Jump to content
Nonegfiat

debate cliches

Recommended Posts

Inspired by something Ryan said in a vDebate-- what do you think are some of the funniest/stupidest/worst/best/most overused cliches in the debate community?

 

Here are some on my mind:

"Their limits EXPLODE the topic"

"Even if you don't buy that..."

"We probably solve" (unnecessary use of the word 'probably')

"Capitalism is a protection racket"

"And, we outweigh on magnitude because extinction outweighs all impacts"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Case outweighs and turns the X"

"Judge ready? Partner ready? 1A? 2A? Timekeeper? Judge still ready?"

Literally anything that leads to nuclear war

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Their limits EXPLODE the topic"

 

Perhaps debaters should start playing an explosion sound effect upon the utterance of this phrase - either to emphasize their point or to discredit their opponents' hyperbolic verbiage.

 

Also, here are a few clichés, buzz words, and redundant statements that I've seen used (or misused) this year alone:

  • "They functionally conceded X."
  • "They fundamentally conceded X."
  • "They conceded X."
  • "Right now in the status quo..."
  • "That's a voter for Fairness and Education."
  • "It's try or die."
  • "FW is a new link to the K, so K precedes FW."

This little number is my favorite so far:

 

"Judge 1 ready? Judge 2 ready? Judge 3 ready? Timekeeper ready? Opponents ready? Partner ready? Audience ready?"

 

"Err - hang on, I forgot my flash drive."

 

*retrieves flash drive*

 

*scurries back up to the podium*

 

*proceeds to go through the entire list again*

Edited by CynicClinic
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Prefer our evidence-- its more recent"

 

"...(Points out some minor hole on case with minimal explanation)... and that means you vote neg on presumption"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

answering every cx question with "sure, so" even if you end up saying no

 

-Spreading (to a point where it's not understandable to the opponent but the judge gets it)

-Outlandish Ks

 

"Extinction outweighs because you can't solve X if you're dead." Bostrom 12 baby (although I prefer the Bostrom 09 evidence about parliamentary models)

 

Literally anything that leads to nuclear war

 

All of these are things I do constantly jesus I feel terrible now. I mean the Ks I run aren't too outlandish unless you count Nietzsche and Schmitty but like I've linked free speech on college campuses to nuke war.

 

that one marathon metaphor in EVERY framework round

 

.What metaphor is that? Just curious.

 

 

 

-Framing impacts as "so capitalism causes massive ontological exclusion and reduces workers to epistemological capital to be expended wantonly, that's probably bad, probably outweighs" <proceeds to do no more analysis on the impact flow> (I do this a lot)

 

-Talking about ontology and epistemology when half the people who talk about it don't know what the hell it means

 

-In the words of my good buddy Benny Cupo, "if they read a 1AC and it doesn't link to cap, is it really a 1AC?"

 

-Probably the one that I really hate, "Voter for fairness and education" <proceeds to do zero analysis on what kind of education, why it links to standards, and you know just the little things that win you the T flow> (my novices do this a lot I yell at them for it)

 

-Also if we're talking T, only ever running fairness and education as voters. Like come on guys give me something interesting like talk about accessibility, portable skills, deep learning, topic education, like goddamn make it creative.

 

-Starting every claim with "probably"

 

-Stickers on your laptop to show how cool and progressive you are

Edited by AQuackDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading pre-written blocks to every argument

 

Throwing around buzzwords, especially in k debate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-"Uniqueness overwhelms the link" 

-"and that turns the WHOLE advantage" 

-"Their perm? Another link" 

-"Now if you look to our ________ evidence" 

 

Why MO debaters are the worst------

-"Silence is compliance" in reference to anything unanswered. (I've never used this I promise, it is awful)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why MO debaters are the worst------

-"Silence is compliance" in reference to anything unanswered. (I've never used this I promise, it is awful)

 

Ever heard, "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg - even if you pick it back up, you can't put it back together?"

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard, "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg - even if you pick it back up, you can't put it back together?"

 

I heard that one once. There are a bunch of fun analogies for dropped args, the one I use is "Silence is agreement" but like I'll still say don't let them answer it because timeskew. I think my all time favorite, however, was when in our quarters round at a UIL tournament (back when I still did CX) we dropped a link on cap (which didnt really matter since we were going for cap good) the 2N said "Silence is consent.... oh shit wait... no I didn't mean... fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that one once. There are a bunch of fun analogies for dropped args, the one I use is "Silence is agreement" 

-"Silence is compliance" in reference to anything unanswered. (I've never used this I promise, it is awful)

Ever heard, "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg - even if you pick it back up, you can't put it back together?"

 

that's all so weird to me. I've never had to defend that a drop is a concession outside of "don't let them bring it back up, that's timeskew"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that one once. There are a bunch of fun analogies for dropped args, the one I use is "Silence is agreement" but like I'll still say don't let them answer it because timeskew. I think my all time favorite, however, was when in our quarters round at a UIL tournament (back when I still did CX) we dropped a link on cap (which didnt really matter since we were going for cap good) the 2N said "Silence is consent.... oh shit wait... no I didn't mean... fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck"

 

Super common phrase I've heard is "Omition = Admission" and it's pretty true, but I love seeing novice teams mention it every single speech as though it isn't already implied.

 

"Judge 1 ready? Judge 2 ready? Judge 3 ready? Timekeeper ready? Opponents ready? Partner ready? Audience ready?"

 

Novices man, it's even better when the speaker goes through the entire list and says, "Okay, 3... 2... 1... START," and then proceeds to stutter while trying to read cards/ blocks as fast as possible before they get back into a pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opponents taking their sweet time copying a speech doc cause they're trying to copy any other files on the USB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judges that vote on single issues, completely ignoring impacts, even though there was absolutely no fw in the round to support this, also judges that just listen to the aff on presumption as long as the case sounds like a good thing, even when it  links to a K, and the aff read cards to answer the wrong cp, so there was literally no reason to even flow it

tl;dr lay judges that don't understand simple impact calc

no offense to good lay judges

Edited by AlistairTheKDebater
uh can we not swear here? it said it was hidden and that's the only reason i could think of for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×