Vagueness is unconstitutional, ‘the meek’ are single women over 65, and Raghav hates T

Round 3: This house believes the meek shall inherit the Earth.

Errybody loves vague resolutions, especially when those resolutions are pulled word-for-word from previous tournaments. So, what would the Northfield Heathens run? Would the meek be cast out? Would rounds involve topicality? You’ll see, sorta, and yes, respectively.

Cal/Justin: The second the judge and opposition leave the room, Carleton EM, affirming this resolution, had an idea: “Let’s talk about global warming.” The Meek are children, and guess what–they’re inheriting the earth, so we’d better make sure it isn’t a washed-out, overheated wasteland. The plan: Mandate that 25% of the US’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2022. Advantages included, uh, global warming, and also something about the economy.

The opp, from St. Olaf, decided to run a strange two-headed Cerberus of a disad (fine, cerberus had more than two heads), along with a CP. The disad first accused Carleton of being too far-reaching, and thus unconstitutional, which would decrease faith in government, which is bad. Then, the DA went on to talk about how Obama would probably win the presidential election in the squo, but loss of faith in government might lose it for him. This might maybe kinda sorta stop environmental legislation, which is probably bad.

The CP was…confusing. At first, it appeared to be something about ‘funding green technology research.’ Then, they started talking about how political campaigns could spread information about green technology, then they mentioned that green policies were really popular, then they started talking about how they could help developing nations be cleaner. So….huh?

The response to the DA was “uh…interstate commerce clause, maybe? That just might apply here?”, plus impact mitigation and a pretty snazzy link turn scenario. Responses to the CP involved a perm. The perm worked pretty well, because the only net benefit to the CP was the disad, which was A) wrong, B) link-turned, and C) not impacted. The judge seemed to be agreeing with Carleton on most of these things, even when the CP morphed into one about tax incentives, and the DA got impacted in the tearing up of the constitution and the formation of some sort of police state. EM feels pretty good about this round, despite the fact that the PMR contained the line “even if we tear up the constitution and create some sort of tyrannical government, who cares? We solve global warming!

David/Graham: Ran a facts case. Damnit.

Anyway, they probably won. So, there’s that.

Fine, fine. Their case talked about how average humans have way more political clout than they ever have before. Their opponents were dumb, so yeah.

Raghav/Miles: Their plan was to tax capital gains as if they were regular income, and then send that tax back to the lower 99% of the Americans. Opponents ran T, saying that once the meek inherited the earth, they would by definition no longer be meek, and thus the gov wasn’t upholding the resolution. Eh. Miles thinks that the judge bought this argument, but he got in a few good lines, so it comes out even. One line: “If I had more money, I would go out and use that money to buy booze for the weekend.” Another thing: he dedicated his final speech to the girlfriend of one of the opposing debaters, who was watching the round. Not sure of the context here, but it was probably hilarious. Use your imagination.

Chris/Laura: Were opp, and the gov said that ‘the meek’ were ‘single women over the age of 65’, and ‘inherit the earth’ meant ‘should not have medicare forced upon them’. Hooray, parli debate. David wants the world to know that he is literally moaning in existential agony right now–he just can’t take something this out of context. He’s cheering himself up with the Blues Brothers, so it’s all good now.

By the way, medicare is apparently forced upon everybody, and we need to give the elderly more choices, or, uh, something something quality of life. Chris and Laura said that this constituted exclusionary discourse, and that was bad for various reasons (feel free to set me straight in comments here). What Laura really should have run was the ‘invert the map’ counterplan, from one of the better ‘big block of cheese day’ West Wing episodes.

Sorry, back to the round. Chris and Laura used nowhere near all of their speech time, and think they probably lost. So, uh, maybe they won?

More recent update: Raghav bought a coffee beverage from the snack bar here, and it’s the best thing he’s ever had in his life. Cal tried to buy an iced coffee, and it’s amongst the worst things he’s had in his life. Round 4 is in 2o minutes, and if you folks want more detailed synopses of rounds that didn’t involve Cal and Justin, go write them your damn selves.

Ohhh yeah–Miles made Graham cry in laughter again, with his lunchtime story of how riding camels for six hours is uncomfortable, because they sway back to front. Trust me, the story was funnier when Miles told it, and it was improved when he threw in some pelvic-thrust-like motions.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s