A-spec is usually pretty silly. However, while doing some politics research for the oceans topic I came across a number of really good cards about bureaucratic agency politics empirically undermining US ocean management/development policy. This means that an engaged discussion about agency implementation is a pre-requisite to aff solvency. These cards are extremely specific and high quality. The coolest part of this component of the argument is that oftentimes the 2AC will just read their generic frontline to A-Spec and completely forget about the solvency debate. So in the block, you can just go for the substantive component of the argument and crush them on presumption + a disadvantage. Judges are often very unwilling to let the aff recover after a mistake like this, especially when you read several high-quality cards supporting your argument. This file is fully prepped with extensions through the negative block. At only $3 it is a high-value deal that you will want to start the year off with.
ASPEC --- 1NC. 2
ASPEC --- 2NC Overview.. 3
ASPEC --- 2NC Solvency Takeouts. 4
ASPEC --- AT: C/I --- Normal Means. 6
ASPEC --- AT: C/I --- All 3 Branches. 7
ASPEC --- AT: C/I --- â€œTheâ€ = Mass Noun. 8
ASPEC --- AT: No Rez Basis---2NC. 9
ASPEC --- AT: Agent CPs bad. 10
ASPEC --- AT: Cross-ex checks. 11
ASPEC --- AT: Infinitely Regressive. 12
ASPEC --- AT: No Rez Basis. 13
ASPEC --- AT: Wrong Remedy / Not A Voting Issue. 14
ASPEC --- AT: No Ground Loss. 15
ASPEC --- AT: No Right To Those Args. 16
Collin Roark is the assistant director of debate at Trinity University and an assistant coach at the St. Mark's School of Texas.
The goal of a theory argument is to present an issue and a route through which we can address the problem. Generally, this route is either "drop the argument" or "drop the debater".
This file is a variant of the latter route, with one significant difference: it calls for the judge to vote against the person who presented the theory argument. It relies on the metaphor of mutiny and rebellion to prove that the best way to solve a problem is to create a martyr that instigates change in the debate community. The less "fair" the treatment, the better.
This is strategic because you can very often beat people who are vastly better theory debaters than yourself by making the debate smaller. It can also function as a great timesuck; you can simultaneously neutralize a very long theory objection with a single turn and also put the ball back in the other team's court.
I also like this argument because it's applicable in almost every round. Any time theory comes up, you can use this file.
There are some drawbacks: one is opportunity cost, in that running this turn prevents you from making your own theory objections. Furthermore, you'll find that many judges have a prohibitively high threshold for such clearly abusive arguments, so be prepared to spend a lot of rebuttal time to win this position.
Table of contents:
Rosa Parks. 1
High Risk. 4
Low Risk. 5
O/V / Extension. 6
High Risk. 7
Low Risk. 8
AT Fairness. 9
Fairness Solvency Turns. 10
AT: â€œMartyrdom doesnâ€™t solveâ€ Gen. 15
AT: â€œWe Solve Tooâ€. 17
AT: â€œI Have to want to do it for it to workâ€. 18
AT: â€œCanâ€™t Change Anythingâ€. 21
AT: Offense. 22
AT: â€œLeads to perpetual Sacrifice / Martyrdomâ€. 23
AT: â€œMartyrdom / Sacrifice Intrinsically Badâ€. 24
AT: â€œDeath Badâ€. 25
AT: â€œYour Argument is Islamic Funamentalismâ€. 28
AT: â€œMetaphors Badâ€. 29
Other Answers. 31
AT: â€œWeâ€™re Dropping the Theoryâ€. 32
AT: Fear of Death. 33
AT: â€œMartyr Somebody Elseâ€ 34