Jump to content
NoviceKing

Worst Theory or K you have been hit with

Recommended Posts

That post might have been even funnier if it had punctuation.

 

It's true, let's shun anyone who refuses to conform to our eurocentric norms of grammer (being seriously here).

 

a;so when i ran nietchze the other team saw the quals that said anit-christ and really ...reading that aff

 

Shhhh. I'm shunning you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the combination of a not funny post + no punctuation + a quote by Stalin and a quote by Hitler in your signature = shunning is AOK.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush is a robot, and therefore we don't solve or need to spec that or something. We read counter-interps from both me and my partner claiming that we had the exact same qualifications as their author, who was only listed as the last name and the website they had gotten the evidence from, which was like conspiracytheorists.org or some shit.

 

Then for some reason this team decided to extend Bush is a robot all the way through the 2NR, and specifically pointed out how we dropped their dumb 90% of enforcement is specification (of the president?!?!) card. So my partner extends that card in the 2AR and says, "Fine, we only get 10% Solvency, which means their turns only get 10% weight. Meanwhile, our impact turns to their DAs get 100% weight, so we win, dumbasses."

 

Definitely won that round.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solt card...is kinda a hoot. Ks are not evil.

 

Kyle was the kid who ran a grammar std all year, at least he isn't a hypocrite. Clearly, he feels grammar is key to all human communication.

 

I had 4 cases (only with inh and solv) read in the 1AC on me once. They said they were testing them all and would pick the best one in the 2AC. We ran 7 T's (a = 1, 4 case specific Ts, FX, XT) and a ton of hypotesting framework in the 1NC. Basically the argument was that if even 1 case was untopical, they should be voted down. Also, independent voter on them advocating aff conditionally without the responsibility of hypotesting.

 

2AC gets up there and read a new Space Corp aff and drops the 4 the 1AC read. Doesn't answer T, argues that all arguments must be put on the Space Corps flow before he must answer them.

 

My 2NC: "This speech could be 30 seconds long because at this point all I have to tell you is that all 7 T violations and the IV on framework were dropped, C-A to the Space Corps flow and vote"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all theory is bad in my eyes. Almost all of the time the people are running it are being complete hipocrits (they will break the theory arguement they just ran) and nobody really believes the theory and are just using it to make an arguement. frankly ITS JUST LAME. only time your gona need to do something theory related is T but otherwise CPs perms and everything else people run theory on is prefectly fair

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all theory is bad in my eyes. Almost all of the time the people are running it are being complete hipocrits (they will break the theory arguement they just ran) and nobody really believes the theory and are just using it to make an arguement. frankly ITS JUST LAME. only time your gona need to do something theory related is T but otherwise CPs perms and everything else people run theory on is prefectly fair

 

i feel bad, you obviously have not been exposed to a good theory team, they are so much fun to watch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not saying that theory is argued poorly im saying its kind of a lame arguement in my eyes. Unless you 100 percent believe the abuse your argueing and you don't run PICS (or whatever) that running theory is totally stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the biggest load of crap theory or k you have been hit with?

(did you loose to it?)

 

here's an answer i got when i ran theory and topicality (among other things) on a team.

 

"group their theory and t, debate has no rules, we can do whatever we want we don have to be topical. the negs job is to prove that affirmative plan is not desirable."

 

i got up an said:

 

"1) extend their annalysis on what our job is and our theory and topicality. our theory and t at least prove, as they go conceded, that the way the aff plan is done is bad for debate making the aff undesirable. and 2) their point about how debate has no rules is not true, they agreed to time limits and the resolution when the registered for this tourny, extend the unanswered t and disqualify them from the tourny."

 

we won

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the worst stuff I've been hit with-

 

On a flow for an effects T, aff says this: All that really matters is if common people can understand our plan text, if a random person we pull of the street can understand our plan text then that is enough to be topical.

 

On another T flow (different round): aff runs an RVI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hit a team that ran "silent aff" they were to sit down in the 1AC and think but they cant say anything because it is a surprise, and then in the next speech they claimed this was some random discourse. The cross-x was so funny we just had jokes to the other team about stuff. and the speeches were just, abuse arguments and such, then in the middle we would we meet by not talking for several minutes. It turns out the team was having problems and just did not want to debate anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude aff rvi's on t are totally strategic, not because anyone buys them, but because then the neg spends 3 minutes on how rvi's are bad and you spend 3 seconds to say they're right and the rvi's don't matter.

 

Also we got slammed with perms bad in a round where the other team stood up in the 1nc and read their 1ac totally not even close to competitive, their only defense was perms are bad and unfair... we laughed... we won

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan flaw: We didn't have a period after the last sentence in our plan. Apparently the lack of a period made it "impossible for the neg to debate," no particular reason needed obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RVI for t and Abuse for talking too fast, Malthus K with a impact of deaths and Funding Specification

 

But I like RVI's:sob:

 

Once I got hit with negation theroy and they were running Ban the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hit critical race theory as a novice, and i had no idea what was happening, so i said that kritiks were a voter by reading the fiat good block, and that theory wasn't a voter

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...