Jump to content
Haxor4ril

Worst CX you've witnessed.

Recommended Posts

Who are you to say that the only kritiks of T are Foucaultian(sp)? That is a bullshitty call, and a poor one at that. He does make the argument that linguistics is one of the many ways that "Pax Americana" is spreading. His argument is that language is a form of metaphysical violence. I am sure that others know the argument better, but don't underestimate authors and their work.

 

Also, Spanos is very open about his kritik in academia debate and how it is out of context. His email is on the website. Now, the debate over "should emails be in debate rounds" is a different story.

 

I never said that kritiks of T are limited to foucault. What I was saying is that Spanos doesn't have a problem with bracketing kritik in the context of a resolution. Foucault argues for a form of constant criticism that might encourage criticism of even the forum itself, but as far as I know no such argument is made by spanos.

 

Second, whether or not linguistics can be a form of imperialism is wholly irrelevant. I understand the arguments about the pax metaphysica, but my argument is that spanos would be ok with SOME level of "metaphysical violence", i.e. the "imperial" control of a resolution precisely because such basic ground rules are necessary to have a discussion in the first place. I am arguing that using spanos as a kritik of topicality takes spanos's argument to its logical extreme, and that that is not something spanos would intend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner's worst CX (last year running a Sudan case):

 

Neg: So what does genocide in Khartom (sp) have to do with Sudan?

Partner: Umm...It's just another example of how bad genocide is.

 

(Note: Khartom [sp] happens to be the capital of Sudan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Unconditional Fiat
I never said that kritiks of T are limited to foucault. What I was saying is that Spanos doesn't have a problem with bracketing kritik in the context of a resolution. Foucault argues for a form of constant criticism that might encourage criticism of even the forum itself, but as far as I know no such argument is made by spanos.

 

Second, whether or not linguistics can be a form of imperialism is wholly irrelevant. I understand the arguments about the pax metaphysica, but my argument is that spanos would be ok with SOME level of "metaphysical violence", i.e. the "imperial" control of a resolution precisely because such basic ground rules are necessary to have a discussion in the first place. I am arguing that using spanos as a kritik of topicality takes spanos's argument to its logical extreme, and that that is not something spanos would intend.

 

First, sorry, I mis-read your post. My fault.

 

Second, I would like to point out that in America's shadow, Spanos gives some deep analysis as to why linguistical imperialism is one of the many ways we can go against "Pax Americana". *It has been about 2 years since I have last read Spanos, so this may be the wrong book/article, I don't think so though.*

 

Third, You argument isn't supported by the author-

The Spanos email is around cross-x in the kritik forum in multiple threads. Spanos doesn't want his kritik being used within debate because it only surpresses his idea, not allow it to flourish (sp).

 

If anyone else has some thoughts on this, post `em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norman spring of 2004, Kel and I were debating Brett Bricker from Wichita East and in the 2NC I'm pretty sure she ended up reading EE Cummings with Hartney in the back- shameful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that round...

 

at least you didn't walk out....

 

 

and on that note, let's talk about our last round this past weekend...cross-x.

 

 

Me: You support torture, right??

them: no, it's horrible...

me: what if the terrorist like it

them: you tricked us...

me: i just dehumanized you, in fact.

 

 

another cross-x at bixby..we are running aliens.

they ran a WOT DA. I ran time-travel as a 2AC add-on.

they then indict our authors saying that they are "high hill-billies"

(sp)..cross-x...

 

me: is a nuclear scientist good enough for your author quals...

them: no, they have to be an alien to mean something..

me: wait.....you're authors are terrorist then.

THe judge laughed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Me: You support torture, right??

them: no, it's horrible...

me: what if the terrorist like it

them: what if they don't

me: so you are saying that they are terrorist now...

them: no..we aren't say..

me:you just said that terrorist don't like torture...

them: you tricked us...

me: i just dehumanized you, in fact.

---------------------------------------------------------------

me: is a nuclear scientist good enough for your author quals...

them: no, they have to be an alien to mean something..

me: wait.....you're authors are terrorist then. I DEMAND A BALLOT ON THE GROUNDS ON TREASON.

 

THe judge laughed...

 

lol

 

Here's one after running an anarchy cp:

 

them: don't you think this is a little crazy?

Me: crazy enough to work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this from a random round my second tournament ever:

 

2N (me) - so, basically dolphins are dying, and we gotta save em?

1A - yeah, basically

2N - and what is so different about your plan and the SQ?

1A - um. . . at least if the dolphins die, it won't be in a net.

2N - and nets are bad?

1A - yes - very very bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we run an asylum 1ac.

 

him: how can we run funding disads if you don't specify funding?

me: uh, my job is to affirm, not to give you ground.

him: so you're going to treat this as a hypo-tester round?

me: ...hypo-what? i don't know what that means.

him: ARE YOU TREATING THIS AS A HYPOTESTER ROUND?

me: maybe if i knew what a hypotest was...

him: just (timer goes off) answer the question!

me: probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this wasn't during cross-x but during my speech. I was giving my 2nR against Katie(sp) and Nick from H.H. at OU. She ends up spreading me out of not just the round but also the state. My analysis, going for a communication standard on T, was "how can they possibly attempt to say they can solve for communication better when they put a kilgillion answers on the kritik and a kilgillion answers plus 1 on T...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt actually see this, but aparently one of our freshman my junior year got so frustrated in cx he punched the other team....

 

...I'm pretty sure I win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
didnt actually see this, but aparently one of our freshman my junior year got so frustrated in cx he punched the other team....

 

...I'm pretty sure I win

Who the hell was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The team did not understand our China Dis-ad at all so after we tried to explain it to them in all of our speeches and cx the girl ended up saying my favorite quote to date.

 

 

novice girl: (on the brink of tears) All we want to do is help people.

 

It was sweet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The team did not understand our China Dis-ad at all so after we tried to explain it to them in all of our speeches and cx the girl ended up saying my favorite quote to date.

 

 

novice girl: (on the brink of tears) All we want to do is help people.

 

It was sweet.

 

dont bump old threads.

 

worst cx from novice year:

 

other team: so......does the peace corps promote peace?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont bump old threads.

 

worst cx from novice year:

 

other team: so......does the peace corps promote peace?

 

HAHAH yeah...other team...

 

And mine just happened at La Costa, ran a K on these poor little novices with Chase Fite in the back of the room, they spent the whole CX in tears asking what the K said, and then dropped it in the 2AC. I felt kinda bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me: So...every instance of state action culminates in extinction?

Them: Yeah.

Me: Okay, well like, congress passed some spending appropriations bills yesterday, right?

Them: Yeah.

Me: Okay...so...we're here debating, when do we die?

Them: Uh...uh...

Me: Well, come on now, your argument is true right?

Them: Well, yeah....uh....

Judge: Can we pause this for a second?

Me: Why?

Judge: Look to your right?

Them: Nose bleed + hyperventilate

Me: *Tries really hard not to burst into laughter* No more questions...haha.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neg: So you said that it was nearly impossible for DDT to spread to the food chain?

 

Aff: Yes.

 

Neg: So what exactly would have to happen for DDT to spread?

 

Aff: Well, a bird would have to get infected and a person would have to eat that very bird.

 

Neg: Do people often eat birds.

 

Aff: Well, no.

 

Neg: So you're saying you've never eaten turkey...chicken?

 

Aff: (Thinks for a moment) Can't say that I have...

 

Neg: (Caught unawares) Well, uh...I assure you that many people do...

 

<later on>

 

Me: (to one of my novii [the afformentioned aff]) You ate chicken at my house you lying f*ck!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regionals in 07 during the Increase Service in the following areas topic.

 

We ran Women in Combat Affirmative and this is how the other team starts CX:

 

Them: "Have you or your partner ever been a woman?"

 

(This is a question to my brother and I)

 

Us (In our minds): Are you fucking serioius?

 

Us (Real life): *feels chest* *looks down* "Um. No"

 

They wanted to run a k saying men spoke for women, thank goodness they had the CX to gather evidence. Too bad one of the partners was a woman who got to make 2 speeches. And I thought we silenced her. Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me- so how much will it cost?

him- how much will what cost?

me- everything.

him- i dont know.

me- how much will your seeds cost?

him- i dont know.

*this went on for a while as i asked about every part of his plan and how much it would cost and he did not know. his partner was giving him the evil eye.*

him- can we change topics?

me- sure. how will you get the seeds to africa?

him- shipping.

me- is that in your plan?

him- yes.

me- how much will that cost?

him- UGGGGGGGG...... i dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my novice year. first round which happened to be against DADT.

My partner (who's homophobic): so do you advocate gay rights?

Them: No we only allow people who are being discriminated for their sexual orientations to openly join the miltary without being discriminated.

my partner: So would Lance Bass Join?

Them: No

My partner: So all gays won't join? then what is the point of the plan?

Them: scratch the last answer we'll allow Lance Bass to join.

My partner (we had no clue what we're doing) next speech says: it's going to be 2 off. 1. Lance Bass is evil for society and wouldn't help the miltary and rather decrease U.S. hegemony. and the 2nd off. He reads China/U.S. Relations Uniqueness cards and Link cards but no impacts. It was rather quite funny. I miss that kid...

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...