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.