Jump to content
mdawgig

Funniest Cross-Xs (Questions, Answers, etc...)

Recommended Posts

...

Him: What exactly is your plan doing?

Me: Lifting the ban on foreign aid to countries that use DDT.

Him: No further questions... Oh wait, I have one: Can you believe it's not butter?

Me: I cannot.

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(He was running an expand the UN-AU Hybrid Peacekeeping Mission in Sudan; she ran a counterplan that the special ops would destroy all Sudanese planes, solving for airstrikes.)

Him: Wait. So the counterplan text is, what again?

Her: The Special Ops will destroy Sudanese planes.

Him: How will they not get caught?

Her: They're Special Ops.

Him: And this solves for my advantages better ... how?

Her: We should just let the Special Ops do it. Sudan won't even know they're there. That's why they're called "Special Ops." They do it at like ... night.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this CP to work last year, because it really wasn't competitive unless you went with perms are severance.

The first question you had to ask was,

"does your plan support pedophilia?" It was pretty funny

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For this CP to work last year, because it really wasn't competitive unless you went with perms are severance.

 

um

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were going against these two really stupid chicks- this is how the cross-x went down.

 

Me- You advocate more nuclear reactors right?

 

1AC- Yeah, sure.

 

Me- How will you get rid of the waste?

 

1AC- We'll put it in the trash.

 

In the 1AC my partner read a China turn for Clean Coal

 

1AC- Do you advocate clean coal?

 

My partner- yes

 

1AC- Is Germany okay with that?

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Curses!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After answering that we need to specify a goverment branch. (I was a novice and had no answers)

 

End of 2AC

 

Me: Cause the goverment is like a wheely-chair, it has leg, a seat, wheels, and that back post dinger. Without 1 part, it wouldn't be a chair, it would be a stool or a non-wheely chair. So I don't have to specify, we use all the goverment.

 

CX:

Neg: So how exacty is a chair similar to our goverment

 

Me: Its made up of different parts and it doesn't really do much besides sit there...

 

 

Another time after running Heidegger against their SPS nanotech...

 

Aff maverick: So, are you calling me racist against humanity?

 

Me:No, just that you

-partner interruption- (Blurry Heel) LAWL!

Partner: YES!!! YOU ARE RACIST AGAINST HUMANITY!

 

 

The Aff went on to scream RACIST!!! about 33 times in his next 2 speeches...

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX of 1AC:

Me: Can you specify exactly how many babies you save.

Them: Our evidence gives no exact number to the amount of babies.

Me: Oh so you dont actually save any babies

Them: Well our Mead evidence indicates that there would be lots of death, so that would include babies.

Me: So if i showed you that no babes would be harmed do i win the impact?

Partner of them: No babies are just one group we isolate that will die. Many other groups will die.

Me: So how many will die in all?

Them: Lots of people will die unless we get this plan passed. Without the plan everybody dies ok the world would be covered in the blood of thousands!. And does this have any importance in this debate.

Me: Why yes it does. it establishes how my K bites you in the ass.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX of 1ac im neg

Me: so is cow power inherent

Him: i don't know

Me: What the hell

Him: i don't really care, it doesn't matter if a plans inherrent, IT SOLVE'S so could you stop asking so ridiculous questions

 

Thank you east bakersfield

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember when we run substantial= 60% and then we say that in cross-x they said they were substantially increasing 12%. Then they say in the 2ac that they were substantially increasing 16% so it doesnt matter, they didnt redefine or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CX of 1ac im neg

Me: so is cow power inherent

Him: i don't know

Me: What the hell

Him: i don't really care, it doesn't matter if a plans inherrent, IT SOLVE'S so could you stop asking so ridiculous questions

 

Thank you east bakersfield

 

i really hope this was your neg strat:

 

"The aff case is like a 5 story building. Each story is called a 'stock issue'. Now, just like with a building, if one of the floors collapses, the entire building falls. This is why in cross examination my esteemed opponent lost the debate, by conceding that their case is not inherent."

 

Inherency wins championships.

 

;)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They never said anything against our arguments, they extended their case the whole round.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CX of 1AC:

Me: Can you specify exactly how many babies you save.

Them: Our evidence gives no exact number to the amount of babies.

Me: Oh so you dont actually save any babies

Them: Well our Mead evidence indicates that there would be lots of death, so that would include babies.

Me: So if i showed you that no babes would be harmed do i win the impact?

Partner of them: No babies are just one group we isolate that will die. Many other groups will die.

Me: So how many will die in all?

Them: Lots of people will die unless we get this plan passed. Without the plan everybody dies ok the world would be covered in the blood of thousands!. And does this have any importance in this debate.

Me: Why yes it does. it establishes how my K bites you in the ass.

 

oh god please don't tell me you were running Edelman....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is this? Explain

 

what is edelman? or why am i hoping you don't run it?

 

i guess i'll answer both questions

 

to the best of my knowledge, i believe edelman is an author who says we focus on children as the future, and stop living our own lives subsequently. Some kids on my team ran it as a "fuck the future" gag rule aff last year

 

the reason i'm hoping you don't run it is that it seems like one of those uber-generic nonsense k's. [especially with the name "fuck the future"] it was a joke, but did have some truth to it [those same kids ran a beadrillard water aff]

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TDP Parody of capitolism Aff, I was Neg. To counter the parody we read a card from the Onion saying that a senator had put a bill into legislation that would level Yellowstone and turn it into a giant golf course. It was to show that the government would be to stupid to notice their plan would be a parody and pass the plan which would lead to more capitalism. So then C/X comes.

 

Them: How is the Onion qualified?

Me: They are authors in college, they are smart and know what they are talking about.

 

Them: How can you prove Yellowstone will be leveled?

Me: Our Onion card indicates that it will happen by 2010 (or 2011, don't remember)

 

Them: Well, I have been there in the last 2 years and I haven't seen a golf course, how can you prove this?

Me: Lol.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason i'm hoping you don't run it is that it seems like one of those uber-generic nonsense k's. [especially with the name "fuck the future"] it was a joke, but did have some truth to it [those same kids ran a beadrillard water aff]

Edelman is actually very, very specific and nongeneric. Generic is advocating an alternative like "let being be" or "break through the wall". Edelman's call for eliminating the future through removing ourselves from the possibility of it is pretty specific compared to those things.

 

Oh, and Baudrillard.

  • Upvote 3

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...