Jump to content
Vladmir_Drakulya

2 1/2 minutes of e spec in the 2nr

Recommended Posts

I was judging a mock debate today where there was somthing I have never seen before the aff team ran 2 and a half minutes of e spec and were still going strong I had balled this flow up after the 2 ac and tossed across the room. they didn't catch that they also didn't catch my lack of flowing of the minute and a half of e spec in the 2nc when I asked at the end of the round they claimed they were using it as a time suck. It was quite funny and then the 2nr kicked everything and it became hilarious.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha what is e-spec.........basically the dumbest topicality violation you will ever hear..........and thats outside of specification t's being stupid all in its entirety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt say that. Aspec is a pretty good this year. Its easy to argue that agency specification is necessary so you can have more CP ground for Agency CP's which will be used quite frequently this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspec is good this yaer becasue of authority in resolution. In order to decrease authority, whole gov't can't do it. Good shell on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Unconditional Fiat

E-spec is a great not because it is a solid position, but because no one takes it serious. I was 7-1 going for it in the 2NR last year, which doesn’t count the number of times I could have went for it for 35 seconds because of the lack of answers in the 1AR. Because it is so underrated as an argument (being dumb, ‘gay’, weak, whatever you wanna say) it is never answered properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c-x doesn't really check abuse-I have had people not know what to do and never really spec an agent or refuse to tell me-and you can't run it in the 2nc and not be abusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enforcement is a trivial argument which hasnt seen the daylights of sanity in quite some time. enforcement has nothing to do with a policy. all policies are assumed to possess some form of enforcement. its an implicit statement. specification beyond resolutional demands makes a policy non-topical and subject to immediate dismissal from the round. thus the correct aff answer is that if the aff were to spec, they are non-topical. the only way for the judge to vote against the aff is if they believe theory arguments like topicality are irrelevant, in which case, why is the judge voting for spec in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but sometimes the enforcement agency will trigger a backlash DA or rollback, or even circumvention. But you can't run any of that unless the enforcement is clear.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
specification beyond resolutional demands makes a policy non-topical and subject to immediate dismissal from the round.

 

hey ankur--- what would be considered specification beyond resolutional demands? on the wmd topic would disarm cases that specified the method of dismantlement be 'outside resolutional demands' because seems like taking a stance on that issue would only increase neg ground. trying to think of examples on this topic but enforcement for a decrease in govt. authority is pretty much just legal recourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

specs arguments are only valid if 1AC won't/can't tell you who their actor or enformentment is...

 

O-spec is NEVER valid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) specification of agent of action is wholly non-topical. the furthest the resolution sanctions is USFG. anything more specific than that is non-topical.

however, specifying the (target population, group, nation) of the policy is required.

example: USFG should stop extraordinary rendition.

clearly, this policy applies to the investigative branches of the intelligence community, the CIA. the CIA is the target of a policy. not the actor.

 

 

2) the neg has no resolutionally sanctioned ground to run enforcement or agent specific counterplans and disadvantages. los of said ground is not a reason to reject the affirmative. the ground a negative possesses is a direct function of the content of the affirmative policy as a subset of and with respect to the resolution.

example: aff runs extraordinary rendition. neg whines "i wanted to run extraordinary rendition as plan plan."

it doesnt matter what the neg wants, what matters is what is permitted.

 

 

3) the more general answer to the specs is almost always "optimal means" which resolves the potential solvency/advantage deficit created by those arguments which are rendered useless anyways.

 

 

4) ILike2DB8, depends on what it is. If you say "USFG will ratify the conventional weapons ban..." that is not non-topical. the USFG is the actor. The MO is method by whichj the conventional weapons ban operates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) specification of agent of action is wholly non-topical. the furthest the resolution sanctions is USFG. anything more specific than that is non-topical."

It's called parametrics.

 

We don't have to worry about A-Spec, since we choose DoD as the agent. Then they whip out their o-spec block and things get messy.

 

 

2) the neg has no resolutionally sanctioned ground to run enforcement or agent specific counterplans and disadvantages. los of said ground is not a reason to reject the affirmative.

Too true. My favorite is this little story:

 

Let's say the rez was "Resolved: Timmy should go to the store," and our aff was "Timmy should hop on his bike and, after safely strapping on his helmet and pads, ride to the Qwik-E-Mart to pick up some milk for his mother." The negative might claim that we should run "Timmy should hop in his Death-Car 3000 and mow down a bunch of orphan children on the way to the crack-house," and that our failure to do so prevents them from running invaluable positions like "Orphan children are cool" and "Drugs are bad for you." But that doesn't mean we're entitled to the worst possible ground in the resolution. If that were true, there'd be no reason to vote aff, since we'd be stuck defending "The USFG should let all death row inmates go."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too true. My favorite is this little story:

 

Let's say the rez was "Resolved: Timmy should go to the store," and our aff was "Timmy should hop on his bike and, after safely strapping on his helmet and pads, ride to the Qwik-E-Mart to pick up some milk for his mother." The negative might claim that we should run "Timmy should hop in his Death-Car 3000 and mow down a bunch of orphan children on the way to the crack-house," and that our failure to do so prevents them from running invaluable positions like "Orphan children are cool" and "Drugs are bad for you." But that doesn't mean we're entitled to the worst possible ground in the resolution. If that were true, there'd be no reason to vote aff, since we'd be stuck defending "The USFG should let all death row inmates go."

Your analogy is false. The argument behind O-Spec is that your affirmative advocacy of Timmy picking up milk for his mother is unnecessary specification within provided affirmative ground; you should only specify that which is required by the resolution, i.e. "Timmy should ride his bicycle with pads."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Unconditional Fiat

I disagree…to start off with...

1) specification of agent of action is wholly non-topical. the furthest the resolution sanctions is USFG. anything more specific than that is non-topical.

however, specifying the (target population, group, nation) of the policy is required.

example: USFG should stop extraordinary rendition.

clearly, this policy applies to the investigative branches of the intelligence community, the CIA. the CIA is the target of a policy. not the actor.

 

Well, my number 1 is that you are not topical unless you DO specify an actor. Our interpretation of the resolution is that the USfg = “1 of 3 branches” by whoever. By not specifying which part of the US you are using, you are non-topical. End of story.

My number 2 is that your interpretation of debate is crazy. From what I am understanding, you are saying that because the res says “USfg” then we need to only specify the USfg…that’s absurd. Under that theory, topicality can never be ran because they are interp’s of certain words. That kill’s debate, education, and harms more ground than you are trying to show.

 

 

2) the neg has no resolutionally sanctioned ground to run enforcement or agent specific counterplans and disadvantages. los of said ground is not a reason to reject the affirmative. the ground a negative possesses is a direct function of the content of the affirmative policy as a subset of and with respect to the resolution.

example: aff runs extraordinary rendition. neg whines "i wanted to run extraordinary rendition as plan plan."

it doesnt matter what the neg wants, what matters is what is permitted

 

Yes we do… we are allowed everything outside of what the 1AC plan states. This is also why topical CP’s are good for debate…if we could never challenge the aff on THEIR ground, we would not win some of our rounds.

Second, agent and enforcement Cp’s & D/A’s are key for real-world debate because we could never test the aff if we couldn’t. Also, allowing for these D/A’s & CP’s allows us to find the best policy option…which is uniquely good for POLICY debate.

Third, p2 is a different theory issue than Aspec/Ospec/Espec/etc.

 

 

 

3) the more general answer to the specs is almost always "optimal means" which resolves the potential solvency/advantage deficit created by those arguments which are rendered useless anyways.

 

Answered above, it think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we have an ideological difference of opionion about what constitutes a federal governement action. the resolution does only mandate USFG. true, but a supreme court action, or an executive order, or an internal memo, or an action of the dept of treasury, or whatever is a USFG action. The term "united states federal government" applies to each of those individual actors. There is absolutely no real world basis for a "USFG" action that is not one specific entity acting. Whether its congress or the executive or judicial branches, the USFG is made up by all of them collectively, and any action by any individual branch is a USFG action. Thats just from a non-debate perspective. it makes for better ground too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy days are back again....

 

Well, my number 1 is that you are not topical unless you DOspecify an actor. Our interpretation of the resolution is that the USfg = “1 of 3 branches” by whoever. By not specifying which part of the USyou are using, you are non-topical. End of story.

This interpretation is ridiculous, because that interpretation means the inverse, the other two branches are NOT USFG. So if the aff were to choose congress, the neg's choice of the XO is non-topical. But here's where it gets fun, esp for this year. If the XO is not USFG, then it no longer has the authority to do anything, which makes the counterplan rather defunct. But if the neg is to assert that the XO is the USFG, then the violation is nonsensical, because it is no longer 1 of the 3... its 2 of the 3 or all 3... in which case its a shifting advocacy, which as we all know is an independent voter.

Moral of the story: 1 of 3 is a really bad definition, esp this year.

 

My number 2 is that your interpretation of debate is crazy. From what I am understanding, you are saying that because the res says “USfg” then we need to only specify the USfg…that’s absurd. Under that theory, topicality can never be ran because they are interp’s of certain words. That kill’s debate, education, and harms more ground than you are trying to show.

ASPEC creates a double bind in reverse with OSPEC, degrading the entire value of the resolution. If the aff is to spec a branch, the neg can easily define the resolution as all three branches. The theoretical double bind established by the invention of aspec demands its abolition on the warrant of competitive equity. The fairest posible resolutional interp is straight USFG without spec. It is the most resolutional interp one can have.

 

Yes we do… we are allowed everything outside of what the 1AC plan states. This is also why topical CP’s are good for debate…if we could never challenge the aff on THEIR ground, we would not win some of our rounds.

Please point to me what in the resolution states "The negative is granted the right to run the XO counterplan." It doesnt say it. This is debate theory 101. The ground the negative receives is a direct function of the content of the affirmative plan text in relation to the resolution.

This is an empirically proven statement by the concept of plan plan and topical counterplans in which the negative is not granted the identical ground as the affirmative and cannot say "the aff ran gitmo. we wanted to run gitmo too. the aff abused us."

 

Second, agent and enforcement Cp’s & D/A’s are key for real-world debate because we could never test the aff if we couldn’t. Also, allowing for these D/A’s & CP’s allows us to find the best policy option…which is uniquely good for POLICY debate.

Agent counterplans are NEVER competitive to begin with... the loss of agent counterplans is BENEFICIAL to debate and policymaking. Its also more real world. No real world policymaker has the option "oh... china will do the plan... we dont need to do it." We also do not consult China on whether we should open up 5000 square miles of forest in Arkansas to logging. PICs are one of the arguments which is DESTROYING debate. It is reducing debate down to a game of imapcts instead of a game of arguments.

I have written a lot of theory on the notion of counterplan competitiveness. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

barfing at the thought of losing politics links....if i cant run politics then i quit debate. DAMMMMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU's

 

 

(for making sense)

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...