Jump to content
MELE-MEL

Worst thing you've ever seen done in a round

Recommended Posts

My camp partner went for cap K and SKFTA in the 2NR. Enough said.

You guys would've lost on a perf con, we won on perf con cuz one team did that

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Korea "Free Trade Agreement"

 

It can usually be assumed that neoliberal policy is bad in the eyes of the cap k

I know what FTA stands for(:

 

But what is meant by contradiction is that you can concede one to get out of the other.

 

1. Concede the DA. You don't allow this one free trade deal to pass. Does that collapse capitalism and solve the alternative? No. Capitalism is not the internal link into the kritik.

 

2. Concede the Kritik. We're capitalist. Does more capitalism mean the FTA gets passed / trade is expanded globally? Probably not as we've had capitalism for a hell of a long time and FTAs are still being debated and there are still restrictive trade policies against nations.

 

The only idea I can find is that use SKFTA as an example of capitalism being good. Yet in the context of this resolution, the better Cap K will be why capitalism in space is bad which sidesteps any reason why capitalism on Earth is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to clarify. This was at SDI, whose cap K is secretly about Lacan's idea of Lack. Basically, the K says we shouldn't feel the impulse to get stuff. SKFTA says we should get more stuff and that the plan makes us forgo an opportunity to get stuff. See the problem?

MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY WORLDS IN THE 2NR LIKE A BOSS NOVICE.

Possibly worse was that the aff didn't call us out on the perf con and we won that round.

 

EDIT: Skirtsteak, I see what you mean. While it wasn't something as obvious as heg bad and heg good together, advocating SKFTA performatively contradicts the alternative's assertion that we should give up our desire to get stuff. That could be spun as a number of things, such as a "you link to your own K, means that under their framework of ethical obligation you would award a double-loss, to prevent that you have to ignore the K and only evaluate SKFTA" and then just handle SKFTA, or you could say "we're going for the perm, if the alt can't overcome our one instance of capital as seen in the plan then it can't overcome the link to SKFTA which they went for in the 2NR, means that either the perm solves all of the K or you have to ignore the K and only evaluate SKFTA" and again just handle SKFTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only idea I can find is that use SKFTA as an example of capitalism being good. Yet in the context of this resolution, the better Cap K will be why capitalism in space is bad which sidesteps any reason why capitalism on Earth is good.

 

 

I would see it the other way around. Capitalism in space is even better than capitalism on earth...because it solves for the harms of the former. (admittedly there are avoiding crisis links....but I've never thought those were particularly persuasive--its like "be racist now" to avoid racism later--which seems silly. Malthus is the only version of this argument I've bought because it has comparative evidence--10x die later).

Plus crisis links seem to contradict EVERY OTHER LINK--because the other links say you speed up the crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a dude pee his pants once while debating.

 

 

This is more of what we need in this thread.

 

Both truly strange stuff and whitney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would see it the other way around. Capitalism in space is even better than capitalism on earth...because it solves for the harms of the former. (admittedly there are avoiding crisis links....but I've never thought those were particularly persuasive--its like "be racist now" to avoid racism later--which seems silly. Malthus is the only version of this argument I've bought because it has comparative evidence--10x die later).

Plus crisis links seem to contradict EVERY OTHER LINK--because the other links say you speed up the crisis.

I'm confused. How does capitalism in space usher in a utopia? If you don't want to continue the discussion in the thread, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. How does capitalism in space usher in a utopia? If you don't want to continue the discussion in the thread, PM me.

 

Not claiming its utopia....just that space capitalism is fundamentally different than normal capitalism.

 

1. Solves scarcity. Scarcity root cause of conflict (and probably otherization).

2. View from space = new conciousness (environmental & war)

 

I'm not sure how regulations or lack there of effect this theory.

 

You also probably have to argue alternative causality for the other mindset/-ism arguments....or that engaging capitalism is the best way to fight it....

or the transition away from capitalism would only make those -isms worse. Or use it to feed your abuse story on the alternative (they are functionally object fiat)

 

The file from Northwestern has a couple of these cards (their K answer toolbox or whatever they call it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more of what we need in this thread.

 

Both truly strange stuff and whitney.

<3 you

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is at our last tournament.

 

We're aff. The judge outright says "don't read stuff with no terminal impacts" and says how the neg last round read a spending DA with no impact. The 1NC was 8 minutes of case, almost all of which were heg bad impact turns with no impacts. They basically concede they have no impacts in cx.

 

For the 2NC they add an impact to china and read a new spending DA........with no impact.

 

The 1NR is them extending the case turns and still failing to do any impact work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A team saw papers that said "Solvency Answers", assuming that they were the on-case Solvency takeouts for my aff.

 

They then continued to spend the entire 1NC giving 2AC addons to my affirmative. My partner went up for his 2AC and said, "Well, the negative just spent 8 minutes giving us more reasons to do the plan, so uh... Well, thanks for giving my 2AC for me."

 

The judge stopped the debate in the middle of the 2NC and said, "This debate is over. I just feel bad watching this."

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirmative read a security discourse advantage and Afghanistan stability advantage. We pointed out the contradiction and argued that we should win because the affirmative's discourse was bad. Affirmative proceeds to contradict their discourse advantage and gives analogies as "proof" that words don't matter. We responded with the standard negative arguments, told the judge that analogies aren't arguments, and extended the initial card with analysis about why the affirmative shouldn't be allowed to contradict their 1AC.

 

Judge votes aff because he "doesn't buy" the discourse argument.

 

This is what most debates were like for me last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a local tournament last year we hit an Afghanistan phase-out aff. The 2NR was reduce excludes phase-out. The 2AR was "We are topical, becuase we are topical." *sits down*

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things I've done:

 

-Gone for counter-perms as floating PIKs in the 2NR (twice, won both times)

 

 

This is supposed to be significant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worst thing that i saw, was a performance neg go horribly wrong and the debate round turned into a boxing arena

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff was sbsp. My 1NC was 3 off: 1 warming advantage CP and two DAs as NBs and solvency (the judge didn't like speed). The 2AC was around 4 minutes where they covered nothing but the counterplan, and the coverage was a perm without actually saying perm (they just said "they don't compete"), some poorly run solvency deficit, and they vaguely implied that you can't run CPs at all. I asked them about that in cx. They said, and I quote: "The negative can suggest that a counterplan might be better, but only the aff can actually propose an advocacy". The 1AR included about two minutes on how our counterplan was abusive because it had two parts (their plan had like 4 parts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff was sbsp. My 1NC was 3 off: 1 warming advantage CP and two DAs as NBs and solvency (the judge didn't like speed). The 2AC was around 4 minutes where they covered nothing but the counterplan, and the coverage was a perm without actually saying perm (they just said "they don't compete"), some poorly run solvency deficit, and they vaguely implied that you can't run CPs at all. I asked them about that in cx. They said, and I quote: "The negative can suggest that a counterplan might be better, but only the aff can actually propose an advocacy". The 1AR included about two minutes on how our counterplan was abusive because it had two parts (their plan had like 4 parts).

 

So basically, the worst thing you've ever seen was someone running theory against you?

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today in a round , i mentioned fiat, then my partner said USFG, and the opposing team got up to do her rebuttal she gets up and say " judge dont prefer thier plan because they have 2 differnt companies doing one plan they have to pick on which company they want to do thier plan"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I began our 1NC beat boxing. They answered with a CP: Beating Boxing Back.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 10

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...