man he?s even convincing by email, hell of a good 2ar shit
. Ok
maybe second best debater I?ve ever seen.   

Now onto the critics of scott

Criticism number 1- 
?He just wins cause he?s technically a lot better then most people.?
This is honestly the stupidest thing I?ve ever heard.  
Consider what you would say to someone who said this ?Michael Jordan is just
great cause he makes baskets, he doesn?t workout in the gym nearly as hard as
other people do, whatever, fuck MJ?  debate is a technical activity judges
 (well the good ones at least), you have to make args and answer args, its
one of the first things debaters are taught to do, the people who say scott
only wins cause he?s technically proficient are just saying ?scott only wins
cause hes good at debate? compelling reason to be a fan of scott.  Some people
will say research is good.  True research is good, being able to use your
research even better.  Cut a catd or two less, and take a lesson on flowing
stupid.  This criticism is raised by many people. It amazes me, I knew there
were some (as to quote chaudoin) ?serious fucktards? in this activity, but I
mean c?mon.  

Criticism #2- He only wins cause hes sooo fast
Waa, Waaa, waaaaa.  hes so fast and so clear, its so not fair to the rest of us
that are sooo slow, if we were just as fast as him we?d win sooo much too. 
Give me a fucking break, get off your asses stop reading ridiculous posts on
edebate about whatever the topic is this week and do some spreading drills.  
?but some people are biologically limited in speed? I have no idea if this is
true or not, some people also must be biologically whiners, scott wasn?t
injected at birth with a gene to make him speak faster, I?ve asked him about
this, and he said he got fast from doing spreading drills like everyday from
9th-12th grade.  Go for 10 mins a day or so for 4 years, if you?re not as fast
then come back to me, and this still won?t be a good argument.  This is
equivalent to saying Randy Johnson is unfair cause the big unit used to throw
the ball 99mph every time it left his hand.  Should we ban left brained people
cause the debate community is so hippy K that people who are math/science
dominant have trouble keeping up with K?  Hmm
 that actually does sound like a
good idea

Criticism #3- He wins on bad arguments
This clearly has to take the cake for the dumbest thing I?ve ever heard in my
entire life, no, seriously in my entire life I?ve never heard a more ridiculous
statement then this.  There is no denying that the man?s argument selection was
not the best, but is it me or is this not supposed to help the people he
debates not hurt them?  The guy went for positive peace, china threat, fem ir,
disease k, aspec, or a random t violation in almost every 2nr this year (side
note, they had two negative losses all year, semis of ky, and round 3 of wake).
 Knowing that scott was going to go for one of these topic specific and
predictable arguments, it seems like you all should be able to sufficiently
prepare for debating the argument.  

Here is an apology from scott to teams across the country
a.)	Msu- I?m sorry my research wasn?t good enough to cut just awful, and I mean
awful hu cards (did you all ever get a chuckle out of reading them, cause most
people did) and oh lets not forget the awesome affs you all had, those were
real ?research gems? if you?re giving me shit for not doing research, I?ll give
you shit for actually wasting time and doing it.  But you did win the ndt so
congrats on that, and I expect to see that 10,000 dollar check repko promised
me for letting it be wake in the finals.  
b.)	Wake- I can?t believe you of all people give me shit for going for bad
arguments-.  Consequences good? I mean c?mon.   I know I haven?t reinvented the
wheel with my arguments, but the recycling of the biz con da and oil da (ala
quarters of the ndt) really shows how ontop of your research game you all. 
Cutting those environmental regulations links over from the early 1990s energy
topic really shows how much good work you all do.  Get off your damn high horse
of good arguments, everyone is sick of it, really
..  and oh yeah, the semis of
west Georgia should have been enough for you all to know what happens when I go
for Dheidt strats
. Destruction.  And it was much more fun beating Jamie on Fem
IR, then on EASA is stupid.  And we did read our B strat against you all at the
NDT too, you had no answers, but cyrus messed that up
c.)	Berkley- Arnett bet me 100 bucks we wouldn?t read that aff after Kentucky,
and that we wouldn?t read it vs Berkley.  Arnett paid me 100 bucks.
d.)	Branson- you were my student- you didn?t actually give me any shit, but man
did the master teach the student a little bit at the ndt, aspec and fem ir for
you my friend.  Also see me for tips on beating wayne, or even consult roy on
e.)	Klinger- I didn?t get to beat you this year, that?s really too bad, maybe
the worst part of the year.
f.)	Eber- you basically stopped voting for me after wake on the energy topic,
your infatuation for Dartmouth bm was unprecedented, irrational and ridiculous,
sort of like Dartmouth bm
g.)	Dartmouth bm- you were really the only team I wanted to beat all year long,
your shenanigans prevailed somehow a couple of times this year, we got payback
at the ndt
.. twice
.. once on inherency
h.)	Kansas- we broke a new version of Tibet, had no answers to your pic that
solved all of the aff and had a good net benefit
. PICs are sooo bad 2-1 hahaha.
i.)	Brett Wallace- we eliminated you from Kentucky on theory
. How funny is It
that you lost on theory
 and oh yeah CL double turned themselves vs
you and still won
. Maybe more awesome.     
j.)	Repko- your code reds etc were so stupid, who elected you the mancuso of
arguments?  If a team is waxing that ass on aspec or consult vote on it, don?t
be a giant douche.   I mean seriously, if you coached at wake there wouldn?t be
enough stables (not Gordon the klinger hack) to deal with all the high horses
on a single squad

Criticism 4- Scott does no work and wins.
Most of this is addressed above in various forms.  But scott actually did do
work.  He wrote all of their Tibet aff, and did a bunch of neg work.  Scott
basically fucked with the debate community.  The fem ir stuff wasn?t a fem ir
backfile he decided would win 4 debates at the ndt, it was new lame fem ir work
he did for the ndt.  Scott knew he could win on bad arguments and I?m somehow
convinced he wanted to see how much he could get away with.  I?ll also bet he
cut more cards for the ndt, then any person who said he did no work.  Scott is
one of the more efficient workers I?ve ever met, he just chose to do it on

stuff he thought it would be funny / easy to beat people on.

Debate isn?t Vonnegut?s Harrison Bergeron, everything isn?t supposed to be
equal, some people have more talent in things then others. We always attempt to
justify our inferiority in one sense by demeaning other people?s abilities in
other area.  We shouldn?t put a word count on how many words the fastest
debaters can say in a 2nc (we give them cyrus instead), they don?t tell peyton
manning he cant throw the ball longer then 50 yards cause chad jello hand
pennington can?t throw it that far.  Don?t hate the playa hate the game.  Scott
has worked really hard over his 25 year debate career to be one of the best
debaters ever, his success and speaker awards are reflective of it.  Anyone who
has ever talked to him about debate knows how smart he is both pre and during
rounds.  Scott probably won?t be the DCA debater of the year cause Klinger has
his groupies, and branson has his goofies, but if you ask those two who they
wouldn?t want to be aff versus their answer will clearly be Philips.   
This bio is written the Saturday before we are both supposed to graduate,  I
really hope we both graduate scott, and if not, has that eligibility thing been
amended or what not? Can we both still debate????

 You all should also download the song ?sexorcist? by NECRO.  Its pretty awesome

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060514/c094ab1a/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list