Wednesday, July 13, 2005
In other news...
The debaters have been busy with practice debates this week, preparing for the Redhawk tournament starting Thursday and ending Friday. In the basement, there have been some intense ping pong matches. Here are some of the highlights of the week
Redhawk Demo debate reposted
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:
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.'"
Sincerely,
JW Patterson
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:
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.'"
Sincerely,
JW Patterson
Monday, July 11, 2005
Will Repko: Workshop in a workshop
Will Repko, coach at Michigan State University and the 2004 National Champions, made a guest appearance at the Miami debate institute this week. For two days he worked with the students on a wide range of debate arguments.
The opening lecture was entitled “how to win”. Will explained to the campers what his most successful teams have done to prepare for major tournaments. He went over pre tournament prep, how to use time at a tournament wisely, and most importantly, how to win on Monday.
Will is also known as one of the best framework coaches in the country. His lecture broke down negative strategies into four different mini debates. Will covered how to go for T against critical affirmatives, how to debate deontology and utility, how to impact turn kritical affirmatives and how to successfully execute a framework debate against critical affirmatives.
After each lecture, the lab broke into four groups where each camper was given the change to give speeches. The faculty rotated for each group so the campers received feedback from Steve Mancuso, Sherry Hall, Chris Lundberg and Will Repko.
Will’s visit was part of a three part workshop in a workshop experience at the Miami debate institute. Dallas Perkins,coach at Harvard and Roger Solt,coach at Kentucky, will be lecture later in the institute.
Here are some pictures from Will’s two day lecture series at Miami.
-Mike
"Yes, I conceed I'm an idiot..."
Today the three week lab leaders decided to take off the gloves and play a few rounds of bare knuckle boxing. Ok, maybe it was just a practice debate. The trash talking started early and went something like this:
Nicole: the 2ac is going to spread you out of the block, and the 1ar is going to spread you out of the 2nr
Nikhil: Yeah, too bad we're still going to win.
Nicole: Sure, Nikhil Merchant-whatever.
Todd Lance and Nicole Serano defended the Guantanamo bay affirmative while Sarah Spring and Nikhil Merchant-Whatever defended the negative. During the round there were references to the Mike Tyson 2ac and Nikhil being denied authority to go for T because he didn't have Klinger's permission. Nicole showed how to cross-x when getting Nikhil to admit, "Yes, I conceed I'm an idiot".
In the end, all the campers got to see a great debate between some of the best debaters out there. After the ballots were in, the negative team was victorious on an 18-12 decision. Here are some pictures of the debate.
-Mike
Team Teal trying for extra style points. Apparently Alec has been coaching them to coordinate outfits
Ed Lee before the debate, (OK, can anyone guess what is on Aaron's computer with Phil's reaction??)
The audience waiting for the debate
Sarah giving the order of the 1NC
Todd before the 1AR
Nikhil telling the students why he was going for Topicalty. Something about clubs and baby seals.
Nikhil writing out the topical version of the plan after being called on it in the 2AR
Nicole: the 2ac is going to spread you out of the block, and the 1ar is going to spread you out of the 2nr
Nikhil: Yeah, too bad we're still going to win.
Nicole: Sure, Nikhil Merchant-whatever.
Todd Lance and Nicole Serano defended the Guantanamo bay affirmative while Sarah Spring and Nikhil Merchant-Whatever defended the negative. During the round there were references to the Mike Tyson 2ac and Nikhil being denied authority to go for T because he didn't have Klinger's permission. Nicole showed how to cross-x when getting Nikhil to admit, "Yes, I conceed I'm an idiot".
In the end, all the campers got to see a great debate between some of the best debaters out there. After the ballots were in, the negative team was victorious on an 18-12 decision. Here are some pictures of the debate.
-Mike
Team Teal trying for extra style points. Apparently Alec has been coaching them to coordinate outfits
Ed Lee before the debate, (OK, can anyone guess what is on Aaron's computer with Phil's reaction??)
The audience waiting for the debate
Sarah giving the order of the 1NC
Todd before the 1AR
Nikhil telling the students why he was going for Topicalty. Something about clubs and baby seals.
Nikhil writing out the topical version of the plan after being called on it in the 2AR
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Happy Birthday Victoria!
On Saturday, the Mancuso-Cunningham lab celebrated a very happy birthday for Victoria. Everyone helped out for the birthday party. In attendance was a clown, Gabe the Referee, (red card...).... Here are some pictures from the party. Happy 17th Victoria!
-Mike
Oxford Drills
Do you want to improve your speaking skills? If you want to be both faster and clearer at the camp tournament and at your first tournament of the year, take advantage of this opportunity.
Starting Monday July 11 (tomorrow) we will have camp wide speaking drills in the Reid Hall classroom each evening of the week. From 9-10 pm you can come and join the fun! As a bonus you will see some of your lab leaders (top college debaters next year) also trying to improve their skills.
Come and join us,
Kenda
PS - This opportunity is voluntary for everyone in the camp (3, 4, and 5 weekers), but the individual who asked "what is Rehnquist?" is required to attend every day. :) - see you there!
Starting Monday July 11 (tomorrow) we will have camp wide speaking drills in the Reid Hall classroom each evening of the week. From 9-10 pm you can come and join the fun! As a bonus you will see some of your lab leaders (top college debaters next year) also trying to improve their skills.
Come and join us,
Kenda
PS - This opportunity is voluntary for everyone in the camp (3, 4, and 5 weekers), but the individual who asked "what is Rehnquist?" is required to attend every day. :) - see you there!
Friday, July 08, 2005
Redhawk Practice Debates Day 2
Round the Third
055 RUBIX/HARSHA SCOTT/TONY Nikhil
114 BUDRI/PAT IRIS/DENNYS Sarah
131 WALTER/KEVIN LEE/CHRIS Michaela
134 ANJALI/LIBBY AARON/SCOTT Steve
138 EDDIE/SARA AARON/GABE Maffie
Round the Fourth
055 IRIS/DENNYS RUBIX/HARSHA Sarah
114 LEE/CHRIS BUDRI/PAT Paul
131 SCOTT/TONY EDDIE/SARA Nikhil
134 AARON/SCOTT WALTER/KEVIN Kenda
138 JEFF/DUNCAN ANJALI/LIBBY Jason
LLS DEBATES SEE PRINTED SCHEDULE
Socrates, to Gorgias
"...when two people are arguing about something, one person tells the other that he [or she] is wrong or has expressed himself[/herself] obscurely, and then they get angry and each thinks that his own point of view is being maliciously misinterpreted by the other person... Sometimes the argument finally breaks up in an appalling state, with people hurling abuse and saying the kinds of things to each other which can only make the bystanders cross at themselves for having thought these people worth listening to."
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Redhawk Practice Debate Schedule -- Day 1
Round the first
114 SCOTT/TONY IRIS/DENNYS Jason
131 WALTER/KEVIN ANJALI/LIBBY Sherry
134 EDDIE/SARA LEE/CHRIS Lundy
138 ERIN/KOFI AARON/SCOTT Michaela
143 SALLY/ALEX PETER/MAGGIE TODD
250 JEFF/DUNCAN CHIP/PHIL ED
256 AARON/GABE JULIA/ERIN NICOLE
Round the second
114 BUDRI/PAT SCOTT/TONY Steve
131 IRIS/DENNYS WALTER/KEVIN Maffie
134 ANJALI/LIBBY EDDIE/SARA Paul
138 LEE/CHRIS SALLY/ALEX Sarah
143 PETER/MAGGIE JEFF/DUNCAN NICOLE
250 CHIP/PHIL AARON/GABE TODD
256 JULIA/ERIN ERIN/KOFI ED
sorry couldnt figure out how to format this, but the first team is aff.
5 Weeks Weekend Schedule
It's time to learn the affs. To accomplish this we will conduct two exercises over the next two days: discussion of the 1AC and basic affirmative strategy and shotgun 2ACs.
The Aff Schedules:
1AC and Strategy Session
Friday
10:00 am DNA Laws 018
10:45 am Enemies Laws 018
11:30 am Borders Laws 018
4:30 pm Korematsu Laws 301
2AC Shotguns
Friday-
6:30 pm DNA Laws 018
7:30 pm Borders Laws 018
Saturday-
10:00 am Enemies Laws 303
2:00 pm Korematsu Laws 301
In between these exercises the following lectures will occur:
Friday
1:00 pm First Affirmative Nikhil Mirchandani Laws 301
2:00 pm Second Affirmative Sarah Spring Laws 301
Saturday
11:00 am First Negative Paul Strait Laws 301
1:00 pm Second Negative Todd Lantz Laws 301
The Aff Schedules:
1AC and Strategy Session
Friday
10:00 am DNA Laws 018
10:45 am Enemies Laws 018
11:30 am Borders Laws 018
4:30 pm Korematsu Laws 301
2AC Shotguns
Friday-
6:30 pm DNA Laws 018
7:30 pm Borders Laws 018
Saturday-
10:00 am Enemies Laws 303
2:00 pm Korematsu Laws 301
In between these exercises the following lectures will occur:
Friday
1:00 pm First Affirmative Nikhil Mirchandani Laws 301
2:00 pm Second Affirmative Sarah Spring Laws 301
Saturday
11:00 am First Negative Paul Strait Laws 301
1:00 pm Second Negative Todd Lantz Laws 301
More pictures from the 4th
By popular demand, here is the complete list of pictures from the 4th of July.
Have fun in lab,
-Mike
Have fun in lab,
-Mike
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
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
Whew!
After a flurry of taping, cutting, tagging, editing, the four initial versions of the Oxford Scholars affirmatives and case-negatives are written and photocopied.
The four affirmatives are:
DNA Databases
Korematsu
Enemy Combatants
Border Searches
More details later.
Steve Mancuso
The four affirmatives are:
DNA Databases
Korematsu
Enemy Combatants
Border Searches
More details later.
Steve Mancuso
Judge, What you're gonna see in this debate today
The MSS lab has finished strong and produced 7 outstanding files. The politics file may be a little excessive but hey, why wouldnt you need 150 pages of politics evidence? There has been some progression and a few of the labbies have even figured out how to use tape, except for Harsha of course. Nikhil, Paul and Sarah have planned an outstanding demo debate for this afternoon that will feature the neo-man K's glorious reemergence in debate. Now we're just waiting for those practice debates to start and get down to the business of debate.
Until Later,
Sarah
Until Later,
Sarah
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Grinding It Out
The DNA Databases Affirmative group is hard at work with their final draft blocking. The briefs are due today at 4:30 p.m. and we have miles to go before we sleep.
But the affirmative looks really strong, having a wide variety of types of harm areas.
We've initially produced a "Basic Version" that has the harm areas of (1) Privacy, (2) Racism and (3) Biopower. Our ultimate goal is to produce separate smaller versions: one exclusively about race, one exclusively about biopower, one exclusively about DNA dragnets, and one about constitutional interpretation.
We'll post a complete outline with cites once we're finished.
Steve
But the affirmative looks really strong, having a wide variety of types of harm areas.
We've initially produced a "Basic Version" that has the harm areas of (1) Privacy, (2) Racism and (3) Biopower. Our ultimate goal is to produce separate smaller versions: one exclusively about race, one exclusively about biopower, one exclusively about DNA dragnets, and one about constitutional interpretation.
We'll post a complete outline with cites once we're finished.
Steve
Monday, July 04, 2005
Sunday, July 03, 2005
LLS FINISHES AFF
Miami Debate.
We finished a full aff and neg file, plus got a huge jump start on our future aff supplement. Only the very best of the over 200 page aff file made it into our aff file. The same is true for our abridge neg file.
here's our first draft of a 1ac. All the cards were cut, processed and blocked by the kids!
thanks for everyone in the lab for working so hard and putting up with lab leader antics
Contention One: Inherency
The Bush administration refuses to prosecute or release hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The Gulf Times 6-27-05
Contention Two: Harms
Advantage 1 : Have you seen my rubber dinghy?
Accusations of torture at Guantanamo have been confirmed.
Klapper, Associated Press, 06/23/05
[Bradley. “UN Experts Cite Guantanamo Torture Reports” http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/gitmo23.html. 06/30/05]
U.S. detentions at Guantanamo are the crushing any credibility on human rights, while setting a global precedent for abuse. Following a transparent legal process would restore the American model of justice.
Tesfaye, EDP North America & Australia Regional Council Representative, 6-20-05
[Seyoum. “Guantanamo Abuse Emboldens Tyrants. Atlanta Journal and Constitution. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0605/20edseyoume.html]
Human rights protections in war solve extinction of all species from nuclear conflict.
Singh-Gender Paraphrased, former Vice-President of the ICJ 1976-1979, 1981
(Nagendra. Human Rights and The Future of Mankind. Pg.85)
Advantage 2 : Won’t you be my BFFL?
Guantanamo has demolished U.S. credibility as a moral leader among both allies and enemies.
Leahy, Senator, 6-15-05
[Patrick. Statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1542&wit_id=2629]
No other issue has done more damage to U.S. leadership and international security cooperation than Guantanamo.
Amnesty International 4-9-04
[“Undermining security: violations of human dignity, the rule of law and the National Security Strategy in "war on terror" detentions” http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510612004]
International cooperation is critical to U.S. leadership and solving global problems.
Jentleson, Director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Professor of Political Science, Duke University, Winter 2004
(Washington Quarterly http://www.twq.com/04winter/docs/04winter_jentleson.pdf)
Collapse of U.S. leadership causes global nuclear war.
Khalilzad, 95
(Washington Quarterly. Spring. Pg.lexis)
Advantage 3 : If you try swallowing like that you could damn near choke yourself.
Muslim communities worldwide have been alienated and galvanized by Guantanamo detentions and torture.
New York Times 5-21-05 [pg.lexis]
Guantanamo is the driving force of anti-Americanism and principle recruiting tool for terrorism.
Friedman, NYT foreign affairs columnist, 5-27-05
[Thomas L. “Just Shut it Down” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8960.htm]
The Middle East is sitting on a demographic time bomb that will release a global supply chain of suicide bombers. The U.S. must close its credibility gap to successfully promote democracy and will stabilize the region politically and economically.
Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and coeditor of the Journal of Democracy, 05
[Larry. “Between Democracy and Stability” http://www.hooverdigest.org/051/diamond.html]
Terrorists will create global security nightmares with WMDs.
Alexander, director of the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies, 01
(Yonah. The Jerusalem Post. July 5. pg.lexis)
Thus the Plan:
The United States Congress should order that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay be criminally charged or released. We’ll clarify.
Contention Three: Solvency e.g. STFU
Charging or releasing detainees will restore U.S. human rights credibility.
Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, 6-24-05
(Irene. “US Must shut down Guantanamo Bay” http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16183]e)
Following the legal process at Guantanamo would a powerfully symbolic action against rights abuses around the globe.
Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, 6-8-05
(Michael. “Close Camp Delta” http://www.alternet.org/story/22185/)
Restoring due process for Guantanamo detainees will restore U.S. credibility and allow more effective interrogation techniques to flourish.
Gude, International Rights and Responsibility Program Associate Director at the Center for American Progress, 6-16-05 [Ken. “Git Out” http://www.alternet.org/rights/22244/]
Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to establish due process rights for Guantanamo detainees.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6-15-05 [pg.lexis]
We finished a full aff and neg file, plus got a huge jump start on our future aff supplement. Only the very best of the over 200 page aff file made it into our aff file. The same is true for our abridge neg file.
here's our first draft of a 1ac. All the cards were cut, processed and blocked by the kids!
thanks for everyone in the lab for working so hard and putting up with lab leader antics
Contention One: Inherency
The Bush administration refuses to prosecute or release hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The Gulf Times 6-27-05
Contention Two: Harms
Advantage 1 : Have you seen my rubber dinghy?
Accusations of torture at Guantanamo have been confirmed.
Klapper, Associated Press, 06/23/05
[Bradley. “UN Experts Cite Guantanamo Torture Reports” http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/gitmo23.html. 06/30/05]
U.S. detentions at Guantanamo are the crushing any credibility on human rights, while setting a global precedent for abuse. Following a transparent legal process would restore the American model of justice.
Tesfaye, EDP North America & Australia Regional Council Representative, 6-20-05
[Seyoum. “Guantanamo Abuse Emboldens Tyrants. Atlanta Journal and Constitution. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0605/20edseyoume.html]
Human rights protections in war solve extinction of all species from nuclear conflict.
Singh-Gender Paraphrased, former Vice-President of the ICJ 1976-1979, 1981
(Nagendra. Human Rights and The Future of Mankind. Pg.85)
Advantage 2 : Won’t you be my BFFL?
Guantanamo has demolished U.S. credibility as a moral leader among both allies and enemies.
Leahy, Senator, 6-15-05
[Patrick. Statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1542&wit_id=2629]
No other issue has done more damage to U.S. leadership and international security cooperation than Guantanamo.
Amnesty International 4-9-04
[“Undermining security: violations of human dignity, the rule of law and the National Security Strategy in "war on terror" detentions” http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510612004]
International cooperation is critical to U.S. leadership and solving global problems.
Jentleson, Director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Professor of Political Science, Duke University, Winter 2004
(Washington Quarterly http://www.twq.com/04winter/docs/04winter_jentleson.pdf)
Collapse of U.S. leadership causes global nuclear war.
Khalilzad, 95
(Washington Quarterly. Spring. Pg.lexis)
Advantage 3 : If you try swallowing like that you could damn near choke yourself.
Muslim communities worldwide have been alienated and galvanized by Guantanamo detentions and torture.
New York Times 5-21-05 [pg.lexis]
Guantanamo is the driving force of anti-Americanism and principle recruiting tool for terrorism.
Friedman, NYT foreign affairs columnist, 5-27-05
[Thomas L. “Just Shut it Down” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8960.htm]
The Middle East is sitting on a demographic time bomb that will release a global supply chain of suicide bombers. The U.S. must close its credibility gap to successfully promote democracy and will stabilize the region politically and economically.
Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and coeditor of the Journal of Democracy, 05
[Larry. “Between Democracy and Stability” http://www.hooverdigest.org/051/diamond.html]
Terrorists will create global security nightmares with WMDs.
Alexander, director of the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies, 01
(Yonah. The Jerusalem Post. July 5. pg.lexis)
Thus the Plan:
The United States Congress should order that all detainees at Guantanamo Bay be criminally charged or released. We’ll clarify.
Contention Three: Solvency e.g. STFU
Charging or releasing detainees will restore U.S. human rights credibility.
Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, 6-24-05
(Irene. “US Must shut down Guantanamo Bay” http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=16183]e)
Following the legal process at Guantanamo would a powerfully symbolic action against rights abuses around the globe.
Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, 6-8-05
(Michael. “Close Camp Delta” http://www.alternet.org/story/22185/)
Restoring due process for Guantanamo detainees will restore U.S. credibility and allow more effective interrogation techniques to flourish.
Gude, International Rights and Responsibility Program Associate Director at the Center for American Progress, 6-16-05 [Ken. “Git Out” http://www.alternet.org/rights/22244/]
Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to establish due process rights for Guantanamo detainees.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6-15-05 [pg.lexis]
Highlights of the week
It looks like everyone has survived the first week of the Miami debate institute. Here are some of the highlights from this week.Here are some campers working in the computer lab.
Alec showing us how to be fashionably correct
Harsha gets a tub ride
And finally, Will Sears, the birthday boy, prepares for a rap battle
More pictures to come after the July 4th festivities!
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
