[eDebate] Ky. Fellows Debate

Patterson, J W jwpatt00
Sat Aug 16 10:34:17 CDT 2008

Sorry, two of our Kentucky Fellows debates are reaching you late. My
computer decided to take a long breakdown. Hopefully, these will still be of
some use to you. This first report was filed by Institute Instructor Andrew

Good evening from the Horse Capital of the World. In the third Kentucky
Fellows debate the affirmative team of Dakota Alcantara-Camacho (Mercer
Island) and Joe Bearden (Calhoun) debated Apoorv Kumar (Lexington) and Alex
Zavell (Head Royce) on the negative.

The affirmative began by arguing that U.S. export restrictions unfairly
compromised Iran?s access to nuclear technology. The plan opened up
investment for Iranian firms to have access to U.S. nuclear technology. The
one and only advantage stated that it was racist for the United States to
fear Iranian acquisition of nuclear material and had several OEsecuritization
bad? cards to act as a preempt to potential negative disadvantages.

Apporv had a topicality argument which argued that the plan was not an
incentive for alternative energy OEin the U.S.? which the resolution
required. The negative also decided to be innovators by structuring
topicality with only 2 subpoints. Within such newfound structure was an
argument that the plan was spelled incorrectly. The negative also had a
counterplan that did a litany of things to be nice to Iran. A disadvantage
was presented that stated Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon would
cause an Israeli first strike. The final offcase argument argued that
engaging Iran would drive down oil prices that undermined a successful
transition to a renewable economy. Finally a litany of utilitarianism cards
were put on the case.

Dakota  began with succinct answers to almost every position, including
making 5 different permutations on the counterplan. The affirmative
criticized several of the disadvantages by arguing that the negative
approach to managing the environment was flawed, and that they attempted to
securitize threats which were bad. The Israel argument was given the least
attention by having only a Cuomo argument placed upon it.

Alex  began by kicking the counterplan through the extension of one of the
aff?s permutations. The rest of the speech centered around the oil disad
with some extensions of the utility arguments on case.

Apporv followed up such a speech by going back over much of the same utility
arguments while effectively extending some of the arguments that the 2NC
missed. The 1NR also advanced the plan flaw argument. The crowd raised their
eyebrows when he introduced a new inherency argument on the case that said
obama would win the election and he would engage Iran which should solve the
case. Of course, this took out the only disad that the neg was extending
while probably not solving any of the case.

The block also decided it would be strategic to drop the Israel disad after
the 2AC made no substantive answers to it.

Joe rose to the challenge by going to the counterplan and announcing that
the aff was now advocating the perm.  The aff?s argument that the
disadvantage was  bad because of securitized threats was a main part of the

Alex started out his speech  by successfully pointing out that 1AR dropped
the plan flaw argument.  He concluded by going for the oil disad and the
utilitarianism arguments.

Dakota started off his speech by extending the dropped permutation and
arguing that advocating it would avoid the negative?s disadvantages. He
spent the rest of the speech extending the securitization arguments.

The result was a 21-9 for the negative.

Remember- you can't always get what you want,
Andrew Jennings

More information about the Mailman mailing list