Anytime someone asks one of these hypothetical “in the worst debate ever these 4 crazy things happen…” scenarios it always takes me back to the first such diddy that literally destroyed about 3 months of the emory debate team. Explanation below the fold.
The negative Reads a politics disad as such
B. Impact- X is good
The affirmative responds by straight impact turning and saying X is bad.
The 2 sides proceed to debate this out, furiously arguing whether X is good or bad. But then <record scratch>, in the 2AR the aff says “hold the phone, the neg didn’t read a link, therefore there is no link and this isn’t a disad”.
The question is- is this 2AR strategy legitimate/would you allow it if you were the judge?
This seems like a simple battle of “you must present a complete argument” vs “the aff should of said that earlier/the neg doesn’t get a 3NR/would of read links if pressed on it”, but there are many more layers of minutia that got dug into in order to avoid doing any work.
I won’t say what side we fell on- but this may also be the only time Roy and I ever agreed on anything… ever.