Demonstration Debate and Day Two

A little more on the demonstration debate that took place yesterday.

The affirmative team of Michael Mapes and Dan Faltesek ran an affirmative dealing with the AIDS problem in Africa. Michael read the first affirmative constructive that had two advantages. The first advantage stated that those who have AIDS are stigmatized. They argued that the stigma is what prevents people from seeking help for their medical condition. The second advantage dealt with women’s rights. In Africa, men often refuse to wear condoms and thus the spread of HIV is increased. Also, women who seek HIV/AIDS testing are often subjected to violence. Due to this, the affirmative presented a plan to change the prevention component of PEPFAR to a culturally sensitive and comprehensive program including: Routine and Diagnostic HIV testing, education on condom use, gender equity, and microbicides.

The negative team of Aneesh Sohoni and Meggie Mapes ran four off case arguments and case arguments. Aneesh read Topicality, U.S. Politics, African Union Counterplan, and a Ghana Politics net benefit. He also read arguments on the solvency and stigma portion of the case.

Dan rebutted these arguments in his 2AC with a variety of creative arguments.

Meggie rose to give her 2NC and argued for the AU Counterplan and Ghana disadvantage. Aneesh went for politics and case arguments in the 1NR.

After this portion of the debate, there was a 15 minute break in which the students went with their lab leaders and had a discussion of the debate thus far, and discussed what would be good strategies for the affirmative and negative teams to go for in the end. This was very educational for the students as they were able to ask clarifying questions about the round and also forced them to think strategically about the rest of the round.

In the 1AR, Michael gave a splendid rebuttal in which he extended a combination of offense and defense on the arguments that were still left in the round.

After discussion with her partner Aneesh, Meggie decided to go for the AU Counterplan and Ghana net benefit in her 2NR. She argued that the counterplan solves just as well as case and that the permutation cannot capture the net benefit of Ghana.

While Dan was supposed to go for defensive arguments in the staged debate, he went for a little too many good arguments in the end. His extension of the permutation on the counterplan helped sway the kernels vote for the affirmative. The kernels voted 24-10 in favor of the affirmative.

All in all, the main goal of having an educational round was achieved. The debaters spoke at an adequate pace and the kernels were engaged through the round.

Today the debaters are going to hear a series of lectures on argumentation models and flowing. Later tonight they will have one more practice round before they go with their lab leaders to work on specific drills to improve their speaking.

More to come later!