Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dennay

Is T a time suck?

Recommended Posts

T, I believe is a timesuck though by virtue of the fact that barely any judges will vote on it.

 

it is sad that tournaments are hiring people that they think are real judges :-(

 

i guess we've all been duped :-( :-( :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon... i just saw the most ridiculous T. It was about a spelling error. One of my fellow teammembers spelled 'Gurantee' wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T saying that since THAT particular word is spelled wrong, the whole argumentation is flawed and should be rejected.

 

WHAT A STUPID VIOLATION! You run somthing like that when you have no offense against the opposing team.

 

Plz, plz, plz someone agree with me. That type of argumentation ruins debate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon... i just saw the most ridiculous T. It was about a spelling error. One of my fellow teammembers spelled 'Gurantee' wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T saying that since THAT particular word is spelled wrong, the whole argumentation is flawed and should be rejected.

 

WHAT A STUPID VIOLATION! You run somthing like that when you have no offense against the opposing team.

 

Plz, plz, plz someone agree with me. That type of argumentation ruins debate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon... i just saw the most ridiculous T. It was about a spelling error. One of my fellow teammembers spelled 'Gurantee' wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T saying that since THAT particular word is spelled wrong, the whole argumentation is flawed and should be rejected.

 

WHAT A STUPID VIOLATION! You run somthing like that when you have no offense against the opposing team.

 

Plz, plz, plz someone agree with me. That type of argumentation ruins debate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon... i just saw the most ridiculous T. It was about a spelling error. One of my fellow teammembers spelled 'Gurantee' wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T saying that since THAT particular word is spelled wrong, the whole argumentation is flawed and should be rejected.

 

WHAT A STUPID VIOLATION! You run somthing like that when you have no offense against the opposing team.

 

Plz, plz, plz someone agree with me. That type of argumentation ruins debate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my teammembers encountered a dumb T. They accidentially spelled the word "guranteed" wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T that said "since that word is spelled wrong, all your argumentation should be rejected."

 

Terrrrrrrrrrible violation... terrible. This kind of argumentation ruins debate for me. Someone plz tell me that they think that T is non-sensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you mean an argument that says "they kicked T and thus wasted my 2AC time and they should lose"

 

probably not a winning argument.

 

its just accepted that negs will run short Ts and not go for them in the block.

 

depends on the existence of an RVI. If the RVI is good, then yes it is indeed often a winning argument. Depends on how theory-savvy you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my teammembers encountered a dumb T. They accidentially spelled the word "guranteed" wrong in the plan text and the opposing team ran a T that said "since that word is spelled wrong, all your argumentation should be rejected."

 

Terrrrrrrrrrible violation... terrible. This kind of argumentation ruins debate for me. Someone plz tell me that they think that T is non-sensical.

 

Actually, that is not a 'Terrrrrrrrrrible violation', the fact that you spell something wrong in plan text is a reason to be attacked. You can't go into round with a flawed plan, no matter how small that flaw is. Its sort of like not specifiying a test-case in plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sry for all the posts, my computer freaked out. I mean c'mon, it was a spelling error. nothing more. A simply mistake. My teammember still advocated samething even though it was mispelled.

 

I still don't understand it as a T, sounded like theory to me. Well they lost the argument anyway. All that bickering for one letter. Spare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sry for all the posts, my computer freaked out. I mean c'mon, it was a spelling error. nothing more. A simply mistake. My teammember still advocated samething even though it was mispelled.

 

I still don't understand it as a T, sounded like theory to me. Well they lost the argument anyway. All that bickering for one letter. Spare me.

You are advocating that something be [insert misspelling here] and not guaranteed. That's a reason to vote neg - in fact, the TOC was won a couple years ago on the argument that the aff referred to the American With Disabilities Act instead of the Americans With Disabilities Act in their plan text. Since there is no American With Disabilities Act, there is no solvency.

 

Furthermore, it's real-world. Don't you remember the ballot proposition in Arizona during the 2004 election that passed but was overturned in court because of a one word difference between the petition version and the ballot version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people can run Ts on the semicolon, i'm sure a mispelled word is not an absurd argument...but crossX checks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

running T on a spelling error is fun. Someone read a plantext against me that said the USFG was going to decrease it's authority to detain... IT'S instead of ITS...

 

Not only was it a T argument, but since plan executes plan text, and decreasing it is authority isn't possible, their plan doesn't do anything.

 

The judges agreed that it was stupid, but 2 of 3 of them said I could have gone for it in the 2NR after doing 3 or 4 minutes of it in the bloc.

 

This weekend at Kentucky, I went for T every neg round and won 2 out of 3 times, and I'm not even that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are advocating that something be [insert misspelling here] and not guaranteed. That's a reason to vote neg - in fact, the TOC was won a couple years ago on the argument that the aff referred to the American With Disabilities Act instead of the Americans With Disabilities Act in their plan text. Since there is no American With Disabilities Act, there is no solvency.

 

Furthermore, it's real-world. Don't you remember the ballot proposition in Arizona during the 2004 election that passed but was overturned in court because of a one word difference between the petition version and the ballot version?

 

It doesn't matter. Point being, shahmeer still knew what it meant so as long as it holds the same effect, that argument holds no weight. Your example on the Americans With Disabilities Act is correct in THAT instance. If me and Beeler had be advocating a sanctuary that doesn't exist, then I could totally see a plan flaw arg. But a freakin word? If that isn't the mother of all whiney arguments I have ever heard, and i have yet to see whinier. The only reason he went for it was because I didn't answer it except in the 1AR and the 2AR but it wouldn't have mattered anyway because none of the judges voted on it...both on case and the plan flaw went to us. Shahmeer rightfully got T and won the round fair and square. That was a good round and It was about time we went up against teams that could argue it back...meaning both you and crane and shahmeer. At least now we know what to expect at ASU and we will be ready for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if your allocation of tiime sucks. T is a time suck. t shells are short, shortness can lead to time trade offs. 2AC time trade offs can be capitalized on by the block to make the 1AR living hell. 2AC's dont waste time poking around on T violations you know they won't go for...make your answers short and sweet. I'll point out that other than major arguement catagories like 'counter interpretations and so on' the 1AR has more leeway to make new arguements on T than almost any other arguement because if the 1Nc shell is short and intends to get a time trade off, but they DO decide to go for it in the block, they will inevitablly have to make extrapolations and elaborations which the first oppertunity for offensive response to by the aff will be the 1AR. i'm not advocating undercoverage, but when overcoverage is the goal, don't play into their hand either.

 

by the way saying t is a timesuck is not an offensive arguement. any more than saying t is a potato is an arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is dumb, and just because shells can be short doesn't mean that it's a timesuck. Also, if they didn't run T, they would have ran some other K or DA that would have filled the 30 seconds.

 

The only way to make T = time suck even remotely offensive would be to prove that the T argument itself is uniquely abusive, that T is so generic and of such variety that you'd never have specific evidence against it. The fact that T = dictionary definition and analytics kinda fucks this up anyhow. Prove that me questioning your relevance to the resolution is abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No time tradeoff - Disads take a lot less time to answer than to run. Time skews equalize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more than happy this weekend to prove that we were not running T as a time suck after the 2AC spent 4.5 minutes answering it by going 8 minutes of T in the 2NC.

 

Also, I think the whole issue of you shouldn't run T unless a case is untopical or blatantly untopical is a silly thing to say. Who decides what is a topical case and what isn't? That's why T exists. As many have said, if the argument sucks, don't spend much time on it. I've had rounds where me T answers have been simple we meets because the violations were that stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to be able to really break down a violation and so on to avoid becoming repetative for 8 minutes, it also has to be a crush and a total lack of anykind of coherent 2AC responses because otherwise the 1AR loves you way more than they should after the block and/or your partner's 1nr has to be fast and devestating to spread the 1AR out at all. i'm a big proponent of the 'strike fear into the heart of the 1AR' school of negative debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think of T as just a time suck - it is also your plan B in case you forget to read the impact to your disad or read a politics link the wrong way or something like that. You can also use it to weasel kritik links out of your opponents - if you need to prove that the aff establishes a new legal right for your CLS link, run "substantially = new legal right" (or whatever is appropriate given the resolution) and make strategic use of their we meet arguments. Oh yeah, and some people actually go for T, too.

 

That being said, everybody is right when they say that nobody will actually vote for a time suck argument, but you can reduce the relative advantage the negs get from running T by making the time suck reverse voter argument. This doesn't hurt the negs much in the block, but the 1AR can get a very nice time tradeoff by spending a few second on it, putting pressure on the 2NR. It also gives you another chess piece in case the whole round becomes a theory throwdown. In other words, fight fire with fire.

 

To whoever tried to argue that T is not a time suck: please explain why agreeing that cases which come out of every little podunk shitstick camp in the entire country (indeed, cases that are practically mentioned in the topic description) are topical is logically equivalent to allowing cases from last year's topic. There are some cases that are just plain topical, and everybody knows it; regardless of how they know, they do in fact know it and that's why they cut evidence and write strategies for those cases. I know that stupid topicality arguments that waste everybody's time are not going anywhere, but I don't see the point of pretending that they're not retarded outside of the round. To be perfectly frank, I would rather live in a world where nobody voted on T but rounds were decided on ACTUAL ISSUES over the world we live in where you lose because you don't meet the Yemen national dictionary's definition of the word "or".

 

Anyway, I'm going to go home to the critiques forum where I belong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went 8 minutes of T in the 2NC to answer the counter definition, the counter standards, and the 6 T is not a Voter arguments with 3 independent RVIs, as well as answering the attacks they made on OUR T stuff. And this entire thing was over the word "either". I could have probably done it in less time, a lot less time, but I had a feeling we had the T pretty much in the bag, and 5 minutes was good enough to extend and answer their "attacks" on Hollow Hope and the random case cards that weren't that good. Also, I wanted to show that we cared about it enough in-round.

 

I enjoy a good topicality debate, and that is quite possibly the ONLY good topicality debate I've had recently. (I had a pretty good one about substantially=without material qualifications, but this one was so much better, and I was making the T rather than defending against it like I had to with substantially) I've got to be perfectly honest though. If someone does a REALLY good job of answering T and their answers make sense, I will drop T in favor of something else, pending RVIs. However, when that is not done, I prefer to spend time on topicality (depending on what the 1NC got out, usually around 4 minutes in the 2NC) because judges in this area have no problems voting for topicality.

 

EDIT: To the above poster, I feel that the general IDEAS behind most cases put out by camps and those mentioned in the topic paper are topical, however, most of the plan texts that I have heard have something wrong with them one way or the other.

 

I also have to agree that strategic uses of T are good.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...