Jump to content
MELE-MEL

Worst thing you've ever seen done in a round

Recommended Posts

In an LD round, the resolution was Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. I was aff. The neg's argument basically created a plan whereby there was a sliding scale of punishments for crimes depending on age, but of course she had the typical prefrontal cortex stuff too. I decided for some reason or another that the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to argue against her plan was to say that because the prefrontal cortex wasn't developed until 21 and her maximum penalties were reached at 18+, it was unjust to sentence those between the ages of 18 and 21 to the harshest sentences because their prefrontal cortex wasn't developed.

Somehow, I won the round.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was last week. The aff was ASATs. The negative team ran Beneath the Neon (k of ignoring structual violence), A Baudrillard No Truth D-Porn style impact takeout, and a card saying the rapture already happened so there is no impact to the aff. The 2AR was this kid giving a stereotypical "black" sermon, and the role of the ballot was not to see who won, but choose between heaven and hell. And since the aff team were both Christians and the neg team were athiest, they solve the role of the ballot. It was funny but it made me hate life

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine was last week. The aff was ASATs. The negative team ran Beneath the Neon (k of ignoring structual violence), A Baudrillard No Truth D-Porn style impact takeout, and a card saying the rapture already happened so there is no impact to the aff. The 2AR was this kid giving a stereotypical "black" sermon, and the role of the ballot was not to see who won, but choose between heaven and hell. And since the aff team were both Christians and the neg team were athiest, they solve the role of the ballot. It was funny but it made me hate life

 

What the fuck did I just read?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the worst thing i have ever seen done yet keyword yet is when in the first cross-ex after i had said we were cutting from dod and doe for NASA they said and i quote "you didn't specify the other programs will you cut from NASA

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the worst thing i have ever seen done yet keyword yet is when in the first cross-ex after i had said we were cutting from dod and doe for NASA they said and i quote "you didn't specify the other programs will you cut from NASA

 

So a team lied? Well I have to say, if this is one of those KC area lay tournaments, that's how they're all doing it now.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't lying. They assumed that he was defending stealing funding from more parts of the government than he explicitly said he would be taking funding from. When someone says "we'll take funding from the DoD" it's weird to assume that they're taking funding from the DoD and some other group.

 

I think part of the reason his post belongs in this thread is that he bothered to specify his funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I read cap against a team. The 2ac was literally just perm cards without a perm, cap solves overpopulation, and indites of Zizek by miscontextualizing the Zizek article where he admires Heidegger for sticking to the political beliefs that his philosophy asserted or something like that and read a card that we have to defend authorial representations.

 

The 2a attempts to go for an "implied perm" in his 2ar after I made him look like an ass in cross-x when I asked why I don't have a perm on my flow. And then he also tried to say that they don't have to frame the ballot because they're the aff, even though it was the first mention of how to frame the ballot from their side in the round.

 

We won on a 2-1. The squirrel judge voted aff because he managed to do the pen flip once before the round was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an Aff round, I was running debris, and the Neg ran a Debris DA.

CX - "So you're saying that space debris is a significant threat?" "Absolutely!"

 

Against a generic 'Explore Titan' Aff with a random funding mechanism ('eliminate the $1 coin'), we ran T on 'space,' Extra-T on the funding, a Tradeoff DA, and a Leadership impact turn. In the 2NC I kicked the Tradeoff DA to link as an abuse story on the Extra-T, and in the 2NR I went for just the T and the turn (kicked Extra-T). One judge voted for us because of the Extra-T which we kicked, and another voted us down because our T definition was "ridiculous" (the impact turn was not mentioned on the ballot, and the Aff's only standard was 'dictionary definitions good'; they conceded limits).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the 2NR I went for just the T and the turn

 

You went for T and case? That's almost as bad as the judges' RFDs...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst/most epic move ever: my partner and i were running a space weaponization case that involved research, development, and implementation. I forgot to say implementation in the plan text, so of course the 1N was like 4 min of T on "beyond". During the cx of the 1AC and my 1AR, I used most of the time convincing them that I had said implement and they should drop T. They did and we won. The judge said he would have voted for them if they had extended T.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard the worst thing I'm GOING to see in a round.

While facebook chatting with my squadmate about nat quals, he tells me that he has a VC pair and two observations, which are:

V: Util

C: Preserving life

O1: Definitions

O2: "Kritiks are fucking gay"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard the worst thing I'm GOING to see in a round.

While facebook chatting with my squadmate about nat quals, he tells me that he has a VC pair and two observations, which are:

V: Util

C: Preserving life

O1: Definitions

O2: "Kritiks are fucking gay"

 

Maybe he can use that as his response when he gets Gendered Language and Ableism run on him.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was this one time where a team went for just NASA bad case defense that didn't address the particular warrants of my case and a spending case turn that they dropped the link turn and impact defense on throughout the round in their 2nr.

 

Oh right, that was at 5A UIL State. A competition of only the best -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. 'A' means:

Random House Dictionary

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006, online, www.dictionary.com

"any [or] a single"

Therefore proving that deadly force can be permissible is sufficient grounds to affirm. Negatives must prove universality to sufficiently negate, ambiguity triggers presumption, meaning my textual burden is to prove one instance of good.

 

I hate this, Dr. Love. You are a cruel soul. I've spent the past 15 minutes with a headache because of the grammatical hoops I've had to jump through to answer this.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this, Dr. Love. You are a cruel soul. I've spent the past 15 minutes with a headache because of the grammatical hoops I've had to jump through to answer this.

<3

this is the douchiest interp I've ever run, except for that squirrel case where I defined 'domestic violence' as violence within states and then said repressing internal insurrection was permissible by governments

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly a worst ting in round, but funny: We were at a local tournament and my dad was judging for the first time...ever. He had never seen a round before. So, of course, that have him judging varsity policy (space topic). The aff was space telescopes. 1nc was some generic disads and topicality. After that, the debate consisted of several theory args (not really theory, just each team accusing the other of abuse) and each team saying that the other was falsifying evidence. He was a bit taken-aback. Also, later that tournament, he told 2 people in an LD round to chill cuz they were screaming in CX.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff reads their 1ac.

 

Our Neg strat was like case and 3 off (Mil, Debris, and some crappy T)

 

2ac: they read T violation against themselves with similar standards and same voters as us.

 

2nc: well they agree they are untopcial and its a voter *big grin*

Judge: "Ok the debate is over. pack up your stuff"

 

AND the judge gave us low speaks because we didnt finish the round and we didnt break to elims because of speaks....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our novice team was like geez why don't we run aspec and ospec so they can't answer both? (plus a gendered discourse kritik with the link that the aff said mankind when they didn't.) Our coach was pissed.

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...