Jump to content
zeeman48

Multiple T's Bad?

Recommended Posts

A couple of times during the year I've had my opponents read, like, 8 T blocks in the 1NC and then just a couple generic DA's.

 

What I'm wondering is if I could read a block that basically says multiple T arguments are bad because topicality is meant to be used when someone has a blatantly off-topic case and so the neg is just trying to use T as a time suck to avoid having to actually debate. It's definitely not a round winner, but it might be useful. What do y'all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask them for one aff that meets all 8.

make other consistency args.

use a few cross-applicable args, like reasonability, t isn't a voter, etc.

the multiple T args bad isn't as strong of an arg, but if you expand it with analysis about why it favors the neg (block, shells = short, no offense, etc.) it might work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw this thread and then below, "Worst thing you've ever seen done in a round" and thought "This."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Destroyer 1717 ask them in cx to name one case that meets all 8 T violations. Then assuming you have a T case in the 2AC group all of the T’s read a CI to all of there definitions with a we meet our CI err aff on T the Neg will always try to find definition to exclude any aff. Which is by itself abuse if we really are T. They are the definition of this abuse which is horrible for debate because they eliminate education about the topic and limit us to a theory debate.

Just for the record the reason there were 4 duplicate posts was because cx kept saying try again later and didn't show it as posted something about server busy. And someone neg reped me for that like it was obviously on purpose. That kind of thing wants me to just not engage kids on any level. Go a head neg rep me for this too.

Edited by Robbgray
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are extremely unreasonable t args that are just stupid than call them

Out on that. Say something like judge this t arg is extremely unreasonable and that it should be completely disregarded for that reason alone, than preceed to answer it. My partner and i had a team run a just plain stupid t arg against us and the judge disregarded it cuz we said it was unreasonable and just plain stupid. It works :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think that if a team is running multiple T's it's because they want to waste time, so they use it as a filler. It could be strategic in some ways-it's worked for me and against me in a number of rounds.

 

However, many times you can see that the T's may actually be in common in some way or another, and you can argue the fact that it's stupid and not educational to have, for example, 3 different T's that are basically saying the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha...I remember my first couple years doing policy debate in Houston, TX. Me and my partner used to do this. We'd run a ridiculous number of T violations every round. Now I realize how stupid it was, and as a judge (7 years later) I always tell students, when discussing my paradigm, that I will not tolerate time-suck T's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year was my firdt year in debate and i did it once or twice, but i didn't really know better, but i think if you run 1,2, or 3 isn't too bad. But anymore is abusive. Some times this many T's are used to be an strategy in order to get to get your opponent to say something or in order to question solvency within the plan.

 

Usually when the Neg runs so much T blocks in the 1NC then it's a time suck. Some Aff. voters can be Time Suck, Ruins clash (debatability), as well as education. Then say judge this is why you shut out these T's give the voters dadadadad.... and so on.

 

But I would advise the strategy if you actually have the strategy going on in the round or if you don't have any Neg strat on the team and if you don't have many K's or DA's or any solvency. But don't if you aren't in this position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you read more than 3 Ts, chances are:

 

1) They are terrible arguments

2) The aff has nothing to do with the resolution

 

Judges will KNOW it's a timesuck -- and you might get killed by a RVI (reverse voting issue). Abuse, wasting speech time (education), etc.

 

I suggest 1-3 Ts in the 1NC but go for the best one in the 2NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just run a reverse no voter and say that T is a time skew and then if they drop one bring it back up and say see they dropped it proving our time skew argument, this way they have keep all the Ts thus making it easy to win on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just run a reverse no voter and say that T is a time skew and then if they drop one bring it back up and say see they dropped it proving our time skew argument, this way they have keep all the Ts thus making it easy to win on them

Sorry I couldn't find "time skews" in the debate rulebook. Mind explaining what constitutes them and how they can objectively be evaluated?

 

If someone is not topical on multiple fronts, they shouldn't be running that affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Destroyer1717 is right. If they can name one aff that fits all T's, then they're legit to pull that kinda time suck...

 

A time suck argument would prolly be your other best bet. Be all like, "We shouldn't have to tolerate more than (insert your threshold # of T violations max) Topicalities in one round, because it takes less than thirty seconds to read two Topicality arguments, however it takes more than a minute to read one topicality block."

 

but i'm sure you already know that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you read more than 3 Ts, chances are:

 

1) They are terrible arguments

2) The aff has nothing to do with the resolution

 

Judges will KNOW it's a timesuck -- and you might get killed by a RVI (reverse voting issue). Abuse, wasting speech time (education), etc.

 

I suggest 1-3 Ts in the 1NC but go for the best one in the 2NR.

 

 

No judges will vote on an RVI. I mean, i understand what you mean, it is abusive, but NO legit judges will vote on an RVI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dont understand how its abusive to run 3 or 4 Ts if a case is actually up for debate on 3 or 4 Ts. If its really that nontopical, why are the people still running it? How is it different than 3 disads? Might say, "dude we can stick you with offense and stuff, bro" but if you have 8 minutes of offense from the 1AC, you're going to spend less time on the disads in the 2AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's really that non-topical it isn't abusive. But what if it is topical. Then more than x T's, put your counter interpretation here, is abusive because it is bad for debate because we are debating theory instead of the topic. And unlike a DA, in a normal judge paradigm, the Aff really can't get any offense. See my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be good to say something like that. But I honestly think it's kinda like whining. I run into sorta the same thing but they ran 12 DA's and they all had the same Impact. So me and my partner destroyed the Impact and then without an impact we outweighed with our AD's. then we debated what they had to say in the 2, which was crap!

 

The same with T's they have to have the same standards either OSPEC (overspcification) or USPEC (underspecification). Since they have exactly the same standards attack them. Then you have a lot of time to debate about one thing instead of spewing to your poor judge. Plus if they like running T then they probably have alot of practice with arguing the definitions. So don't debate the definitions, debate what's not normal and throw them off balance. If they have OSPEC and USPEC standards in the same speech then run some block saying that USPEC and OSPEC kill fair debate.

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...