[eDebate] First Kentucky Fellows Debate

[JW Patterson]

THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
 
Lexington, KY, July 1, 2006

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

In the first annual Kentucky Fellows Debate, Fellows Kathy Bowen, Gulliver
Prep, and Jonathan Warsh, Groves High School, defended the affirmative and
Bill Gerath, Bishop Guertin, and Michael Fields, Pace Academy, defended the
negative.  Following the debate, Instructor Cyrus Ghavi, Emory University,
filed the following report:

³Kathy Bowen rang in the 2006 Kentucky Fellows Debate Series with a swift
1AC that had more than just a hint of cowbell. She ardently argued that the
United States needs to eliminate the military policy known as ³Don¹t Ask
Don¹t Tell² (DADT).  The affirmative outlined two main reasons that the plan
was desirable: first, that it would solve societal homophobia, and second,
that it would stop the erosion of U.S. hegemony caused by DADT.
 
Bill Gerath showed the status quo a whole lotta love in his leisurely 1NC.
Three disadvantages were read: a midterm election disad (the plan stops the
democrats from winning, causing economic collapse), a civil-military
relations disad (generals in the military will backlash against the plan,
sending a signal causing worldwide coups), and a military spending tradeoff
disad (current spending key to regional deterrence).  These arguments were
bolstered by several arguments on each advantage. For good measure, he threw
in a procedural, arguing that the affirmative must directly increase the
number of people serving (i.e. via conscription) instead of removing
barriers to service.
 
Jonathan Warsh had the eye of the tiger in the 2AC as he straight turned the
elections disad by arguing the plan will anger the republican voting bloc so
much that they will not turnout in the midterms. He also claimed that by
ending judicial deference to the military, the plan actually helps CMR.
 
While the 2AC had already given us a hint, the 2NC made it clear that if the
neg was to emerge triumphant, it would not be chalked up to being faster.
Michael Fields severed the spending disad from the neg¹s responsibility and,
after briefly extending some case arguments, spent the bulk of his speech
extending CMR. The speech was marked by particularly impressive impact work
with several carded arguments explaining that the disad turned the case.
Bill reappeared in the 1NR to extend the rest of case and the midterms
disad, arguing that the affs ³link turns² were actually links because
angering the GOP base would cause greater turnout.
 
Answering the block¹s sophisticated arguments might have seemed daunting to
the average debater ­ but if there¹s one thing I¹ve learned about this
Fellow¹s class is that they never throw in the towel, especially Kathy. She
spent a significant amount of time defending the case before moving on to
the disads. Despite a lack of time pressure, however, there was no answer to
the neg¹s argument that CMR turns the homophobia advantage. To her credit,
there was the earth-shattering argument that CMR doesn¹t turn the hegemony
advantage ³because the plan increases CMR.²
 
Fields was so excited by the 1AR¹s response (or lack thereof) to his impact
arguments that he decided to kick out of the straight-turned midterms disad
by spending about 15 seconds total extending a uniqueness card, an
analytical link-turn takeout, and a new 2NR argument about why his impact
³actually wasn¹t that good.² While his arguments about the disad turning
hegemony were prominent in the speech, an extension of the dropped ³disad
turns homophobia² argument was shockingly missing.
 
Warsh spent the 2AR going for his midterms link turns and trying to prove
that the midterms impact, along with the case, outweighed any risk of CMR.
The students were given time to deliberate and ultimately decided that the
negative won on a tight 25-24 decision. Representing the staff, I voted for
the affirmative.² 

Sincerely,
JW Patterson
KNDI Director 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060706/1ebba8db/attachment.htm