As part of my pledge to deliever new, albeit likely unwinnable, cases, I'd like to present a case I thought of for use at the Dal mini tournament but ended up not using in favour of an equally stupid but (I thought) more winnable case about Kevin Federline. Ms. Bond informs me this case is similar to one run previously involving pirates becoming privateers, but this one is a little different. This one has a song.
http://www.jsward.com/shanty/barrett.html
BIRT: The year is 1778 and you should join Captain Elcid Barrett, and become a privateer on my ship the Antelope. There are five reasons why you should do so.
1. Duty to King and Country - We are at war with the rebelious American colonies, it is duty of every citizen of the British Empire to help put down this rebel scum. Captain Barrett has a letter of Marquing from the King himself and you know this is a totally legitamate operation. 2. Money - So you're a young man in Nova Scotia? Your career options are basically become a fisherman and hope you catch enough fish to not starve OR become a farmer and hope you grow enough crops to not starve. American ships are loaded with money and goods going to France and Spain for trade and are coming back with valuable weapons and European goods. Either way valuable stuff that will both help disrupt the American's war effort and when the voyage is over you get a cut of the money we make, which is far more than you can expect to make otherwise. 3. Easy Money! - The Americans have no powerful naval Ships of the Line. Not one! We would only ever have to deal with merchant ships loaded with plunderables. Not to mention we are British and have a proud sailing tradition, whereas they are riff-raff without a navy. We can easily out sail them. The American rebels hardly ever stand and fight on land, they attack us from the woods like cowards or Indians. Those fearful tactics won't work in the open ocean where there is no where to hide. These guys are so weak they will probably surrender at the sight of us. I doubt we'll even have to fire our guns. 4. Travel oppertunities - We will be going all up and down the coast of North America and to the Caribean. People in this day usually spend 98% of their life within 10 miles of where they were born. The mere fact that you, sir, have come all the way to Halifax from Sherbrooke tells me that you are a man of adventure. How else would you ever see Jamaica? White sandy beaches, clear blue water, palm trees. You ever see a palm tree? They are not to be missed. And it's warm! No more fog and dank weather in the middle of summer. 5. Ladies - Women love a sailor, and women love a guy who is financially secure. You will easily make enough money on this trip to settle down and find a wife. Or if that's not your thing you will easily have enough money to hire all the whores you could want in Port Royale. It's win-win.
Clearly, anyone familiar with the song knows that Barrett is a terrible captain and his ship is a (barely) floating piece of garbage. So to have an effective clash it would be best to run this case against a team that is likely to know the song. Here is the order of preference from best to worst: Capers, Bluenosers, Maritimers, Newfies, other drunken teams, other Canadians, Americans, Albertans. The obvious counter argument is that Barrett and the Antelope are worthless and that the dangers of the privateering life outweigh the supposed benefits, so be prepared for this. I feel that this case has potential, but I've clearly been wrong about these sorts of things before.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Congratulations! It's a Viking!
The first case I'd like to have a look at should be one that's still fresh in people's minds. It is the first case run at the Dal mini invitational that was proposed as the Worst Case Ever. I contend it was not the worst, largely due to the entertaining OPP provided by Green Eggs and No Ham. However, their fine work on this case will not balance the taint on their souls brought forth in their next round, may God have mercy on all who were in that room.
So, to start, the proposition: Canada should invade Denmark. From the beginning kind of a stupid idea. No rational person really believes Canada should or even could invade Denmark. This, however, does not doom the case to failure. Mark Botte told me later that he knows of at least two other instances of this case being run, both of them better than this time. So what made this one such a stinker? Nonsensical points chosen purely for comedic effect and then delivered so poorly they weren't funny. So lets have a look at all 6 of them.
1. The Danish King dresses badly: The jist of this being the King is a slob, how you dress reflects what kind of person you are, therefore his stained, ripped t-shirts make him an unfit ruler and he should be forcibly removed from power.
2. Making friends with Muslims: The Danes have offended the Muslim world with their cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed, peace be unto him, and if we conquer Denmark the Muslims will be happy., with the implied benifit of better relations with Muslim countries and less terrorist attacks on Canada as we'll be seen to be supportive of them.
3. Another linguistic minority: Canada already has the French and First Nations linguistic/ethnic minorities, so we are used to working in other groups into a larger Canada. Also, there was a great deal of talk about how English Canada is good at oppressing people, and how this oppression was good for the national conciousness of Quebec and will therefore be good for the Danes as they discover their identity through Anglo oppression.
4. Increased Imports: This one didn't make sense from the start. If Denmark is annexed into Canada we can't import things from them, because imports come from other countries, which Denmark would no longer be. However, logical falacy aside, this point took an even worse turn. The proposed import from Denmark? Beautiful blonde women. Any point that involves white slavery and implied rape is usually one that was better left at home, unless your name is Botte, in which case you might pull it off. To make matters worse, the PM implied anyone who didn't support the idea of kidnapping Danish women was a homosexual, and the judges were men who prefered brunettes and redheads and a redheaded woman who was better than the PM's hypothetical blonde sex slaves, respectively.
5. Danish Manifest Destiny: After much rambling about Danish world conquest conspiracies we came to the actual reason behind this whole thing. (Also I think it was at this point that the resolution provided was actually squirelled.) Canada and Denmark are disputining Hans Island, a patch of rock barely bigger than 1 km/sq between Ellesmire Island and Greenland. With cries of "Today Hans Island, tomorrow the world!" we move on...
6. Hamlet is the original Emo Kid: Hamlet is emo, Hamlet was from Denmark, Everyone hates Emo, the source of Emo must be destroyed. This line of reasoning is just plain bizarre. Let's try something different. Hamlet was Emo, Hamlet was a fictional character created my an Englishman centuries ago, let's invade Stratford upon Avon. This point might have worked if Hamlet was a real person, which is why this one was worse than the point about the King.
After even a brief summary of the points it should be obvious how all of them are at best clever punchlines and at worst proposals to commit a war crime against the women of Denmark. Again I must congratulate the opposition for both being funnier and having more coherent arguments. I especially liked the points about iceburgs, the consquences for the Muslims living in Europe and global warming destroying Hans Island and Denmark for us. But lets look at how this case might have been saved. First, the Hans Island point needed so badly to be first. That alone would have framed up this debate in a way that brought so much clarity and explained why Canada as opposed to the USA or Iran should have been doing this. Second, the King point and Hans Island point started with a joke, spun around in circles for a while to fill time, and then in passing at the end they actually brough up the relivant fact or supposition. Let's have a look at the King point this way: The King of Denmark is a bad ruler and should be removed. How do we know he's a bad ruler? He dresses like a bum. If he can't take care of himself, how can he run a country? Why should we allow a man who would otherwise be a homeless person be royalty? It's still kind of a weak point, but at least now it has some structure, and I feel is funnier this way. Jokes are about timing and dissonance from expectations. If you start with the punchline there is no expectation created to be swerved. Set up THEN knock 'em down. Even with some vast improvements this case would be hard to win. People don't like random invasions (thank you very much GW) so the burden of proof is even higher in cases where you propose counterintutive ideas. Could this case be won? Maybe, but you'd have to be at the top of your game and hopefully hit an opp team that takes this way too seriously or is too hungover to stand.
So what have we learned from this bad example?
1. The PM should have the strongest points, or at least all of the points that are logically connected to the strongest point.
2. Never propose human rights violations towards women if there is a female judge. We men may have let it slide, but with Bond there we had to be on our best behavior and be appropriately outraged.
3. Don't come up with a sixth point unless you actually have six good points, which you almost never will.
4. Make sure your points don't logically contradict themselves or your other points.
5. Humour should support the points, and the case as a whole. People remember funny lines and if you can get the judges laughing they will be more favorably inclined toward you. Judges hate boring debates. However, the humour is there to make your points more memorable and accessable. It is not good to think of a joke then try to make up a point so you can use it. Take for example: "The Danes taking Hans Island doesn't make them a threat. Anyone can take over an island. Gilligan took over an island!" Point, set up, punch line. This is why Ali and Auyun won.
So, to start, the proposition: Canada should invade Denmark. From the beginning kind of a stupid idea. No rational person really believes Canada should or even could invade Denmark. This, however, does not doom the case to failure. Mark Botte told me later that he knows of at least two other instances of this case being run, both of them better than this time. So what made this one such a stinker? Nonsensical points chosen purely for comedic effect and then delivered so poorly they weren't funny. So lets have a look at all 6 of them.
1. The Danish King dresses badly: The jist of this being the King is a slob, how you dress reflects what kind of person you are, therefore his stained, ripped t-shirts make him an unfit ruler and he should be forcibly removed from power.
2. Making friends with Muslims: The Danes have offended the Muslim world with their cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed, peace be unto him, and if we conquer Denmark the Muslims will be happy., with the implied benifit of better relations with Muslim countries and less terrorist attacks on Canada as we'll be seen to be supportive of them.
3. Another linguistic minority: Canada already has the French and First Nations linguistic/ethnic minorities, so we are used to working in other groups into a larger Canada. Also, there was a great deal of talk about how English Canada is good at oppressing people, and how this oppression was good for the national conciousness of Quebec and will therefore be good for the Danes as they discover their identity through Anglo oppression.
4. Increased Imports: This one didn't make sense from the start. If Denmark is annexed into Canada we can't import things from them, because imports come from other countries, which Denmark would no longer be. However, logical falacy aside, this point took an even worse turn. The proposed import from Denmark? Beautiful blonde women. Any point that involves white slavery and implied rape is usually one that was better left at home, unless your name is Botte, in which case you might pull it off. To make matters worse, the PM implied anyone who didn't support the idea of kidnapping Danish women was a homosexual, and the judges were men who prefered brunettes and redheads and a redheaded woman who was better than the PM's hypothetical blonde sex slaves, respectively.
5. Danish Manifest Destiny: After much rambling about Danish world conquest conspiracies we came to the actual reason behind this whole thing. (Also I think it was at this point that the resolution provided was actually squirelled.) Canada and Denmark are disputining Hans Island, a patch of rock barely bigger than 1 km/sq between Ellesmire Island and Greenland. With cries of "Today Hans Island, tomorrow the world!" we move on...
6. Hamlet is the original Emo Kid: Hamlet is emo, Hamlet was from Denmark, Everyone hates Emo, the source of Emo must be destroyed. This line of reasoning is just plain bizarre. Let's try something different. Hamlet was Emo, Hamlet was a fictional character created my an Englishman centuries ago, let's invade Stratford upon Avon. This point might have worked if Hamlet was a real person, which is why this one was worse than the point about the King.
After even a brief summary of the points it should be obvious how all of them are at best clever punchlines and at worst proposals to commit a war crime against the women of Denmark. Again I must congratulate the opposition for both being funnier and having more coherent arguments. I especially liked the points about iceburgs, the consquences for the Muslims living in Europe and global warming destroying Hans Island and Denmark for us. But lets look at how this case might have been saved. First, the Hans Island point needed so badly to be first. That alone would have framed up this debate in a way that brought so much clarity and explained why Canada as opposed to the USA or Iran should have been doing this. Second, the King point and Hans Island point started with a joke, spun around in circles for a while to fill time, and then in passing at the end they actually brough up the relivant fact or supposition. Let's have a look at the King point this way: The King of Denmark is a bad ruler and should be removed. How do we know he's a bad ruler? He dresses like a bum. If he can't take care of himself, how can he run a country? Why should we allow a man who would otherwise be a homeless person be royalty? It's still kind of a weak point, but at least now it has some structure, and I feel is funnier this way. Jokes are about timing and dissonance from expectations. If you start with the punchline there is no expectation created to be swerved. Set up THEN knock 'em down. Even with some vast improvements this case would be hard to win. People don't like random invasions (thank you very much GW) so the burden of proof is even higher in cases where you propose counterintutive ideas. Could this case be won? Maybe, but you'd have to be at the top of your game and hopefully hit an opp team that takes this way too seriously or is too hungover to stand.
So what have we learned from this bad example?
1. The PM should have the strongest points, or at least all of the points that are logically connected to the strongest point.
2. Never propose human rights violations towards women if there is a female judge. We men may have let it slide, but with Bond there we had to be on our best behavior and be appropriately outraged.
3. Don't come up with a sixth point unless you actually have six good points, which you almost never will.
4. Make sure your points don't logically contradict themselves or your other points.
5. Humour should support the points, and the case as a whole. People remember funny lines and if you can get the judges laughing they will be more favorably inclined toward you. Judges hate boring debates. However, the humour is there to make your points more memorable and accessable. It is not good to think of a joke then try to make up a point so you can use it. Take for example: "The Danes taking Hans Island doesn't make them a threat. Anyone can take over an island. Gilligan took over an island!" Point, set up, punch line. This is why Ali and Auyun won.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The Beginning of the End of Quality Debating
First off, an introduction. I am the former CUSID East debater most commonly known as "Wilson". I also have the dubious distinction of being on the team that won a tournament with what was, until reccently, the Worst Case... Ever. But after three years of obsurity and seclusion I decided to come back for one round as a long forgotten Dino upon the invitation of my old partner, McNutt the Elder. After attending the SoDales Mini Invitational I found my crown of Worst Case Ever had passed to a new generation (though I still hold the Worst Case that has ever won). In fact, there were two cases that day people seriously proposed were worst than the UNB 2003 all Acadia Final Disaster. I maintain that only one of them was worse, but regardless, if the quality of cases, particularly the quality of BAD cases, has fallen so far, perhaps it is time to come back and impart some of experience on running stinking, awful, rotten cases.
So, what makes a case bad? Generally it must have a bad premise or bad arguments. A premise is usually bad by being so offensive, foolish or incoherant that the goverment has everyone asking "What the hell were they thinking?" about 1 minute into the PM's first speach. This alone does not automatically spell defeat. Sometimes dumb ideas can be argued well and can even be a lot of fun for everyone involved. Bad arguments are a little trickier to pidgeon hole, but generally they are points that are either poorly delivered, irrelivant, counter productive or non-sensical. A perfectly good idea can have bad arguments and become a bad case and this is usually worse than have a bad premise with good arguments. However, to be the Worst Case Ever, you need both. On top of that, it needs to become painful for anyone in the room to even watch. This level of uncomfortableness is what truely makes a case notoriously terrible.
So, what can you expect here? I plan on outlining cases from the past, both my own and those of others, explaining what made them bad, why they worked or didn't work, and in some cases how to run them better (or at least successfully). In that same note, I'll sometimes look at things from the OPP point of view, both cases that were painfully hard to argue against and others we merely turned into mockeries. I'll also post some ideas for cases I've had but will probably never use as I'm retired. If you think you've got a shot using any of these stinkers, go ahead. Most will be fun, and the ones that are merely terrible for terrible's sake I'll put disclaimers on. I accept no responsability for the results, though. Ultimately, my goal is to pass on how to run interesting cases, because boring debates are the worse, thank you very much every law student ever. Stupid ideas argued well are usually the most fun, I believe, but there's an art to it, one that I've not seen carry one past my time. Also, if I can avoid even one disaster like UNB 2003 or Green Eggs and No Ham's semi final, I'll consider my debt to society repaid.
So, what makes a case bad? Generally it must have a bad premise or bad arguments. A premise is usually bad by being so offensive, foolish or incoherant that the goverment has everyone asking "What the hell were they thinking?" about 1 minute into the PM's first speach. This alone does not automatically spell defeat. Sometimes dumb ideas can be argued well and can even be a lot of fun for everyone involved. Bad arguments are a little trickier to pidgeon hole, but generally they are points that are either poorly delivered, irrelivant, counter productive or non-sensical. A perfectly good idea can have bad arguments and become a bad case and this is usually worse than have a bad premise with good arguments. However, to be the Worst Case Ever, you need both. On top of that, it needs to become painful for anyone in the room to even watch. This level of uncomfortableness is what truely makes a case notoriously terrible.
So, what can you expect here? I plan on outlining cases from the past, both my own and those of others, explaining what made them bad, why they worked or didn't work, and in some cases how to run them better (or at least successfully). In that same note, I'll sometimes look at things from the OPP point of view, both cases that were painfully hard to argue against and others we merely turned into mockeries. I'll also post some ideas for cases I've had but will probably never use as I'm retired. If you think you've got a shot using any of these stinkers, go ahead. Most will be fun, and the ones that are merely terrible for terrible's sake I'll put disclaimers on. I accept no responsability for the results, though. Ultimately, my goal is to pass on how to run interesting cases, because boring debates are the worse, thank you very much every law student ever. Stupid ideas argued well are usually the most fun, I believe, but there's an art to it, one that I've not seen carry one past my time. Also, if I can avoid even one disaster like UNB 2003 or Green Eggs and No Ham's semi final, I'll consider my debt to society repaid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
