Patterson, J W jwpatt00
Sat Aug 16 10:46:33 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 second report was filed by Institute Instructor Brian


Lexington, KY, July 8, 2008


This is Brian Manuel, Fellows Assistant, with another episode from "My Old
Kentucky Home" the 2008 Kentucky National Debate Institute.  In this episode
I'll be adjudicating the first Junior Fellows debate on the "alternative
energy incentives" topic.  This debate took place between some of the best
rising juniors in the country.  On the affirmative was Everett Brice Young
from Highland Park High School, Texas and Christian Steckler from Bishop
Guertin High School, New Hampshire. Negating the resolution was Scott
Molliver from Gulliver Prep, FL and Becca Rothfeld from the Georgetown Day
School in the nation's capital. Following a long wait, while Professor Jon
Sharp was  translating the scribes of Michael Foucault for the
demonstration, I finally am able to continue with the episode.

Before the beginning of the debate the tension was so thick, you could cut
it with a knife.  I could detect there was a lot on the line this afternoon
with all parties completely immersed in their work.  The first affirmative,
Rett "I just wanna kill Zavell" Young, took his place at the podium to begin
the debate.  He delivered the 1AC at the speed of light with persuasiveness
of Truman during WWII.  His 1AC has the the federal government remove Iran
from our exclude list of general licenses for nuclear material under the
Code of Federal Relations (Trust me, its right, even though 2 of the seniors
lost on the Plan Flaw argument that they cited the wrong Federal Code).
They made the argument this was necessary to change our relationship over
and with the "Bomb" and to change the way we securitize the threat of a
nuclear Iran in the future and how by maintaining the status quo we will
push ourselves closer to war than moving farther away.   The concluded with
a framework for the debate where they discussed the need to for a liberal
radical democracy to come about and solely relying on status quo
securitization policies will put us at risk of societal collapse.  This
seemed to put the audience somewhere between awestruck over brilliance and
lost in translation somewhere.  Stay Tuned for more on this matter.

Now after that onslaught of postmodern idealism, Scott "Warning: Your
Pillows Are Always At Risk" Molliver rose to painfully attack the
affirmatives attempt at creating radical democracy through as many diverse
weapons as possible.  He began his onslaught with the painful notion that
the affirmative wasn't an alternative energy incentive, because nuclear
energy isn't an alternative energy source.   As well as a topicality
violation that the incentive the aff did provide wasn't in the United States
as the resolution so duly calls for and instead gives it the Iran.  Besides
making sure that the affirmative met its prima facie burdens they used some
modern debate tactics to test its desirability.  They counter planned to
give all of our nuclear weapons technology to Iran with the exception of
technology that could be used for energy development.  There were also DA's
dealing with how nuclear energy development would trade off with our current
transition to clean coal technology and how a collapse of the clean coal
industry leads to acid rain and air pollution, culminating in our complete
extinction from planet earth (HOW HORRIFYING!).  Also an election's
disadvantage, which said the plan would cause McCain to win over moderates
and independents and overtake Barack Obama for an election victory.  That
victory would lead to nuclear waste dumping in Yucca Mountain resulting in
extinction (Go Figure, more extinction...maybe the aff is right in the way
we justify policy decisions).  Last but not least the negative need to read
some of their postmodern idealism as well, but there revolution didn't
contain Zizek, instead they took his counterpart Michael Foucault and his
belief that biopolitical control by governments was bad and should be
rejected.  This is where you can tell debate was going to be at come the
last two speeches.

After this trivial test of the desirability of the affirmative, Christian
"Bat Boy" Steckler with ease took to the defense of his affirmative.  He
seemed to have some issues with topicality.  On a side note, I can't
understand why this was the case.  Doesn't everyone agree that lifting
export licenses so Iran can gain nuclear technology is topical???...back to
the debate.  "Bat Boy" continued onto the DA's by calling them nonsense and
making logical arguments about their inconsistencies and why they weren't
real world.  Then continued to criticize the logic of the DA's with the
framework of the 1ac.  When he reached the CP he made a number of nuanced
arguments about how excluding nuclear energy technology caused the same
problems the 1ac identified due to their securitization.  Also questioned
the theoretical legitimacy of the CP.

Now Becca "OMGZZ I'm Scared" Rothfeld took her turn at the aff when she
chose to use her 8 minutes ranting about the governmentality of the aff and
how their attempts to solve were only ways to mask the biopolitical control
of US government action.  She continuously questioned their motives and
started speaking so quickly it was hard for even the "Silver Fox" to keep up
with her on the flow.  At the end she left the affirmative a heaping pile of
bare life resting in docility.  We could clearly see the aff had no value to
life in this world.  She identified with the audience and made them realize
interrogating our government structures was a better way to deal with the
harms of the 1ac than to enact these nuclear policies.

Mr "Watch Your Pillow When It's In My Presence" Molliver continued his
policy based tactics to negate the resolution but you could tell that their
high teched nature was way over the heads of most of the other hippies
participating in the debate.  This path would be the one less traveled
throughout the course of the debate.  Even though in my opinion makes more
sense to question policies with policy questions.

Rett, seemingly irritated at this point because of the pressure put on by
the block, was still able to deliver, what I believe, was the best speech of
the debate.  He was able to eloquently extend and defend his affirmative on
all levels of interrogation.  He was able to win numerous reasons the CP and
DA's were nonsensical and wouldn't solve the affirmative harms.  He was able
to argue their radical democracy framework better repositions the subject in
their relationship with the government than individual interrogation is able
to do.  Lastly, he was able to defend he was topical pretty well based on
lack of neg coverage through the block.

Now the moment of truth arises, will Becca choose Modernity or Policy when
choosing her 2nr strategy? Needless to say its no surprise that Miss GDS
chose to go for Foucault as the death knell to the affirmatives radical
democracy strategy.  Her 2nr was excellent in a lot of ways.  She clearly
was able to win that the aff masked their policies intentions in
biopolitical thought and that interrogation of biopolitics was a way out.
However she was unable to cover their radical democracy link turn arguments,
which could come back to harm the negative in the end.

"Bat Boy" was able to deliver a game 6 Celtics v. Lakers performance.  He
just cut through the negatives arguments without hesitation and was able to
definitively stress how the negative team didn't come to grips with their
strategy of radical democracy and why this was the best way to deconstruct
biopolitics? avoiding the impacts the negative outlined for most of the

With this episode quickly coming to the end ? I'm forced to turn to the
audience for their decisions.  Some looking frustrated and others smiling
with delight...their decision was in favor of the affirmative by a ballot
count of 15-4.  I'm sorry to cut our broadcast short, but due to time
constraints imposed on us by the cafeteria gods...we either get to dinner
now or we don't eat!

We pay you farewell in the words of Stephen C. Foster...

"A few more days and the trouble all will end
In the field where sugar-canes may grow;
A few more days for to tote the weary load,
No matter, 'twill never be light,
A few more days till we totter on the road,
Then my old Kentucky home, good night!"

That's a rap,

Brian Manuel

2 Week Director/Fellows Assistant

KNDI 2008

More information about the Mailman mailing list