Jump to content
NoviceKing

Worst Theory or K you have been hit with

Recommended Posts

Team read a theory argument that the 1nc had to answer all of case before being able to read a off-case argument. The judge told us after the round that he refused to flow anything on that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhm, Tualatin was aff and South Eugene was neg. If I recall, neg won, but I don't think I judged based on that little... episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst theory? Either that time where a team ran T substantial=25%, T substantial=w/o mat quals, and troop-spec/vagueness all at once, or that time I hit neg fiat bad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote "SPEC-SPEC." The affirmative must specify what was specified in the plan text. (agent,funding,time,ect.)

 

Such as: The DoD should kill kittens. We specified our agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote "SPEC-SPEC." The affirmative must specify what was specified in the plan text. (agent,funding,time,ect.)

 

Such as: The DoD should kill kittens. We specified our agent.

 

I can't even decide on what insults to use on you...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Severance perms good. Not a bad theory, but I've had bad experiences with it. My worst one...

Opponents were Aff this year at a West TX TFA (Keep that in mind), and they had a massive Aff strategy claiming pretty much every impact ever (solved for AIDS even) with a Big Heg (minus Jap/South K), and my temp partner started with a few DAs (couple country-specifics, isolationism, and politics) and Courts CP. During my poor partner's CX, I realized they were trolling him heavily. So in my speech, I came up, pulled out Malthus, Khorasan/Afghanistan WPIC and had him take the rest in the 1NR. They pull Sev. perms good and perm the PIC. I thought I could beat them on it, and I knew it was our best option (they annihilated our 1NC) and went for PIC and Sev. perms bad... Judge voted on Sev perms good. Somehow. But this was the semi-finals at a WEST TEXAS TFA. I just happened to get a judge there who would actually listen to a severance.

 

That being said, the WORST theory ever? Timecube spec. You must specify what side of the timecube your plan either affects or takes place in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debaters must not value morality...

 

This was in an LD round...

 

The voter was fairness...

 

 

That actually makes more sense than you give it credit for. Fairness can be absolutely separated from any notion of morality but not the other way around. Although it is completely beatable.

 

 

 

@ OP: The worst theory I've ever been made aware of is disclosure theory in LD.

 

 

My opponent must post his/her case on the wiki at least 2 days before the tournament, otherwise they lose. Voter for fairness/edu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That actually makes more sense than you give it credit for. Fairness can be absolutely separated from any notion of morality but not the other way around. Although it is completely beatable.

 

 

 

@ OP: The worst theory I've ever been made aware of is disclosure theory in LD.

 

 

My opponent must post his/her case on the wiki at least 2 days before the tournament, otherwise they lose. Voter for fairness/edu.

 

Nobody said morality is "fair." Anyway, he conceded the definition that ought = moral obligation. He was also neg, so the theory essentially functioned at this point as "The affirmative must not affirm the resolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was also neg, so the theory essentially functioned at this point as "The affirmative must not affirm the resolution."

 

So... what you're saying is that the negative debater tried to "negate" the resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... what you're saying is that the negative debater tried to "negate" the resolution?

No. He's saying that the negative read an argument that said all topical affirmatives are unfair and should be rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. He's saying that the negative read an argument that said all topical affirmatives are unfair and should be rejected.

 

Well topical affirmatives are unfair for the negative, it impedes their ability to win the round

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a K hit me that was like "Debate is all conservative christian white kids being proper, this destroys clash because in reality we all think the same thing. Judge, vote for the most repulsive, offensive, most f-ed up debater". He then took his shirt off and layed down on the judges table. I swear to god I wasnt dreaming

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Severance perms good. Not a bad theory, but I've had bad experiences with it. My worst one...

Opponents were Aff this year at a West TX TFA (Keep that in mind), and they had a massive Aff strategy claiming pretty much every impact ever (solved for AIDS even) with a Big Heg (minus Jap/South K), and my temp partner started with a few DAs (couple country-specifics, isolationism, and politics) and Courts CP. During my poor partner's CX, I realized they were trolling him heavily. So in my speech, I came up, pulled out Malthus, Khorasan/Afghanistan WPIC and had him take the rest in the 1NR. They pull Sev. perms good and perm the PIC. I thought I could beat them on it, and I knew it was our best option (they annihilated our 1NC) and went for PIC and Sev. perms bad... Judge voted on Sev perms good. Somehow. But this was the semi-finals at a WEST TEXAS TFA. I just happened to get a judge there who would actually listen to a severance.

 

That being said, the WORST theory ever? Timecube spec. You must specify what side of the timecube your plan either affects or takes place in.

 

Why are you reading a new CP in the 2NC?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well topical affirmatives are unfair for the negative, it impedes their ability to win the round

 

That's an idiotic metric for weighing fairness and will lose every time vs even a half-ass theory debater.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an idiotic metric for weighing fairness and will lose every time vs even a half-ass theory debater.

 

Public Service Announcement: Rawrcat has a history of comments that are either jokes or trolling. The distinction cannot always be made, but it is safe to say that most of his posts are not serious.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

  • Upvote 1

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...