[CX-L] KENTUCKY FELLOWS DEBATE

[JW Patterson]

THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END
 
Lexington, KY, July 6, 2005

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

In the forty-fifth annual staff debate at the Kentucky National High School
Debate Institute instructors Ruben Schy, the University of Kentucky, and
Elliot Tarloff, Harvard University, defended the affirmative and Cyrus
Ghavi, Emory University, and Michael Klinger, Harvard University, defended
the negative.  Following the debate, Joshua McLaurin, a fellow from
Westminster filed the following report on behalf of all the fellows:

In the third Fellows debate at the Kentucky National Debate Institute,
Michael Dickerson, New Trier, and Alex Twinem, Brookfield Central, defended
the affirmative against Chen Ni, Chattahoochee, and Mima Lasarivic,
Glenbrook South.  Following the debate, Instructor Rueben Schy, University
of Kentucky filed the following report:

³In the third fellows demo debate, Dickerson and Twinem affirmed against
Chen and Lazarivic. The affirmative argued that the United States federal
government should overturn its decision in Korematsu v. United States,
claiming a racism and a judicial deference bad advantage.
 
The negative began with a congress counter plan and claimed that the counter
plan would create a constitutional moment in which the congress magically
lost its appetite for conservativism and transformed itself into an agent
for progressive social change.  The negative also made arguments that
judicial deference was necessary to maintain sufficient military readiness,
a disadvantage arguing that internment was necessary to curb the spread of
biological agents in the inevitable event of a biological terrorist attack,
a civil-military relations disadvantage, and a topicality argument that
because should means shall, all policy debate should revolve around
counterfactual affirmatives.
 
The debate then proceeded to focus mainly on the judicial deference and
congress counter plan flows, though there was a short intermission where
Chen eloquently lectured a select group of the staff on the intricacies of
the CMR disad.  
 
The 2nr went for the CP and deference good, the 2ar went for deference bad.
 
The affirmative won the substantive debate on deference bad, but was still
defeated 45-20 because of a ³multiple permutations are a voting issue²
argument made in the block and dropped in the 1ar that was extended in the
2nr.²  

Sincerely, 
JW Patterson
Kentucky Institute Director 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://localhost/pipermail/cx-l/attachments/20050706/178b0923/attachment.htm