Jump to content
BC_ROCKS

Funniest T

Recommended Posts

if we're stilling talking about bad T's, heres one, under this years resolution, we ran a Topicality on the word "in"....we actually won on it...after the round, our judge just burst out "IN ISNT IN THE FRIKKING RESOLUTION!" but then he voted on it. We only went for it cuz the 2NR dropped basically everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if we're stilling talking about bad T's, heres one, under this years resolution, we ran a Topicality on the word "in"....we actually won on it...after the round, our judge just burst out "IN ISNT IN THE FRIKKING RESOLUTION!" but then he voted on it. We only went for it cuz the 2NR dropped basically everything

Wait, the 2NR dropped everthing? Or was it the 1AR? And what prompted you to run Topicality on "In"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Auburn team at Berkeley ran some T against us saying that we have to be at least 10% non topical. Since we were '100% topical,' they couldn't run T against us. They made the arg they lost T ground which was somehow necessary...They didn't go for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the most outrageous T you've ran into as Aff?
I've never ran into it, but I've run it (in a practice round).

 

T - Resolved.

 

Resolved = firm, unwavering, etc.

 

Your plan said you retain the right to define or clarify, that's not firm and unwavering.

 

I included this T in our playbook every year. It was filed under #0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This Auburn team at Berkeley ran some T against us saying that we have to be at least 10% non topical. Since we were '100% topical,' they couldn't run T against us. They made the arg they lost T ground which was somehow necessary...They didn't go for it...

That. is. retarded.

 

First of all T doesn't give a team ground, it's to make abuse of the lack thereof. Topicality is not necessary for debate, it's an procedural meaning that they run it IF they have loss of ground on CASE and LINKS, not on topicality. If they concede you're 100% topical I would make arguments like, 100% ground, internal links given, etc. Plus this doesn't violate the resolution in any word, and it also isn't FX or XT, so I see no way you could have dropped to this either way, provided you had a flow judge or were better speakers. Even with a regular lay judge you still could have made fun of this and made it look completely stupid.

 

Edit: Also, they would get no standards to their interpretation other than T ground which doesn't exist, if they can't run T because you're topical, that's GOOD for them because it means it will provide the most clash in round. They probably just didn't have a case neg, frontline, or specific disad/cp/K on your aff and decided they'd try to win on whatever they could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite T that I ran was one saying that charge means electricty and because people weren't being shocked. We lost on it, but we won the round on something else so it was okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is solved by having multiple planks, but that would probably be hit under something else tho... But even if you have one AND operator, technicly it would be fitting under REsolved. Then you just say Resolved is an issue because status quo wasn't solving under USFG, so you have it covered by USFG Re-solving it through new plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

resolved is probably one of the best and yet worse t arguments. It's good because it is a 20 second shell that will stop abusive/tricky affirmatives and it;s bad because if they don't show abuse that's a 20 second argument that links into a shit-ton of K's of T's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
resolved is probably one of the best and yet worse t arguments. It's good because it is a 20 second shell that will stop abusive/tricky affirmatives and it;s bad because if they don't show abuse that's a 20 second argument that links into a shit-ton of K's of T's.

 

oooo.... K of T....I'm quaking in my boots....hate to break it to everyone, but patriarchy doesn't outweigh topicality and wombat is still nontopical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is solved by having multiple planks, but that would probably be hit under something else tho... But even if you have one AND operator, technicly it would be fitting under REsolved. Then you just say Resolved is an issue because status quo wasn't solving under USFG, so you have it covered by USFG Re-solving it through new plan.

If the plan has multiple planks, then there's no reason to run this T. But if you run a 1-plank case then you can't easily get out of it. On the not-solved-in-squo arg: You still don't meet, the res says Resolved: The USFG should... not The USFG should resolve... It means that the aff must "solve" the res once and then resolve it with a different plan. Since it isn't soved in the squo, you can't resolve it without solving it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still my favorite is either, t charged... under last years res, that all muslims were already charged by allah to kill the infidel, thus couldnt be charged without probable cause, or the eminent domain T saying that land is always detained, and is never done in relation to probable cause... unless you count tectonic shift....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in a practice round at camp, my partner and I ran a plan flaw of AmeriCorps.

The aff spelled AmeriCorps as Americorps in their plan text, so we argued that Americorps was not a real agency, thus the plan was untopical.

 

Believe it or not, we won. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oooo.... K of T....I'm quaking in my boots....hate to break it to everyone, but patriarchy doesn't outweigh topicality and wombat is still nontopical.

 

I picked up 6 rounds on K's of T-Resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the National Service topic makes us look at Solvency for toicality, my partner and I ran "T: persons=man, woman, or child". It was a women in combat case, and we ran Persons=women. Because all of their solvency advocates and their plan increased the amount of womYn, they wern't topical. I know, it was crazy.

Nice! Serves them right for using "womyn".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...