Jump to content
Latke

Worst T Debate Of All Time

Recommended Posts

Notes:  This thread will be a competition to see who on this forum has been in the worst T debate of all time.  (This could be expanded to just worst round of all time if things are going that way).  Disclaimer:  I am not trying to be trolly or mean, I just like funny debate stories.  For this reason, I will refrain from posting specifics (names, schools, etc.)  Just know that I debate in Indiana and people there are not the best at arguing3 T.  

 

My two contenders:

 

1.  We a team that had probably just moved up to varsity and they're running GPS with some pretty bad agriculture and heg-ish advantages.  We run T on "transportation infrastructure" (something like excludes military/security), an XO counterplan with a fiscal cliff NB, and some generic advantage/impact defense (my partner doesn't spread nor does anyone really here).  The 2A gets up and reads 3 definitions of just "infrastructure," with no standards, and concedes competing interpretations and jurisdiction.  So I go for like 3-4 min of T in the 2NC just extending some standards and doing some impact work.  In the 1AR they try to say that their interp is better because they had 3 definitions.  The judge voted neg on T.  

 

2.  In a similar situation at the next tournament.  We're hitting inland waterways for the first time this year.  As the 1AC is reading, I'm scanning over some of our case neg, which I cut all the way back at the beginning of the season, and I realize that most of it is shit.  So I'm basically like "bitch, pleaze, who needs case neg?"  So the 1NC is 3 off (probably the most off ever run at an Indiana tournament) with T-Capital Expenditure (cause they were only maintaining and repairing), a P3 CP, fiscal discipline disad, and a bit of case defense.  The 2AC gets up and reads 1 card from Tolstoy saying words have no definite meaning on T and then moves on.  So I'm like "Ok, words have no definite meaning, so we should have a system to decide which meaning is most appropriate, aka competing interps," then I do a big overview and make some extensions.  In the 1AR, they finally read a counterinterp, but they don't actually meet their own counterinterp and they still have no standards.  We ended up winning on T against inland waterways, which is one of the novice case areas in my state.  

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We ended up winning on T against inland waterways, which is one of the novice case areas in my state.  

 

Just because it's a novice case area doesn't mean it's topical, especially depending on the plantext

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because it's a novice case area doesn't mean it's topical, especially depending on the plantext

Oh I agree completely.  I just thought it was funny because they were literally reading one of the most common affs possible with the default plan text that was in the file.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once i watched a novice debate where one team dropped one of the two Ts in the 2AC, but the judge was so angry at how bad Neg ran it that he wouldn't vote on it.  He voted Neg on two dropped DAs and a dropped turned advantage, but still....

Also, JV semis at Gonz this year consisted of one team getting trashed on every arguement, not responding to states CP theory, changing the status of their CP in the block, and winning on T(Fuck you NIB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ran T saying we were in last years resolution and won because they had no ev saying what the topic was.

That is probably the most amazing thing I've ever heard.  What did the judge and your opponents have to say?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS REMINDS me of the Berkeley round last year of why the judge voted against us on T because she was a TOPICALITY hack and wouldn't really give a shit about other arguments than topicality. WE LITERALLY SHOWED HER EXAMPLES OF WHY THERE WAS NO IN ROUND ABUSE BY THE AFF, then the neg kicked their spending da which had a link specific card to SPS. She voted on T although there was no potential abuse, and she said quote on quote" Oh, they did a really smart thing there kicking that spending disad, that means that there is abuse". After the round, I WAS LIKE WHAT THE FLYING F IS THIS BULLS**T. Her credientials of judging Berkeley varsity debate was being a 1 year novice in college debate running theory/t every round and breaking at some crappy college tournaments. If Berkeley had preferences last year, and I found out, she would have been striked off that list for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is probably the most amazing thing I've ever heard.  What did the judge and your opponents have to say?

Judge knew my coach so mind round text him saying if I vote for your team on this T I am going to be pissed. Then in the RFD was basically get a definition and he would have voted aff if they had attack the card saying 2011-2012 and explained how the resolution last one year and we are in the new topic year. But they didn't and Judge ranted at me for a bit about how bad the argument was and prepared teams would crush it, I got horrible speaks that round but was still fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I debated [what appeared to be] a first-time Varsity team with a former debater judging. Our opponents read a Roundabouts aff (their advantages were "saving time, saving money, and saving the environment") and specified a funding mechanism, so we ran extra-T. They mishandled the T arg (and just about everything else), so we won the round.

 

The judge's oral critique, however, contained the following words: "And, um, on their funding mechanism....You guys should have run O-SPEC. They linked hard into O-SPEC."

 

The ballot: wytAJ69.jpg

 

I also debated a team at camp a couple years ago whose 2AC on T consisted of two "we meet" args.

 

At camp. Where your 2ACs are written out for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we kick the terror advantage then are we topical?" (the neg read a CP without a NB and only read defense against our terror advantage, their violation was just us having a terror advantage, so I wanted to see if I could get easy upper ground)

Answer: "Yes"

Kicked terror and went for other advantages, 2NC answer to the Perm on the counterplan was that the perm made us untopical. 2NR was CP and T on the perm, also dropped 3 solvency deficits. 

 

Oh our aff was GPS as well, and OP's post about GPS sounds eerily like my labs camp file, except without our T blocks lol

 

Anyways, my partner this year went with a different partner to one tournament with a lay speed cameras aff. One team read 10 definitions of the word substantial, so substantial meant 2% 5% 20% 90% etc. No standards. 2NC was just more definitions. Another round they had a team read 5 definitions of the word transportation infrastructure, 4 of which they met, and one of which was "road and rails". No standards.

 

One neg round in cx: "Does substantial mean the same thing as significant?" The team (a roundabouts aff) had suddenly realized they had no definition of the word substantial, only of the word significant. 

 

I have some more, I just can't remember them right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run bridges. Told me I was non-topical because of my funding mechanism (for the record, not deficit) and proceeded to try and run a Credit Downgrade DA. Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one: A round I had to debate maverick (partner sick) at camp, the 2AC is legit on T, and my 2NC was okay on T, unfortunately as I only knew I was debating maverick like 5 minutes before the round my computer died in the 1NR right when I was about to dump a ton of cards on PTX (all I read off of it before it died was the overview, which was the only part I didn't need the computer for). The 1AR's answer to T was "we're obviously reasonably topical, so you can't vote on T because were obviously reasonably topical." drops everything else plus like 6 reasonability bad warrants, and moves on to politics. He spends 3 minutes of his 1AR on PTX, when he literally just had to extend one of the 5 arguments I didn't have good responses to because my computer died. Easiest 2NR ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I run bridges. Told me I was non-topical because of my funding mechanism (for the record, not deficit) and proceeded to try and run a Credit Downgrade DA. Fail.

*clarification: this was not me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my two favorite things that people do in debate

a) Run substantial T and spending

B) Run Transportation infrastructure T and DAs with generic links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once i was running VMT this year, and they ran OSEC(they misunderstood the case, VMT is the plan, not the funding mech) and one of their standards was that they couldn't get a link to politics.  This is with a plan that raises taxes. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, my partner this year went with a different partner to one tournament with a lay speed cameras aff.

Hmm... haven't heard of that one before. Is it similar to my flow speed cameras aff?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyways, my partner this year went with a different partner to one tournament with a lay speed cameras aff. One team read 10 definitions of the word substantial, so substantial meant 2% 5% 20% 90% etc. No standards. 2NC was just more definitions. Another round they had a team read 5 definitions of the word transportation infrastructure, 4 of which they met, and one of which was "road and rails". No standards.

Same tournament we had a team that read a definition that substantial meant the aff had to be a certain number of watts. Yes, watts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... haven't heard of that one before. Is it similar to my flow speed cameras aff?

Just without the international law advantage (enforcement k2 ilaw; EXTINCTION) and some story time at the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just without the international law advantage (enforcement k2 ilaw; EXTINCTION) and some story time at the beginning.

Why would you take out the advantage from the military topic which makes absolutely no sense in the context of speed cameras? That's like the only extinction impact dood you need it!

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...