Okay, this is where you lost me. Are you saying that the neg can run a priori arguments all they want, lose those arguments, and still win the round on those points? I think what you're getting at is the idea that negs can lose T but win something else, say DAs, and win the round. How is that unfair?
To the first question, I am, and they can.
If a neg runs T, three solv and two da's, and lose T, the round isn't over for them.
Whereas, a team could hypothetically lose two of the solv and one of the DA's and still win, but if they lose T, it's game over. This doesn't sound bad to YOU, because we aren't that T crazed in region 8, whereas in places like cali, they run it all. the. friggin. time.
Where it becomes unfair is WHEN teams run one or multiple [running multiple t presses is so much fun
] presses that are blatantly obvious time waisting arguments designed to make the aff undercover something else because the entire round hinges on those arguments. Technically not illegal, but only because there are technically no rules. Running T presses strictly for the sake of screwing with the 2AC/1AR's time is unethical.
I would like to stress, the fact that negs don't lose if they lose T is not unfair, it's when they take advantage of that fact. it would be like running three T presses on jackson-vanick. They're ludicrous, but you'd better respond to all of them or it's game over.
Let's say the neg brought up T with other arguments. Would you still run a RVI? Is T just a stupid time sucker when run alone? Under what circumstances does T become silly?
Yes. T with no other arguments doesn't call for an RVI because there isn't a time skew made - you address the one argument and sit down.
It CAN be stupid when run alone, but if a team runs T by itself, then it's likely they don't have anything else, so yelling about time sucks isn't going to be on the forefront of my mind at that point