Jump to content
Ozmanks

What's the worst argument you've lost upon this year?

Recommended Posts

A team was running a "give grants to companies who go over to China and have a joint R&D venture with Alternative energies between the U.S. and China". We ran topicality and I'm not lying whatsoever when the 2 AC justifies having multiple alternative energies with a debate-central definition that said "alternative energy can come from sources including wave, solar, wind, etc.". (On top of that this was the first time ever they mentioned what alternative energies they were going to be using.) He then proceeds to rant on about how it is topical. How the heck they even won that round is beyond comprehension. BTW, if anyone was guessing it might be Sumner academy, then you'd be correct.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A team was running a "give grants to companies who go over to China and have a joint R&D venture with Alternative energies between the U.S. and China". We ran topicality and I'm not lying whatsoever when the 2 AC justifies having multiple alternative energies with a debate-central definition that said "alternative energy can come from sources including wave, solar, wind, etc.". (On top of that this was the first time ever they mentioned what alternative energies they were going to be using.) He then proceeds to rant on about how it is topical. How the heck they even won that round is beyond comprehension. BTW, if anyone was guessing it might be Sumner academy, then you'd be correct.

 

um, not to burst your bubble or anything but that's not crazy. a team from gbs runs a china coop aff, as well as some other schools, and i believe northwestern and some other camps put that aff (that's just checking back the part that it's out of nowhere). the resolution's object (incentives) has to be in the united states, but it doesn't specify that the alternative energies provided by the incentives have to be in the united states which allows things like this and SPS to be topical. in this case, they give credits to American companies who engage in china coop with alternative energy. yes, there are some T problems, but nothing that's not unwinnable. china coop affs somehow scrounge themselves onto every topic, simply because the impacts are phenomenal and it's hard to CP out (i don't remember who ran one on national service, but it was there, and i'm sure many recall damien's china med teams aff from last year as well)

 

finally, not specifying which alt energies isn't particularly strange. RPS is probably the most widely run aff (or at least in the top five for sure), and nearly everyone running an RPS doesn't specify which alternative energies are used. you can feel free to run a specification argument (if you want links to specific AEs for DAs or PICs) but that doesn't change the fact that many affs don't specify which renewables they use (net metering is another example of this)

 

however, i do not debate in your circuit and therefore these things might not happen there (not being insulting - maybe it's common for affs to specify there, which isn't a good or bad thing).

 

 

oh, and to answer your question probably a der derian Kritik, even though that's not a particularly horrible argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um, not to burst your bubble or anything but that's not crazy. a team from gbs runs a china coop aff, as well as some other schools, and i believe northwestern and some other camps put that aff (that's just checking back the part that it's out of nowhere). the resolution's object (incentives) has to be in the united states, but it doesn't specify that the alternative energies provided by the incentives have to be in the united states which allows things like this and SPS to be topical. in this case, they give credits to American companies who engage in china coop with alternative energy. yes, there are some T problems, but nothing that's not unwinnable. china coop affs somehow scrounge themselves onto every topic, simply because the impacts are phenomenal and it's hard to CP out (i don't remember who ran one on national service, but it was there, and i'm sure many recall damien's china med teams aff from last year as well)

 

finally, not specifying which alt energies isn't particularly strange. RPS is probably the most widely run aff (or at least in the top five for sure), and nearly everyone running an RPS doesn't specify which alternative energies are used. you can feel free to run a specification argument (if you want links to specific AEs for DAs or PICs) but that doesn't change the fact that many affs don't specify which renewables they use (net metering is another example of this)

 

however, i do not debate in your circuit and therefore these things might not happen there (not being insulting - maybe it's common for affs to specify there, which isn't a good or bad thing).

 

 

oh, and to answer your question probably a der derian Kritik, even though that's not a particularly horrible argument.

 

That's one of the things that pisses me off about this year's topic: it's so wide open. Running topicality almost never works on most cases, because the judge is too stupid to realize what a topicality argument and most of the time those that do understand are so sick and tired of hearing topicality being brought up. I honestly thought this year's topic was going to be a good topic, but then you get teams and camps that produce topics so wildly outrageous that you're at disadvantage if you go neg three times in a tournament. I fucking can't take anymore of this bullshit that the aff. teams are allowed to run and then the judges side with them if you say it does not apply to this year's topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one of the things that pisses me off about this year's topic: it's so wide open. Running topicality almost never works on most cases, because the judge is too stupid to realize what a topicality argument and most of the time those that do understand are so sick and tired of hearing topicality being brought up. I honestly thought this year's topic was going to be a good topic, but then you get teams and camps that produce topics so wildly outrageous that you're at disadvantage if you go neg three times in a tournament. I fucking can't take anymore of this bullshit that the aff. teams are allowed to run and then the judges side with them if you say it does not apply to this year's topic.

Topicality works your just not very good at it. Me and my partner have won multiple rounds on Topicality including Nuclear isn't topical. Your explanation of what happened seems to tell me that you are rather inexpereinced and lost a round and now you are pissed off at judges because you don't know how to negate very well.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one of the things that pisses me off about this year's topic: it's so wide open. Running topicality almost never works on most cases, because the judge is too stupid to realize what a topicality argument and most of the time those that do understand are so sick and tired of hearing topicality being brought up. I honestly thought this year's topic was going to be a good topic, but then you get teams and camps that produce topics so wildly outrageous that you're at disadvantage if you go neg three times in a tournament. I fucking can't take anymore of this bullshit that the aff. teams are allowed to run and then the judges side with them if you say it does not apply to this year's topic.

 

Honestly, the only T's that seem to make sense on this topic are about the word incentive, whether they can be positive, negative or mandates. You kind of have to deal with and accept that most affs are actually topical this year. There are a few that are on the fringe of being T like nuclear or RPS, but for the most part, you can boil this topic down to a few key areas and there are just a few affs that seem overwhelmingly popular (I've hit space and nuke several times already).

 

Even if you dont have a specific case neg, don't count yourself out. Read impact defense to their scenarios and read politics or another generic disad. Add the 50 states CP and you have a decent generic strategy.

 

I've actually found being neg to be relatively easy on this topic. I've only debated 3 tournaments this year, so I could be completely way off.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nick vail winning a round? what is this nonsense?

 

j/k.

 

but seriously, ozmanks, this production of new affirmatives is what makes the topic interesting. how fun would be debating the same wind or solar aff be round after round? it's always hard to be neg early on in the topic because of the seemingly unlimited affs - stick to your generics like states/politics and/or K of preference, and keep the T file out and handy for most things but don't go for it as the A strat - it doesn't sound very welcome in your area, which although sounds unfortunate, is something you should probably adapt to. Being neg will get easier as the year goes on and you start prepping specifics to teams around your area. I'd say it's a bit too early to give up on the topic in October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday at league (this being Northern California, 95% of judges are parents), I hit feed-in tariffs. They specified that their enforcement and implementation was through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions - and they used this to try and spike out of my federalism disad.

 

The 2NR was 5 minutes of T-Federal Government. The 2AR was 4:30 answering the stuff I kicked and :30 of answer T-FG. I lost. The ballot was amusing, though: "I thought the aff had the better-rounded argument so therefore I give them the win."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost on t - throughout running a very specific natives aff

 

but my partner and i win frequently on t - resolved, so i can't complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First tournament of the year, with a first year partner. One of our teams hits this "Breeder Reactor CP" in pre-lims and I catch wind of it but I brush it off like w/e, perm it its not competitive.

We break to Sems and we hit this team, they run this on my aff, (I run Brazilian Ethanol) it solves literally ZERO of my case, they claim NO net benefits from this, and their a2 the perm was that they had handwritten while they were speaking a plank 2 that said "and ban all other alternative energy" so I just went for the straight up Perm the plank 1 where they get all the offence from, we o/w yada yada. In the end, I pick up the policy judge ballot and I lose the two lay judge ballots and I lose the round in sems... :(

I was embarrassed and dissapointed with myself.

But someone has to have something better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First tournament of the year, with a first year partner. One of our teams hits this "Breeder Reactor CP" in pre-lims and I catch wind of it but I brush it off like w/e, perm it its not competitive.

We break to Sems and we hit this team, they run this on my aff, (I run Brazilian Ethanol) it solves literally ZERO of my case, they claim NO net benefits from this, and their a2 the perm was that they had handwritten while they were speaking a plank 2 that said "and ban all other alternative energy" so I just went for the straight up Perm the plank 1 where they get all the offence from, we o/w yada yada. In the end, I pick up the policy judge ballot and I lose the two lay judge ballots and I lose the round in sems... :(

I was embarrassed and dissapointed with myself.

But someone has to have something better than that.

 

Some friends are my team are really good legit champ debaters. They lost 3 prelim rounds at Whitman because of lay judges that were saying "i've never judged policy before. I dont know why tab put me to judge champ policy." They lost a round when they were aff. The judge voted on a similar CP scenario. Dumb eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Lost because we were wearing chill clothes.

2) Lost on an impact (that they were running) that was from 99 and was referencing a war that could've happened in 99... but didn't....wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lost a round at a local tournament because of a rather complicated decision. We were aff.

2NC- CP/politics

1NR- T, case

1AR- answers everything

2NR- cp/politics

2AR- answers cp/politics

 

Decision: I vote neg, the 2AR doesn't answer T and its in the negative rebuttals, its not in the 2NR but its in the 1NR. The aff meets the T, but it needs to be answered in the 2AR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Lost because we were wearing chill clothes.

 

Tell me you're joking. Not like lost speaks but lost?

 

That's some cold shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me you're joking. Not like lost speaks but lost?

 

That's some cold shit.

 

yah, already started a thread about it. But yes, lost. Rfd's in our league are usually "its hard to take you seriously when it looks like u just got home from a part" (wearing a collared shirt with a tie *not button up*)" or "organization". The second rfd was at a final round of a supposed "invitational" wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My kids lost a round early today:

 

1ac is sps <we are aff>

2nr is multilat/ hege

2ar unilat hege key to us primacy/kagan.....no n/b to cp....

 

 

 

Rfd: I really dont think hege should ahve been in the 2ar but good round....wtf....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This interesting trade permits aff that I fought against, and lost twice to

 

They only have one advantage, which is CO2 emissions causes global warming, but a ton of solvency/impacts, 4 or 5 issues i believe. The 1AC is full of evidence on how global warming exists, making it a strong advantage, and the impacts are numerous, but weak on their own. Going for global warming isnt real is bad because they have it well defended, but going for the impacts is also bad because they have too many to cover in the constructives. Either way you go in on case, you'll lose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My kids lost a round early today:

 

1ac is sps <we are aff>

2nr is multilat/ hege

2ar unilat hege key to us primacy/kagan.....no n/b to cp....

 

 

 

Rfd: I really dont think hege should ahve been in the 2ar but good round....wtf....

 

maybe im not getting this, but, are you telling us the aff went for a heg advantage and thats somehow twisted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol ya, neg argued that unilat was bad. We said that is the only i/l to kagan via US primacy and then ans the random layne cards. The 2ar was more of the same and the judge said hege should not have been so much in the 2ar, although thats virtually the only adv we have besides space col and we went for that too...kinda confusing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

condo bad..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ratify Kyoto Protocol.

 

We run cap and trade.

 

Talk about humiliating. x_x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost to XO CP with congress bad da. We were running an aff requiring a new law to be passed. Partner (novice) didn't make a perm or address the solvency deficit in XO (XO can NOT pass my plan). Edit: They only got uniqueness out in the 1NC, brought up the rest of the DA in 2NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...