Jump to content
NoviceKing

Worst Theory or K you have been hit with

Recommended Posts

I have won on unconditionally Bad Twice! One of those was a break round of a national tournament. I made the argument that unconditionally prevents us from learning about all the D.A.’s or Kritiques they ran in depth!

 

lol thats tight, ur block must have been better than mine to win that, any chance i could get it ?

thanks

 

Zafarmoosajee@gmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol thats tight, ur block must have been better than mine to win that, any chance i could get it ?

thanks

 

Zafarmoosajee@gmail.com

 

You need to win 3 things!

1.In round education loss, point out a D.A. or K they dropped or didn't spend a lot of time in the 2nr on. Make sure you have blocks to "but we learned about the CP

2. It hurt analytical thinking and quick decision making (say that’s why we debate to learn about the topic and these skills) because they didn’t have the choice to go for different args

3. Not fair to the 2ac because he/she spent all this time arguing D.A.'s and or k's but you didn't go for them because you couldn't go for it. this is a 100% chance waste of his/her speech which damages her ability be a part of the debate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Not fair to the 2ac because he/she spent all this time arguing D.A.'s and or k's but you didn't go for them because you couldn't go for it. this is a 100% chance waste of his/her speech which damages her ability be a part of the debate

 

 

lol what? you're telling me it's called "abuse" when a 2ac spends a bunch of time of kritiks or DAs that link to an unconditional counterplan? that's not abuse, that's stupidity.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the 2ac is 100% wasting time on D.a.'s the neg ran and Kritiques and whatever his/her education is being taken away, its the same argument that new in the 2nc is. Also it hurts in depth education because you debate two affs without possibilty of learning either advocacy with no possibilty of learning about the d.a.'s or k's they ran. It means that nobady learns how to debate neg just aff against aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with this arguement on unconditionality is that while you have an interesting and okay reason for why it hurts education, it's really tough to prove they're being unfair to you. Fairness is key to education, education isn't necessarily key to fairness. If they win that they're being fair (not a hard arguement) then they're at least giving you the chance for an educational debate. Winning the fairness vs. education debate would check back your education voter.

 

As far as I know you can't lose for giving an uneducational debate unless you impacted it really well and the other team dropped it. Props for thinking outside the box, but I rather spend the time turning/perming the CP rather then getting bogged down in theory.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had to argue fiat good a lot on the neg side now. I was at GA state this weekend and these people ran Normativity bad on the aff and didn't read a plan text. My partner and I read two topicalities our National Call to Service Aff and Normativity good, and we pointed out that arguing is normative so they didn't even fulfill their rant. The debate got so stupid, and the other team couldn't define normativity in layman's terms without being ambiguous so we decided to create our own philosophy called wambo and impacted it with the spontaneous combustion of everything. Also, throughout the round I extended out of round impacts bad and that it justifies us getting up and saying "If you don't vote for us, we'll go commit suicide." and the judge voting for us. At the end, it got to the point where in my 2nr I said, "If you buy out of round impacts, vote for us or we'll blow up the school and everyone in it except for my debate team, and if they come up here in the 2ar and say they will do something bigger, I will match that plus kill 1 more person." The horrible thing is the judge, who was lets say more philosophically inclined than the average judge, didn't vote for us for reasons unknown to me, and we clearly won the round. Now I have to go blow up Chattahoochie high school. Great.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had to argue fiat good a lot on the neg side now. I was at GA state this weekend and these people ran Normativity bad on the aff and didn't read a plan text. My partner and I read two topicalities our National Call to Service Aff and Normativity good, and we pointed out that arguing is normative so they didn't even fulfill their rant. The debate got so stupid, and the other team couldn't define normativity in layman's terms without being ambiguous so we decided to create our own philosophy called wambo and impacted it with the spontaneous combustion of everything. Also, throughout the round I extended out of round impacts bad and that it justifies us getting up and saying "If you don't vote for us, we'll go commit suicide." and the judge voting for us. At the end, it got to the point where in my 2nr I said, "If you buy out of round impacts, vote for us or we'll blow up the school and everyone in it except for my debate team, and if they come up here in the 2ar and say they will do something bigger, I will match that plus kill 1 more person." The horrible thing is the judge, who was lets say more philosophically inclined than the average judge, didn't vote for us for reasons unknown to me, and we clearly won the round. Now I have to go blow up Chattahoochie high school. Great.

that is possibly the stupidest argument I have ever heard against normativity. Honestly.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had to argue fiat good a lot on the neg side now. I was at GA state this weekend and these people ran Normativity bad on the aff and didn't read a plan text. My partner and I read two topicalities our National Call to Service Aff and Normativity good, and we pointed out that arguing is normative so they didn't even fulfill their rant. The debate got so stupid, and the other team couldn't define normativity in layman's terms without being ambiguous so we decided to create our own philosophy called wambo and impacted it with the spontaneous combustion of everything. Also, throughout the round I extended out of round impacts bad and that it justifies us getting up and saying "If you don't vote for us, we'll go commit suicide." and the judge voting for us. At the end, it got to the point where in my 2nr I said, "If you buy out of round impacts, vote for us or we'll blow up the school and everyone in it except for my debate team, and if they come up here in the 2ar and say they will do something bigger, I will match that plus kill 1 more person." The horrible thing is the judge, who was lets say more philosophically inclined than the average judge, didn't vote for us for reasons unknown to me, and we clearly won the round. Now I have to go blow up Chattahoochie high school. Great.

Here's a hint: concede when you hit norm. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have had to argue fiat good a lot on the neg side now. I was at GA state this weekend and these people ran Normativity bad on the aff and didn't read a plan text. My partner and I read two topicalities our National Call to Service Aff and Normativity good, and we pointed out that arguing is normative so they didn't even fulfill their rant. The debate got so stupid, and the other team couldn't define normativity in layman's terms without being ambiguous so we decided to create our own philosophy called wambo and impacted it with the spontaneous combustion of everything. Also, throughout the round I extended out of round impacts bad and that it justifies us getting up and saying "If you don't vote for us, we'll go commit suicide." and the judge voting for us. At the end, it got to the point where in my 2nr I said, "If you buy out of round impacts, vote for us or we'll blow up the school and everyone in it except for my debate team, and if they come up here in the 2ar and say they will do something bigger, I will match that plus kill 1 more person." The horrible thing is the judge, who was lets say more philosophically inclined than the average judge, didn't vote for us for reasons unknown to me, and we clearly won the round. Now I have to go blow up Chattahoochie high school. Great.

 

Schlag would say that you address blowing up the school as though it were a rational, autonomous subject, which is really isn't and that you only condition yourselves to saying you'll do something but expect that a ballot does it - this is how the beauacracy gets power.

 

I don't get how a team could pull a Normativity affirmative. Any alternative to it is normative (which the judge would vote aff for, since coming up in the 1AC and saying 'reject the negative' is a little farfetched) and it would seem as though your 1NC should have just been 8 minutes of roleplaying good/debate good/discourse shapes reality/etc. Why would you even read an affirmative case?

 

Sounds to me that you took a very wrong approach to a simple argument.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QFA. Fairness is the prerequisite to education

 

Turn: unpredictable responses prompt you to do research on that specific area to learn more about it than if you'd had the stuff in your tubs blocked out for you. This helps breadth and depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made-up dictionary topicality definitions are better than actual dictionary definitions because it increases critical thinking [this after they made up a T-definition in the 2ac and claimed the source was dictionary.com, but when asked in cross-x they couldn't repeat the original definition given during their speech]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to win 3 things!

1.In round education loss, point out a D.A. or K they dropped or didn't spend a lot of time in the 2nr on. Make sure you have blocks to "but we learned about the CP

2. It hurt analytical thinking and quick decision making (say that’s why we debate to learn about the topic and these skills) because they didn’t have the choice to go for different args

3. Not fair to the 2ac because he/she spent all this time arguing D.A.'s and or k's but you didn't go for them because you couldn't go for it. this is a 100% chance waste of his/her speech which damages her ability be a part of the debate

What the hell national tournament was this? And how in gods name did the other team not win unconditional counterplans good or at the very least conditionality bad? This seems laughable to me.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best way to answer Unconditionality Bad

 

"Onto the CP, we're kicking it."

 

word. concede their education standards/warrents and then aff-plan it during the block.

 

worst theory i've heard: aff is the final authority on whether they are topical or not. this was replaced in a later speech by "topicality is stupid" with no warrents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best way to answer Unconditionality Bad

 

"Onto the CP, we're kicking it."

But then you're a liar. That's an IVI, yo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then you're a liar. That's an IVI, yo.

 

Why, they said it's good if we reserve the right to kick the CP...so we kicked the CP? I mean seriously, if the aff argues that something is good and we do it...then how can that be bad yo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, they said it's good if we reserve the right to kick the CP...so we kicked the CP? I mean seriously, if the aff argues that something is good and we do it...then how can that be bad yo?

 

unpredictable...but then of course you use their arguments about education o/w.

 

it's like the erasure perm for a plan flaw. neg might whine about nullified speech time or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, they said it's good if we reserve the right to kick the CP...so we kicked the CP? I mean seriously, if the aff argues that something is good and we do it...then how can that be bad yo?

Allowing c-x answers to be conditional is anti-educational because it leads to 3-minute webs of lies followed by a 2AC/2NC of "haha bitches we were just kidding" which avoids clash which hurts education.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schlag would say that you address blowing up the school as though it were a rational, autonomous subject, which is really isn't and that you only condition yourselves to saying you'll do something but expect that a ballot does it - this is how the beauacracy gets power.

 

I don't get how a team could pull a Normativity affirmative. Any alternative to it is normative (which the judge would vote aff for, since coming up in the 1AC and saying 'reject the negative' is a little farfetched) and it would seem as though your 1NC should have just been 8 minutes of roleplaying good/debate good/discourse shapes reality/etc. Why would you even read an affirmative case?

 

Sounds to me that you took a very wrong approach to a simple argument.

 

 

performative legal thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a friend who used to reserve the right to sever plan planks. Sometimes the neg would squeak about it and try to make it into some kind of independent voter. His first response was always to sever his plank reserving his right to sever....

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...