Redhawk final round

THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END

Oxford, OH, July 14 2006

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

In the second annual camp tournament at the Redhawk Miami of Ohio Debate Institute, Scott Marchi and Andrew Berg, representing the Lee-Serrano Lab, defended the affirmative, while Sam Fishell and Sam Smith, representing the Strait-Wallace lab, defended the negative. Following the debate, instructor Paul Strait filed the following report on behalf of the entire Redhawk faculty:

Scott Marchi, brother of an extremely attractive woman (according to unverified reports), delivered the first affirmative constructive arguing that the military should offer educational incentives to induce short-term enlistments. He presented three advantages: 1. more troops = more deterrence, 2. more troops prevent withdrawal from Iraq, and 3. better educated troops aid the inevitable transition that will occur in the military. While some questioned Scott's eligibility to debate, rumors that he is actually only 8 years old were eventually dismissed.

Sam Fishell managed to stop dancing long enough to deliver the first negative constructive, and in so doing he insisted that the plan, not being a mandatory increase, was not topical. He also argued that the plan would help Rumsfeld gain support to strike Iran, with deleterious results, and moreover that the plan would increase wage competition, causing sufficient inflation to prompt a Fed interest rate hike, thus collapsing the global economy.

Andrew "mung master" Berg, wearing his characteristicly fascist brown shirt, answered all of the negative arguments in the second affirmative constructive, although the phrase "if they extend this argument, it will be answered in the 1AR" occured on more than one occasion.

The negative block happened, blah blah blah blah.... things failed to get interesting until the 1AR. Scott decided to concede the argument that short term enlistments hurt cohesion, and then asserted that this was a double turn with the argument that a decrease in unit cohesion would cause withdrawal from Iraq, and withdrawal from Iraq is good. Sadly, the negative never insisted that a decrease in unit cohesion would cause a withdrawal, and additionally even if this were a double turn, it was not unique (because the aff insisted and the neg conceded that the US army will withdraw in the squo). Additionally, Scott spent 3:30 of his 1AR on T, and attempted to demonstrate the general strategic maxim that readers beat talkers (by talking...). Realizing he was not debating Foucault on the negative, Scott metaphorically reenacted the scene from Superman in which superman is stabbed with a shiv of kryptonite. He also basically dropped the Iran strike disadvantage.

Sam Smith, demonstrating that Brett Wallace was in fact one of his lab leaders, decided the best course of action would be to go for topicality. After the debate, Sam explained "well, Sam F. wrote out an overview for T already....." Instead of flowing the 2NR, Scott spent his time hanging out with Karen, Sarah, and Austin. Andrew announced before his 2AR that he had no good argument, demonstrating the value of ethos in the 2AR. He extended the counter-interpretation that it is okay to only be topical by effects as long as your plan is "reasonable," which the negative felt was question begging.

After the debate, the students voted, and on a 16-5 decision, the negative was declared winner. The faculty judging panel of Ed Lee, Brett Wallace, and Paul Strait decided unanimously that the negative did the better debating.

Sincerely,
J.W. Patterson