Wednesday, July 06, 2005

MSS Demonstration Debate

THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END

Oxford, OH, July 6, 2005

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

In the first demonstration debate of the 2005 of the Red Hawk Miami University Debate Institute for the MSS Lab, lab leaders Sarah Spring, Wake Forest University, and Paul Strait, George Mason University, defended the affirmative, and lab leaders Sarah Spring, Wake Forest University, and Nikhil Mirchandani, Harvard University, defended the negative. Following the debate, lab leader Paul Strait, George Mason University, filed this report:

The first affirmative constructive presented the following plan: "Plank 1: Paul and I affirm the resolution as a metaphor for the otherizing element that corrodes society. Plank 2: We affirm the resolution by (dis)affirming. Plank 3: The funding comes from welfare and food stamps. We'll do guantanamo bay and korematsu. Plank 4: This is all ironic. Enforcement is through abnormal means. Plank 5: We reserve the right to change this plan in any speech without prior notice." In addition, the 1AC further clarified this plan by arguing that "We will use the state, we don't endorce patriarchy, we don't endorse terrorists, we don't endorse capitalism, and we don't endorse vaccine use." The 1AC also kritiked notions of fairness, and argued that racism and torture were likely bad things.

The first negative constructive contended that the affirmative team committed a plan flaw and so was in a double bind, because they either specified too much or too little-- either way, they should lose. Additionally, they questioned the affirmative's attitudinal inherency, and kritiked the neo-managerialist assumptions implicit in the affirmative speech act.

The second affirmative constructive called the negative team nazi's repeatedly, argued that the plan flaw argument was genocidal, continued to kritik notions of fairness, and also kritiked notions of inherency. In response to the neo-managerialist kritik, the 2A instructed the negative team to go back to LD, and perhaps get jobs. Additionally, the 2A wondered why the position was called "neo-MANagerialism" and not "neo-personagerialism,"and this was impacted as a voting issue. Also the kritik's uniqueness was called into question.

The second negative constructive kicked out of the inherency argument and the plan flaw argument, and went all in on the neo-man kritik. In response to the gendered language argument, it was contended that gendered language was intentionally used, but they were kritiking the concept of neo-managerialism, so they were in fact critizing the patriarchy. In a surprising turn of events, the first negative rebuttalist kicked out of the neo-man kritik and instead went for the inherency argument.

The debate continued in this general direction. The 2NR emphasized that the AFF was in a double bind because they either used logic which is bad, or they didn't use logic, in which case they agreed with the aff that logic is bad. Also, the an affirmative card footnoted adam smith, who is a capitalist. Finally, questions of ontology and pre-fiat were raised. The 2AR rebutted this by extending the kritik of notions of fairness, and suggested it would be unfair to vote affirmative for no reason, so thats what the judges should do. Additionally, the 2AR suggested that even if the negative removed one of the five legs from a table, tables could still stand with just four legs.

The lab voted 13-3 in favor of the affirmative, with two ballots thrown out since they were incomprehensible. Notable RFDs include: "clubbing baby seals seems unfair, but the kritik of fairness means I vote there," "The only reason that I vote Aff is because the neg took a long walk off a short bridge. The neg had ample time to answer the kritik of the notion of fairness and they conceded it after it was dropped in the 2NR. That's not cool man -- Nikhil needs to go back to school to learn how to debate before he can come to lab again. I also vote on the Lebowski reference that was kick-ass," and "nazi's had five-legged tables, as did the negative team."

Sincerely,
JW Patterson

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Straight from the flow:

Perm: Embrace orgies and do the plan

Anonymous said...

compelling K of notions args

Anonymous said...

we're clubbing them like they're baby seals--paul

Anonymous said...

we're clubbing them like they're baby seals--paul

Anonymous said...

we're clubbing them like they're baby seals--paul

Anonymous said...

nazis had orgies, so the perm still links to nazis

Anonymous said...

PENIS

Anonymous said...

Always vote for us because we come from a smaller school, less money, and they went to camp so it's harder for us to win

Iris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

In response to their number five argument of inherency being one of the five legs of a table, WHO THE FUCK HAS A FIVE LEGGED TABLE?!?!?! -paul

Anonymous said...

nazis