Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Redhawk Demo debate reposted


Oxford, OH, July 6, 2005


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:

In the second demonstration debate of the 2005 Red Hawk Miami University Debate Institute, lab leaders Todd Lantz, University of Iowa, and Mike Tyson, Dartmouth "we invented ping pong" College (also Lexington High School, home of Harsha the wide eyed), defended the affirmative, while Sarah Spring, Wake Forest University, and Nikhil Merchant-whatever, Harvard University, defended the negative. Following the debate, lab leader Paul Strait, George Mason University, filed this report:

"The anticipation for this debate was great, as much trash had been talked prior to the start. The debate began as soon as all the students were present. All, with the exception of Harsha.... He was sighted leaving a bathroom with an unidentified female camper, or maybe he was 'sleeping.'

The debate was a clash of civilizations between those who like to not be topical and those who like to win on topicality. The first affirmative constructive suggested that the USFG release or charge all of the residents of Guantanamo Bay. They supported this plan with several unfortunately named advantages, like 'Advantage Two: Will you be my BFFL?' The entire time Todd read the 1AC, Sarah and Nikhil muttered 'STFU' under their breath repeatedly. 'STFU' is an acronym that was invented by Dartmouth College.

The first negative suggested that perhaps Todd and Nicole should have reconsidered relying on legal solutions to their problems. Additionally, they questioned the plan's topicality, arguing that it was a reduction in the exercise of authority, rather than an actual reduction of authority. They also reasoned that it wouldn't hurt to consult NATO about whether or not to do the plan (i.e., cheating).

The second affirmative constructive was good, by all accounts, yet one couldn't help but get the feeling that Todd and Nicole were being outcarded 8 to 4. Frustrated by this, Nicole began shouting obscenities and throwing little white balls at people. Dartmouth College, of course, invented obscentities, and she needed to demonstrate that no one else knew how to use obscenties 'the right way.'

The 2NC extended T and the CLS kritik (sans impact), while the 1NR persisted in the claim that we should consult NATO. In response, the 1AR said a couple of things, but it really seemed like Todd was just playing a round. Indeed, it was as if he were distracted by something-- certainly, the kat had his tongue.

In the 2NR, Klinger's partner went for Topicality, using the analogy that lab leaders could allow the lab to leave a few hours early, but just because they did that, it did not mean that they no longer had the authority to keep the kids the full time. He also insisted that "judge, what you are going to see here in today's debate is that I am going to tell you that you have to give me leeway because the 1A is taller, lives in a mansion, goes to a big school, is going to the ADI later, and forgot to question his tan privilege. Vote aff.... I mean neg." Nicole then determined it would be a good idea to use 95% of her preparation time writing jokes about merchant-whatever, and as a result had no time to perfect her punch. To rally support for the 2AR, she ran around the room punching everyone, but no one was sure what was going on, and more than once a student questioned out loud if a butterfly or mosquito or something were flying around the room. Apparently, punching was not invented by Dartmouth.

The decision was a 2-1 for the negative. Paul Strait and the students (by a margine of 19-11) voted negative, while Ed Lee (who footnoted his decision by announcing that he had not flowed the last four speeches) voted affirmative. Somewhat relevent to the decision was nikhil's visible 3NR, where he wrote arguments out on the chalk board. Todd tried to interfere, but apparently dartmouth college invented the 3AR, and he wasn't doing it the 'right way,' and so nicole began mocking him until he sat down. Cursing his luck, Todd checked the debate odds calculater online and discovered that they had been a 70-30 favorite after the 1AC. Leaving the room, he was heard saying 'stupid bad beat.'"


JW Patterson


Anonymous said...


ya'll caught me.....

- Harsha

Nicole Serrano said...

I thought it was just a "friendly"conversation, harsha.

and for the record, ed may not have flowed the last 4 speeches but he said he thought we had resoundingly won! Apparently "Hahvahd" boy just had more cred with the kids.

Anonymous said...

how's ashley?

Anonymous said...

Ah, but I flowed the whole thing and found that the neg did a wonderful job (mind you, this decision was not affected by the fact that Sarah and Nikhil are my lab leaders).

Anonymous said...

if you actually believed your plan was topical then maybe you wouldnt have rewritten it to make it topical

Anonymous said...

ed's just trying to have labbish support

you know MSS outweighs

Anonymous said...

R u kidding???

LLS is way better than MSS DUH cuz we have T-Ditty and Mike Tyson in our lab so we rock !!!!

Anonymous said...

Your grammar is deplorable. Go back to school and learn how to write--no wonder you guys lost on the plan text.

Anonymous said...

it was a friendly conversation nicole, just with some gestures involved....wink wink ;)