|
A bittersweet end to my life... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah... I formally call this Linfield tournament my last one I will ever do in terms of college debate for a very long time to come... I just don't have the time to dedicate to it anymore, not with my double major and future to think about.
I went 3-3, which means I won three rounds and lost three rounds. I was placed in what is known as a hybrid team, where in parliamentary debate, it means I had a partner from a different school. Interesting times...
It was... beautiful, kind of... I talked with Matt again... kind of a heart-to-heart. He forgot about my birthday of course, even after he had promised to get me something, which didn't surprise me. Nothing surprises me about this boy anymore... and I'm glad I have a reason to let him go now.
I just wish he would stop trying to come back into my life... c'mon... inviting me to come to Salem to shop and have Starbucks with him?... in some respects and to some people, that's considered slow torture.
*I'm done here. If you want to read all you NEVER wanted to know about college level parliamentary debate, keep going.*
As background, in parliamentary debate, a topic/resolution is given at the start of a round. Teams are given 20 minutes to get to their rooms and form their cases. The Government, or Proposition, is in charge of defining the exact parameters of the resolution *some are vague as hell*, while the Opposition is given the burden to disprove the topic and/or create a counterplan to whatever the Government is trying to implement. In many cases, the topics are political issues or a philosophical statement.
Me, I'm going to post the topic resolutions to the three we won *because I don't have any comments directed towards me in terms of the ones we lost in,* as well as the comments from the judges. They will be out of order, and instead placed in the order in which I like 'em best.
PM: Prime Minister *first speaker for the Proposition/Government*
MG: Member of Government *second speaker for Government*
LO: Leader of Opposition *first speaker for the Opposition*
MO: Member of Opposition *second speaker for the Opposition*
Speech times and order:
7 minutes - PM Constructive speech *build case, present plan, harms the plan would solve, benefits that would come from the plan*
8 minutes - LO Constructive speech *attack Government plan, present counterplan if necessary [counterplan is used if the Opp feels there is a better solution to the problem]*
8 minutes - MG Constructive speech *respond to Opp attacks, rebuild case*
8 minutes - MO Constructive speech *respond to Gov attacks, rebuild case
4 minutes - LO rebuttal *present reasons why Opp side wins [voters/voting issues], last attacks, no new arguments*
5 minutes - PM rebuttal *attack Opp voters, present reasons why Gov wins*
Round I: The United States Federal Government should provide more funding for art
Background & my reaction: The way this was defined, my partner and I as the Government, proposed that the US rediverts funding from the National Science Foundation to the National Endowment for the Arts, because the NSF hands out frivolous grants for case studies that don't impact real world. With more funding, society would fluorish because critical thinking would be generated, which leads to new ideas. From there, new inventions can be made to better our lives. Examples used in the round: Leonardo da Vinci's diagrams on flight, the concept of Gutenberg's printing press.
Opp tried to counter by saying that science should be paramount because it encourages private investment and that science is the way of the future.
Riigghhtt....
Round I judge's comments and reason for decision RFD (reason for decision: I thought both sides did a good job; however, LO dropped a lot of points in his speech. This debate got disorganized at times. Opposition rebuttals here often scattered. Opp. offered good analysis in finding critique, but it needed stronger clarification, MO could have used that soley as argument had you clearly showed how the critique overcame the govs. plan. Finally, some of opps. strongest points come in MO speech, pit those in the first speech. Good debate overall though.
Round VI: The United States should reform its immigration policy
Background & my reaction: ...I don't know HOW THE ******** did we win this one. We were Opposition, but the government basically ran an undebateable case. This is when the resolution is so skewed in their favor that the opposition has almost no grounds to debate this on. Sadly, I don't have a copy of the ballot for this one though... I would've wanted to see what the old guy said about it.
Here's their case: The United States should [policy debate clarification] reform [change with intent to make better] its immigration policy [rule known as the Casual Contact disease policy that states that HIV+ people who want to immigrate here can't come here because they're HIV+].
Their main plan was to remove HIV+ from the list and allow these people into the country. I was running LO on this, so I had nothing... all I could say was that because we're letting these people into the country, not knowing where they'e been, and because HIV+ countries are also strewn with other diseases, an epidemic could occur in the United States if the unknown diseases mutated with other viruses, such as the flu and the common cold.
Also, we as the United States shouldn't be obligated to care for the citizens of other nations if we can't even get treatment for our own citizens, because one of the points that Gov brought into the round was that these people are coming to the US for treatment.
Man... I soooo wish I had a copy of this ballot...
Round IV: Everything old is new again
Background & my reaction: We as Government felt that the current mandatory sentencing for people who are caught in possession of crack cocaine (5g=5 years, 50g=10 years) should be abolished *the "new"*, and that the old system of allowing judges to determine what a person should be sentenced, should be brought back.
We as gov felt this was wrong because it doesn't give the people due process of law even if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently in this law, if you were in someone else's car, they were driving, and they get pulled over and crack's found, you can go to jail just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It disregards the circumstances, and that the only way to get your sentence reduced was to squeal out to attorneys.
The opp tried to counter this with a counterplan to change mandatory sentencing to... something very confusing. Here are some of the provisions... I think...
-Scrap prison time if there isn't a violent crime involved with the possession
-If violent crime involved, mandatory sentence on top of 2 years of rehab
-Sellers of crack given 10 years in jail, mandatory
-$800 billion dollars used to put back into schools fromt he money that is saved by rehabilitating crack users instead of imprisoning them
Oh, and the kicker *prepare to cringe, boys*:
-Mandatory sentence for sex offenders: Chemical castration
Now you're wondering I bet, if you managed to read this far and not fall asleep; HOW THE HELL DO YOU TIE IN SEX OFFENDERS WITH CRACK ADDICTS?
That was the exact question I was saying for awhile. If you aren't as confused as I was just by reading over their counterplan, you should debate, because that would mean you're seeing something I didn't. xp
Anyway, here's a harm that we as gov had presented: with these crack users in jail for mandatory spans of time with NO parole, the prisons are overflowing, so 3rd level sex offenders as well as ***** are getting shoved into halfway hosues mere blocks away from schools and parks.
Opp said that these crack addicts and sellers would get raped in prison, because "that's what happens when you put crack dealers in with sex offenders in prison: they get RAPED".
....Riiiiiggghhhttt... and I have guys falling at my feet begging me to date them.
Anyway, to wrap things up, here's my judge's response. I love her. whee Parts I especially liked are underlined.
Round I judge's comments and reason for decision I voted for the government in this round because opp's counterplan followed gov's line of replacing the current mandatory sentences withs omething new. Opp kept contradicting themselves on benefets as so many of opp's benefits were identical to gov's. I heard opp say things like this plan saves money, but we can use the increased fed spending budget if we run out of money, or it's bad to put dealers in prison because they might get raped, but we're [still giving them] mandatory 10 year prison sentences. Also opp did not tell me why gov's plan was bad- I heard nothing against why addressing case by case was not a good idea. It's not enough to come up with a ridiculously complicated counterplan, if you have no reason to tell me why gov's plan is not good enough, [because] it seems to me that judges can still sentence rehabilitation if they're judging by case. I see no reason to vote against gov. LO: Don't use so many metaphors & analogies --> its sounds like fluff to cover up lack of substance MO: Try to use full time - you damage your side when you sit down so fast.
 Aquafire · Mon Nov 22, 2004 @ 08:22am · 3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
