At Point Loma last year our sole prelim loss was to Wyo JR on culture jamming, a position that says by doing unexpected things we cognitively liberate ourselves or something. We probably won the round, but got a little homered by the judge. Still, we made some mistakes. To win the round 100% of the time you have to be so incontrovertibly ahead that the judge can’t bring themselves to intervene.  With that in mind, here’s what I think we should have done (keep in mind that the only person who has any idea what this means is MA. Hey MA :)):

  • Extra-T. We actually ran this, but I got stuck on the answer “all our advantages come from topical plan planks.” That was true, except for the rhetorical advantages of culture jamming. Those had nothing to do with the resolution or the plan, so they were abusively unpredictable.
  • Racism Bad. We should have spent thirty seconds talking about how terrible racism is, without mentioning links or anything. We’d close the argument with “racism is worse than not jamming culture, we’re the only team that objects to racism, vote for us.”
  • Answer the Case: we did this, too, and quite effective. Case debate is no prob.
  • While MA is saying the above stuff, I should have jammed her culture by interrupting her. CRAZY!!!! Then MA can spend the last 30 seconds of her speech saying “oh yeah, we jam culture too so there’s no unique reason to vote gov.”

If they answer racism by saying “just because they object to racism doesn’t mean they should win. we don’t link. in fact, we also object,” they have to concede the non-unique on culture jamming. If they don’t put that answer out, then we win on “racism is worse than culture”

Coulda and woulda had a baby named SHOULDA