Jump to content
NoviceKing

Worst Theory or K you have been hit with

Recommended Posts

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

 

That argument in particular, maybe, but think about what idea it represents: The question of fairness is always in the context of what is fair in light of a particular side, meaning it isn't possibly objective, making it problematic to evaluate the round through that lens of "fairness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted for relevance:

 

 

Reverse Topicality

 

A. Our interpretation will be to define the resolution as it is:

 

Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce military and/or police presence in one or more of the following areas: Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, South Korea, Iraq, Turkey.

 

B. Violation: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS COMPLETELY TOPICAL.

 

C. Standards, or reasons to prefer our interpretation.

 

1. Its the resolution: need I say more?

 

D. Why this matters:

 

Ground: Topicality is very important ground for negative teams to utilize, for 3 reasons;

 

1) Checks back squirrelly affirmatives: the only way a negative team can reliably check affirmatives is through topicality; removing this argument makes it nearly impossible to win on the negative.

 

2) Predictable: the only ground that is guaranteed in debate for the negative is topicality- oh wait, now it isn't because the affirmative just took that away too.

 

3) Camp files: camps put out disadvantages against untopical cases because they write untopical cases because they realize that untopical cases are strategic- running a topical case takes out the ability of negative teams to utilize camp files, removing a large portion of negative ground.

 

Framer's Intent: the framer of this resolution vaguely worded the resolution specifically to invite topicality debates; by being topical, the affirmative is defying what our framers intended us to debate about.

 

Education: perhaps the best way to learn about this year's resolution is to define it; the affirmative takes away this key education that makes debate a worthwhile activity.

 

Strategy skew: we were prepared to run topicality in this round because we expected teams to be untopical, but now our entire strategy is useless due to the affirmative's topical plan.

 

Err negative on theory, and take a stand against topical cases!

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted for relevance:

 

 

Reverse Topicality

 

A. Our interpretation will be to define the resolution as it is:

 

Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce military and/or police presence in one or more of the following areas: Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, South Korea, Iraq, Turkey.

 

B. Violation: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS COMPLETELY TOPICAL.

 

C. Standards, or reasons to prefer our interpretation.

 

1. Its the resolution: need I say more?

 

D. Why this matters:

 

Ground: Topicality is very important ground for negative teams to utilize, for 3 reasons;

 

1) Checks back squirrelly affirmatives: the only way a negative team can reliably check affirmatives is through topicality; removing this argument makes it nearly impossible to win on the negative.

 

2) Predictable: the only ground that is guaranteed in debate for the negative is topicality- oh wait, now it isn't because the affirmative just took that away too.

 

3) Camp files: camps put out disadvantages against untopical cases because they write untopical cases because they realize that untopical cases are strategic- running a topical case takes out the ability of negative teams to utilize camp files, removing a large portion of negative ground.

 

Framer's Intent: the framer of this resolution vaguely worded the resolution specifically to invite topicality debates; by being topical, the affirmative is defying what our framers intended us to debate about.

 

Education: perhaps the best way to learn about this year's resolution is to define it; the affirmative takes away this key education that makes debate a worthwhile activity.

 

Strategy skew: we were prepared to run topicality in this round because we expected teams to be untopical, but now our entire strategy is useless due to the affirmative's topical plan.

 

Err negative on theory, and take a stand against topical cases!

 

 

I prefer kritikal reverse topicality arguments, but this amused me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theory is not a voter theory

"theory is not a voter - voting issue"

- best idea ever

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a team hit us with Vagueness...except we had possibly the least vague plan text at the entire tournament. This same team also ran Coercion. I asked in Cross-x if my opponent felt like he was part of an oppressive system. His answer was basically "Yes because I have to go to school and get a job, and you're oppressed too." We won both of those, and the round.

 

My first debate ever the other team ran an Aff Feminism K, and during the 1NR my partner said the words "women don't matter." He was trying to make an 'extinction outweighs' argument but was a bit more direct. Meanwhile, the other team kept calling the argument "fem." Our (female) judge had a few things to say about 4 guys saying those sorts of things in a round. Despite my partner offending the judge, we won the round.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff ran an automobility k (driving is de-humanizing) in the 2ac against our auto industry DA (link was investing in their plan kills auto industry... said nothing about less driving)... their aff was mass transit lol

 

After 2:00 of turning the K, I forgot to go for auto industry DA and only covered it for like... 30 seconds. so we lost

  • Downvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this counterplan that I'd like to run one round as a troll option. It's cut from this David Brooks op-ed about statues and just authority, so the CP is to build statues of my team. The net benefit is authoritarianism good. My answer to perm is performativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a round where this happened.

 

Aff had a warrant about how their plan will help build local communities.

Neg ran a "Communities K" where they argued that communities are what cause all violence.

Aff pointed out that all their cards were related to ethnic communities in the Balkans, not towns. Despite this, neg continued to try to defend the K until the end of the round.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in an LD round, it was quarters at an easy local tournament. I ran a 2 off, because I thought my opponent was good (even though his case was awful). His 1AR is this:

 

2 minutes of a long narrative about rich kids getting everything they want (I was using a laptop, he uses paper), while he makes constant eye contact with the judge, he's balling up multiple pieces of flow paper in hand

 

2 minutes of tearing up the ball of paper bit by bit while reading an imaginary Interp that says "Theory is like a paper ball". That was the interp...

 

So obviously I won, but after the round, the funniest part was the judge made him pick up all of the scraps of paper on the floor. When I walked outside a bunch of kids asked me if he had done the paper ball thing. I said yes, and they told me he does that all the time with ALL arguments. I told them he lost on theory, and they asked what his interp was. It was a paper ball.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the last tournament I went to we didn't have any teams in elims after Quarters, but our coach still had to judge Semis. So lacking anything better to do I went and watched the round my coach was judging.

 

The neg read an Ableism K. Nothing wrong with this, I guess. But up until the 2NR I had to listen to the teams spend about 30 seconds each speech pointing out every possible instance of ableist language in the other team's evidence.

 

Like, that's all it was. The only thing you have to flow each iteration of the debate is "oh yeah, well they do it too." And it was the most ridiculous, nitpicky things like "Your card says 'Obama has been silent on the issue.' Isn't that ableist against people with mutism?" 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell is a 1AC counterplan?

The overview of his case was just a bunch of Util ethics, followed by theory saying CP's Good (He literally said Aff CP'S are GOOD) then proceeded to read an awful CP that completely contradicted his overview. The CP was a military tribunal for Due Process, so it would be bad if it were run on the correct side anyway. This was an octos round. I'm guessing he had a bunch of lay judges or he just got lucky and his opponents were stupid. Either way, after the round the judge started laughing and left the room. No oral critiques, nothing, just pure laughing. I won, and the ballot just said "Aff CP's" with what looked like a troll face (poorly drawn). I wish I still had the ballot so I could post it under funniest judge comments.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neg reads, "Allow aff fiat solvency" after reading a kritik with no alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once heard "No off" from an East Texas team. I've also heard giving your partner's roadmap is a voting issue, brought up in the 2NR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner gets easily flustered while reading sometimes... We got hit with a card clipping theory. lolll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner gets easily flustered while reading sometimes... We got hit with a card clipping theory. lolll

Solution: Don't clip cards. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran an "Abuse good" theory when I was still learning the basics because I had accidentally been very abusive in the round

It went like this:

Yes I agree were being abusive but who cares because abuse is GOOD.

1. It builds character- just ask some old guy

2. It prepares you for life.. life is abusive

3. It opens debate to a wider range of interests

 

Then the other team obviously rejected it and said "abuse makes me want to quit debate therefor it hurts the activity blah blah"

 

So my partner countered that because he wants to quit due to abuse it proves he needs more abuse to be prepared for life, because you cant quit life

 

we lost the round

  • Upvote 4

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...