Jump to content
dilly148

Wild cases....

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any cases that they run for fun when they feel like throwing the round or having some fun? Me and my partner just qualed for state and since we don't concede to teams we know to get them qualified, we figured me might as well have some fun. So it doesn't matter if it's topical or non-topical. I have tons of camp files, just tell me what you are looking for and will trade like a mother.

 

Matt

CCking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i always theres the pit of babel aff from WFi and the porno aff from UNT, both are out there. Hit me up on aim: heftybag87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anti-rez. reauthorize the patriot act.

straight up hardpower, hege statism, rights violation good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like...read body cavity searches (bell v. wolfish) and get some of the really graphic cards...and fake having a 'gasm while speaking. god that would be hilarious

 

 

errr uh..yea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking on what Ankur said, I dont know that you would have to go anti rez with that. I think that there is a kind of interesting T argument that you can make to catch people off gaurd. We read this in finals at camp this summer against a team, well this T violation not the affirmative. We argued that the term "Authority" in the resolution was referring to moral authority to detain without charge or to search without probable cause. So we said that in order to decrease our moral authority we had to piss other countries off by expanding the patriot act, increasing body cavity searches, dropping GITMO's in Germany and Frances backyards, make EVERY immigrant be detained when entering the country. We argued that the uniqueness on disads was going in this direction, so it was more fair for us as the negative team. This would probably be the best standard to argue as the affirmative is that you allow for the best uniqueness ground for the negative team. also you limit out judge intervention, ALOT. They probably wont have cards saying that doing your case would not piss countries off ie if you detain every immigrant countries arent going to be happy. You might have to win some FxT standards, but that shouldnt be too hard.

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Unconditional Fiat
Pirates

and Ban the Brown Man

 

I wrote this case for my school. It is indeed the shizzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just run last years affirmative! pull it out of the cobwebs and read it off and read last years resolution. they will run about 1000000 T violations. then just bring up a shit load of non-voters and then mention about how you as the affirmative are debating the Peacekeeping resolution so you are topical. simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you only want to ban the brown man to prevent me from coming up with more ways to crush your piddly strategies with theory and affegation/naffirmative cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I qual, I'm running a plan that goes through the United Mexican States' Federal Government to stop detaining/searching.

 

Also, there's a stupid masturbation aff on the Houston circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I qual, I'm running a plan that goes through the United Mexican States' Federal Government to stop detaining/searching.

 

Also, there's a stupid masturbation aff on the Houston circuit.

 

How is the masturbation aff anywhere near topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Body cavities with a language advantage...just make sure you say anal rape a couple hundred times.

-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perform a violin solo.

 

Or a guitar solo. That'd be more fun.

 

Just go in the room and jam out for 8 minutes as a 1AC, then when they ask what you're doing in CX, say it's a language - there was a mute woman who spoke in cello on Boston Legal a few weeks back, there may actually be literature on it.

 

It would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...