cards1 9 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Consult Bad Theory 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Screech 195 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 Well, I was judging rather than debating, but aff ran an "abuse good" counter-voter on T, based on Nietzsche. Neg did the logical thing and stole aff's laptop and ran around the room with it. Aff was really confused and turns to me in shock, saying "what do I do?" So of course I respond "YOU TAKE IT BACK BY FORCE." Except, of course, neg is faster than aff. Cue two minutes of breathlessly chasing each other around the room. By the time I stop laughing uproariously, I decide the round should continue, so I shout "SHE IS STRONG AND HE IS WEAK; BUT I AM STRONGER THAN BOTH OF YOU. I CONTROL YOUR FATE WITH THIS PIECE OF PAPER, AND I WANT TO SEE A DEBATE." The round continues as before, but with two minutes of the 2A's speech time lost. He drops the counter-voter. 17 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chaos 2587 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Screech again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ButteredMuffin 1440 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vegrjrgrvecevtkgjwfbsc 312 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 blahblah Just curious, was this Tualtin v Tualtin? I've heard they do stuff like that to troll the other. Btw, what speaks did you give those guys? I assume the neg got higher speaks for being funny? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Screech 195 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
txag15 60 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 ran against ayn rand and fem IR together. I lol'd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ButteredMuffin 1440 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 ran against ayn rand and fem IR together. I lol'd. that's like a xInfinity multiplier on stupid 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DML 727 Report post Posted February 18, 2011 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
txag15 60 Report post Posted February 19, 2011 that's like a xInfinity multiplier on stupid Basically Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DHirsch 0 Report post Posted May 29, 2011 Someone read Neg Condo good…..on the affirmative Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bear cavalry 16 Report post Posted May 29, 2011 Someone read Neg Condo good…..on the affirmative I think that was you 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
...Hi... 586 Report post Posted May 29, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ButteredMuffin 1440 Report post Posted May 29, 2011 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... 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CGarrett203 13 Report post Posted June 5, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mestari 9 Report post Posted July 11, 2011 Debaters must not value morality... This was in an LD round... The voter was fairness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TejaVepa 260 Report post Posted August 13, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mestari 9 Report post Posted August 18, 2011 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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ButteredMuffin 1440 Report post Posted August 18, 2011 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chaos 2587 Report post Posted August 18, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ButteredMuffin 1440 Report post Posted August 18, 2011 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 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sweater 29 Report post Posted August 21, 2011 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 3 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cojoh 169 Report post Posted August 21, 2011 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? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mestari 9 Report post Posted August 21, 2011 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Luminite2 101 Report post Posted August 21, 2011 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
