Jump to content
NoviceKing

Worst Theory or K you have been hit with

Recommended Posts

a team ran that T on us, it was ridiculous. When we asked them what they actually mean they just kept repeating the interp. verbatim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt hit it but i watched a round with my friend rob and melanie plaza and he ran a global oneness k

 

 

at first i thought it was complete bull, but it actually makes sense for the jan/feb ld topic lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some college team a while back (although I'm not exactly sure of the details) that ran a kritik of the flow with some other performative K that they had. It was more like a framework saying that you can't look at the flow when deciding a round but it had elements like "the flow is biopolitical" and weird stuff like that. Someone from our squad once wrote a version of it, but it's probably different from the famous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres a kinda stupid 1 that i run.

 

we run an RVI on T. its pretty stupid, but ive won on it once. it says that running T on a topical case is abusive and hurts edu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like an RVI is something new. So if they prove your case isn't topical does the RVI go away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id have to say the round our opponents ran a generalization k, saying we were rasists, but the whole round they refered to the people of Africa as "black Africans"

 

Glad to say i turned that lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my partner and i weren't going to break at one tournament so we just just decided to have a fun round and so we left all of our tubs and such outside the room and came in with a theory block that was 50 or so points long as to why reading evidence is bad for debate... that was an interesting round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This one team we once hit on the local circuit ran PHA = rooting out the cause of the problem = genocide. Then they used our 1AC evidence that genocide is the worst impact, and said that if we decrease genocide, then we are actually decreasing PHA. That gave them a solvency/ topicality double-bind.

 

Ummm. You still meet. You are increasing "rooting out the cause of the problem". No double-bind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a theory or K, but the worst overall argument I went against was essentially an impact red against us. This team regularly (I mean, they read it against us twice, and other teams in our school a bunch of times, too) reads this argument that AIDS is the worst problem in Africa, and you don't solve for AIDS. That's the entire argument. If I organized it into a DA, it would look like:

U: AIDS is bad now.

L: You don't solve for AIDS.

I: AIDS is really, really bad.

 

I kept asking them in cross-x "Do we make AIDS worse," or "Does our case have anything to do with AIDS at all?" The answer was always no.

 

 

I didn't watch, but the senior team at our school ran twice "Chewbacha doesn't make sense; we don't make sense; if we don't make sense, you must vote neg." They read the exact speech from South Park, except they replaced "judge" with "Grand Arbiter," "trial" with "debate," and "defense" with "neg." It was a pretty hilarious speech when I read it. That wasn't really theory either, since I think they called it a case flaw, or something like that.

 

 

The worst actual K I went up against was probably the futurism (I guess?) aff K that we should legalize abortion and set up abortion clinics in SSA to decrease violence to those of "queer sexuality" (defined later as those who were incapable of producing or simply wouldn't produce offspring. The members of the team were undoubtedly gay.). Not only was the K terrible and nonsensical, the team didn't understand it or know how to argue it, so half of the actual meaning didn't come out until later in the rebuttals, or until the next round. Ironically, we lost and they broke to quarter finals.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were AFF and they read a few DA's and K's in the round. We read 2 theory arguments and made a few perms.

 

2NC and 1NR-- RVI on each theory (for wasting their time), Perms bad (not multiple perms bad, just perms bad), and here's the kicker...they said Performative Contradictions bad, immediately followed by Performative Contradictions good, when we didn't mention perf cons at all in the round.

 

We won.

 

 

That and truth spec (must tell us if you uphold truth or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst k that I ever lost on is that silly feminism critique where the link that the letters m-e-n or m-a-n are in your case.

 

The worst argument I think I've ever seen was actually an aff on this topic that two LDers wrote and brought to a policy tournament. I can't remember the name of the author, but the aff was US starts a draft, that pisses off people, we go to war, war goes nuclear, we all get to a higher plane and we're better off there, thus increasing PHA.

 

Neg gets up, counterplan: unleash the US nuclear arsenal. NB: timeframe

 

Although, if we're not talking about policy, I did public forum one time on the NBA topic, and the first ten seconds of the speech was about how it was a publicity ploy, and then 3:50 of why quadruple chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies and how we should debate that instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is without a doubt my new favorite debate argument ever...period.

 

well...honesty is the best policy.

Best policy option anybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst actual K I went up against was probably the futurism (I guess?) aff K that we should legalize abortion and set up abortion clinics in SSA to decrease violence to those of "queer sexuality" (defined later as those who were incapable of producing or simply wouldn't produce offspring. The members of the team were undoubtedly gay.). Not only was the K terrible and nonsensical, the team didn't understand it or know how to argue it, so half of the actual meaning didn't come out until later in the rebuttals, or until the next round. Ironically, we lost and they broke to quarter finals.

 

The Futurism K is actually awesome, and seeing as you're from Northeast Ohio, you were probably hitting us. You apparently don't understand it at all, though.

By the way, neither of us are gay.

Edit: I remember. Our judge specified no speed, so we weren't able to even read half of the 1AC... then you proceeded to read MALTHUS with an internal link about how abortion increases population growth because it stops the spread of AIDS. Talk about stupid args...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they said Performative Contradictions bad, immediately followed by Performative Contradictions good

 

That is amazing. Welcome to the twilight zone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rights discourse bad...

 

Doesn't sound so bad, does it?

 

 

...As a net benefit to a CP that PICed out of "We reserve the right to clarify."

 

Yeah, that's right. They PICed out of we reserve the right to clarify and read the standard (HUMAN) rights discourse bad. For some reason the judge bought that there was a risk of a link, despite us pointing out all the spots where their cards' warrants and internal links explicitly assumed discourse of _human rights_ to justify interventionist wars. Our aff was friggin' Zizek, certainly not pro-HR.

 

All's well that ends well, though; we ended up clearing at the bottom of the bracket, hitting that team in the first outround (they were top seed, the only 6-0) and beating them in a quick 3-0 on T: constructive engagement is quid pro quo. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Futurism K is actually awesome. You apparently don't understand it at all, though.

 

I don't understand the "tomorrow doesn't exist therefore no DAs matter."

And I don't doubt futurism could be legit, because again, I have no clue what it means, but if your cross-xs and explanations (by explanations I mean reading the card again) say anything, you didn't have any idea either. Also, keep in mind, your plan was to decrease abortions, which decreased violence in America? Granted, we lost, but it was the least topical, most effectual, and least sensical plan I have ever run against.

 

Best cross-x:

"So Iran is going to bomb us today?"

"Yeah, they're gonna come nuke us in like ten minutes; it's gonna suck."

 

However, since this thread is "Worst ... K" and not "Least sensical K," I guess I concede that it works pretty well, and probably doesn't fit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we never actually claim that your disads don't matter because the future doesn't exist. And our plan text called for an increase in abortion availability... we never said "decrease abortions" ever. If you actually want to understand the K, I posted an explanation here:

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1556728&postcount=22

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max,

 

For what it's worth, you might be thinking of a different round (or confusing two). You did actually claim our DAs didn't matter because the future didn't exist, you just didn't go for it in the end. And we read Malthus answers, which said that Africa risks underpopulation (it was the closest thing to a solvency turn we had). We had a tab judge who was fine with speed, and we never claimed you decreased abortions.

 

The explanation in that link was fairly useful in terms of a summary, but the actual logic behind it still eludes me. I guess my biggest problem is at the "contends that the future doesn't exist" ... it says that the future is amorphous and changable so we ... shouldn't try to change it? And in order to not worry about the future we should enact a plan that cannot possibly exist immediately? Yes, I understand the purpose was to stop violence, but the violence is supposedly only there under the context of the future existing, and justified (!?) if it does. Furthermore, it's impossible to argue against a case when it sounds in the 1AC like a wall of philosophy in a haze designed to obscure. Have I read phiosophy? Yes. Is it possible to adopt an entire new (confusing) idea in 10 minutes? Definitely not.

 

What confused me most of all was when you conceded there was little or no actual advantage in SSA, but the advantages in America were still there (because most of the cards talked about America, not SSA). I have yet to understand how providing abortion centers in Africa changes people's views in America. I mean, even if abortions really do radically change one's one outlook on life, how could they change an unrelated stranger's?

 

 

But... after arguing for an entire post I have decided I don't really wanna argue about it :S. I would like to here an explanation sometime, though, even if it's just cards from the case or whatever. Oh, and sorry about the whole gay thing, lol, I wasn't being serious, and it wasn't really an insult anyways.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst I've ever seen would have to be an ancient sheet of paper I found in our storage room that was titled "Overviews Bad."

 

is that a joke, or are you serious?

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...