Jump to content
gcsdebate

Agent Specification

Should the aff specify their agent?  

824 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the aff specify their agent?

    • definitely
      325
    • no way
      209
    • if they can get away with it, no
      290


Recommended Posts

I agree with most people in this thread that ASPEC is a moot issue, but yeah it is a pretty great time suck. It was hilarious when teams would answer our shell (which by the end of the year took me 14 seconds) with a minute and a half of answers.

 

14 seconds?

 

 

ASPEC, THEY DON'T, VOTER FOR AGENT COUNTERPLAN GROUND, NEXT OFF.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

had an epic win on A-SPEC this weekend. We were neg and the 1NC was 7 minutes of K + FW, 50 seconds of Alt Energy=Not Conservation, and a 10 second aspec shell. 2AC drops ASPEC, I take ASPEC for 2 and a half minutes in the 1NR (I read some more standards and better voters) along with framework. The 1AR cross applies no-voters from the other T onto A-Spec without analysis in about 20 seconds, makes a few other new arguements then moves onto the K.

 

the 2NR is 5 minutes of Aspec

 

we won on an ASPEC shell that took me 10 seconds of my 8 minute 1NC to read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

word of advice for 2ACs, when the 1nc reads one of these mindblowingly stupid shells, you shouldn't engage in their level of stupidity. only when they make a coherent argument, should you have to answer it. here's an example on dealing with bullshit like this:

 

14 seconds?

 

 

ASPEC, THEY DON'T, VOTER FOR AGENT COUNTERPLAN GROUND, NEXT OFF.

 

NO RIGHT TO AGENT GROUND – YOU CAN'T MAKE UP VOTING ISSUES, NEXT

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
word of advice for 2ACs, when the 1nc reads one of these mindblowingly stupid shells, you shouldn't engage in their level of stupidity. only when they make a coherent argument, should you have to answer it. here's an example on dealing with bullshit like this:

 

 

 

NO RIGHT TO AGENT GROUND – YOU CAN'T MAKE UP VOTING ISSUES, NEXT

Seconded, always make A spec a time suck for the neg (at least in the 2AC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that giving agent specification promotes the educational value of debate. Understanding govermental procedures and policy implementation are key to real world application. The USFG has never sign any policy; therefore, the affirmative's plan does not solve.

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...