Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Runewood

Answers to A- spec

Recommended Posts

Damn straight. What the fuck is cross-x for if not to specify?

 

you shouldnt be allowed to specify out of the USFG, thats affirmative conditionality at its worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont care about the cross-x argument.

 

i care about the fact that spec arguments are not an enrichment of debate. they are not in the slightest bit resolutionally sanctioned. they are vague arbitrary interpretations supported by no logical warrants, no supporting evidence (and if anyone says elmore i will pimpslap them silly). the theoretical double bind created by the ospec/aspec debate only further proves that the specification is trivialized by its own argument as the argument exists not as an extention of policymaking or resolutional discourse, rather a tool for the vicious lazy negatives to create worlds in which no affirmative can compete fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All your Ospec bad arguments can be run against Aspec...

 

And I think the reason Aspec is run so much, is that people really mishandle Aspec when it's run against them...at least when I run it, I just get like 5 crappy blippy response...of course I've only actually gone for it once this year, and that round they were running PDD25, and apparently, according to the other team and the judge, a PD is an XO, so I didn't have a link and lost that round :rolleyes: ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you do if you say resolution only says usfg as aff and neg says resolution also only calls for a foreign policy and they clarify beyond that so they are therefore extratopical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that made no sense to me. rephrase and explain your question clearly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neg: a spec

 

aff: resolution only says usfg

 

neg: resolution also only calls for a foreign policy. they clarify beyond that with plan. they are extra topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be nice you guys. Even A-spec has its place.QUOTE]

Bullshit, read the resolution, it says,"United States Federal Government" not DOD or anything else, by running aspec you ignore the resolution. I agree completely with Ankur "good teams do not run A-spec bad teams run A-spec"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you are very, very confused. Affirmatives are under no burden to specify their agent, but are still topical if they do (assuming it's an agent of the federal government...). It's funny how both opposing arguments can be so bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All SPEC arguments are goddamn whines. The aff has no burden of specifying. They're retarded, even if they're "run correctly". Spend those 30 seconds you're going to waste on a SPEC block to something at least a bit more productive... read like one solvency card instead..

 

 

What's next, R-SPEC? Douches have to specify the claims of every argument that they run in their roadmaps or education will be hurt? Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All SPEC arguments are goddamn whines. The aff has no burden of specifying. They're retarded, even if they're "run correctly". Spend those 30 seconds you're going to waste on a SPEC block to something at least a bit more productive... read like one solvency card instead..

 

Actually, the 30 seconds used reading ASPEC can sometimes prove to be a good time tradeoff. Some people spend a good minute answering it in the 2AC, in hopes of the neg not blowing it up with more offense and dropping it...and even if they don't, it's always going to be much more advantageous then reading a shitty solvency card that they can c/a case to beat...

 

Now I'm not saying, you should run ASPEC as time suck every round, but if you have nothing else, you might as well run SPECs then forcing bad case arguments into the round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bzzz. try again. its better to make case arguments even if they are mitigations because you can boil it down to the level where the judge must accept one set of evidence over the other.

 

example:

 

aff: plan solves for racism through means X

neg: plan doesnt solve for racism through means X

 

the two are mutually exclusive. one cannot simultaneously solve for racism and not solve for racism. boil it down to evidence and whose warrants are better. make THAT assertion. and place faith in your evidence.

 

of course, if you cut bad evidence... well... then dont do that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said that that's what happens? Neg doesn't know the Aff's agent and thinks they need to know in order for them to have a strategical play for the round. They have three minutes to figure out anything about the Affirmative that they don't already know. What's the only logical conclusion you can come to?

 

well i mean if the negs WANT the affirmative to be conditional then i guess theres no problem. But if the affirmative says USFG in their plan text and I run a courts counterplan and they say perm do the counterplan we're the courts I think thats afirmative conditionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Counterinterp - normal means

a) most real world and predictable, as it's rooted in the literature

B) that means the neg reads cards saying what our agent is and we'll defend it

 

2) Creates artificial advantages - 1AC's become 8 minutes of why the executive is good, destroying topical education.

 

3) No abuse - we'll defend all 3 branches of the federal government for the purposes of your disad links

 

4) Agent CPs are abusive

a) steals aff ground - USFG is in the res, which means all 3 branches are aff ground

B) artificially competititve - it's not a reason why the plan is a bad idea, it's a reason the counterplan is a better idea

 

5) Infinitely regressive - specifying an agent justifies specifying everything; 1AC becomes 8 minutes of plan

 

6) No resolutional basis - nowhere in the res does it say we gotta spec our a; not a reason to reject us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Counterinterp - normal means

a) most real world and predictable, as it's rooted in the literature

B) that means the neg reads cards saying what our agent is and we'll defend it

 

2) Creates artificial advantages - 1AC's become 8 minutes of why the executive is good, destroying topical education.

 

3) No abuse - we'll defend all 3 branches of the federal government for the purposes of your disad links

 

4) Agent CPs are abusive

a) steals aff ground - USFG is in the res, which means all 3 branches are aff ground

B) artificially competititve - it's not a reason why the plan is a bad idea, it's a reason the counterplan is a better idea

 

5) Infinitely regressive - specifying an agent justifies specifying everything; 1AC becomes 8 minutes of plan

 

6) No resolutional basis - nowhere in the res does it say we gotta spec our a; not a reason to reject us

number 5) infinently regressive should be used as a turn to say that agent spec. decreases education b/c we spend less time getting education of the res. and should be an independent voter, or if u want to be an asshole a RVI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at the point where you said independent voter/reverse voting issue ON FUCKING ASPEC, you lost all credibility. Sorry - come back in a couple of years when you've regained it.

pwned. couldnt you just use OSPEC to answer ASPEC? just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i didn't warrant that statement earlier

 

there is no reason as to why you lose ground/education/strat skew through the use of an A SPEC argument; in addition time should never be a voting issue (you'd always vote for the slower team; debate is inherently time skewed - the neg has the block) - so there's no justification for an independent voter/RVI

 

also the only way you'd win on one of them is if the other team drops it - and if you're banking on that to win debates, you shouldn't consider it a win to be proud of - they dropped an indendent voter, congratufuckinglations - you should win the fucking TOC!

 

finally, it DOES destroy ur credibility by reading stupid args. Jason Peterson literally told a team that when they ran such an argument. You can hear speaker points drop when a team says "independent voting issue" or "reverse voting issue" on T or something. In addition judges don't like theory debates anyway - so even if you do actually debate it, your speaker points will drop and you have a hard time winning anyway, because judges hate listening to these kinds of debates.

 

In addition, the topical education arg is already made in the artificial advantages argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bzzz. try again. its better to make case arguments even if they are mitigations because you can boil it down to the level where the judge must accept one set of evidence over the other.

 

example:

 

aff: plan solves for racism through means X

neg: plan doesnt solve for racism through means X

 

the two are mutually exclusive. one cannot simultaneously solve for racism and not solve for racism. boil it down to evidence and whose warrants are better. make THAT assertion. and place faith in your evidence.

 

of course, if you cut bad evidence... well... then dont do that...

 

I dont believe that was the point I was trying to look...if the neg goes all off-case, and then take's aimgod's advice, and reads case...in some instances it would be a good decision. But, when the case evidence blows, and you're just running it for 30 seconds of timesuck, I don't believe that strategic choice would be very good. If you read crappy cards, it takes about 15 secs for the aff to c/a their better cards from the 1AC and do easy/good evidence comparison...on the other hand it would take more than 15 seconds (and usually more than 30, which is what you spent shelling it out), to read their ASPEC block, thus you get a better time tradeoff, and the aff gets less time to put more answers on your disads, counterplans, and/or Ks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i guess i didn't warrant that statement earlier

 

there is no reason as to why you lose ground/education/strat skew through the use of an A SPEC argument; in addition time should never be a voting issue (you'd always vote for the slower team; debate is inherently time skewed - the neg has the block) - so there's no justification for an independent voter/RVI

 

also the only way you'd win on one of them is if the other team drops it - and if you're banking on that to win debates, you shouldn't consider it a win to be proud of - they dropped an indendent voter, congratufuckinglations - you should win the fucking TOC!

 

finally, it DOES destroy ur credibility by reading stupid args. Jason Peterson literally told a team that when they ran such an argument. You can hear speaker points drop when a team says "independent voting issue" or "reverse voting issue" on T or something. In addition judges don't like theory debates anyway - so even if you do actually debate it, your speaker points will drop and you have a hard time winning anyway, because judges hate listening to these kinds of debates.

 

In addition, the topical education arg is already made in the artificial advantages argument.

OK, i got the answer i was looking for, and look, not to bag u or your debate program, but youre just not making a warranted claim as far im concerned, for one u claim that a RVI or independent voter should never be used b/c it lowers speaker points, and not to be an ass, but i have a bid to the TOC and maybe used an independent voter something like 4 times at Dowling, additionally u say its dumb b/c "Jason Petersonl iterally told a team that when they ran such an argument they lose credibility," and not to diss him but thats bullshit, maybe u have witnessed it but i havent and i doubt any1 else who is half as intelligent as i, havent either. Also, the term independent voter or use of a RVI doesnt mean u win the round on one arg. its used as a time suck, in other words offense against defense b/c now instead of just dropping A-SPEC the opposing team has to use time to answer it, and if they drop it it doesnt constitute an aff ballot, smart debaters will always win on more (hince why i have a bid). Furthermore if there werent any justification for it, then we should shun the use of standards and theory debate all together, b/c as u said debate is inherently time skewed, to practice argumentation of theory in round would be pointless, and also ive beaten a bellarmine team so ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never hears anyone drop the "I have a bid" line more

 

congrats

 

Most cedible judges a) Will not vote for a RVI, even if its drop B) You automaticly lose a ton of credibility for making such arguments

 

Why? To win a theory debate you need to prove internal links to abuse or Potential. Something that you can't do with a RVI without laughing. Any one who is "half as intellegent as I" would know that.

 

your "I only use it as a time suck" justification is literaly the worst thing I've heard in or out of debate. your taking 10 seconds off the negative block and in return you have lost probably 1 speaker point and a boat load of credibility (but I guess it doesnt matter for you, seeing as how your ace in the hole to politics is prolly "Bottom of the docket")

 

well, actually maybe your right, you DO have a bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, i got the answer i was looking for, and look, not to bag u or your debate program, but youre just not making a warranted claim as far im concerned, for one u claim that a RVI or independent voter should never be used b/c it lowers speaker points, and not to be an ass, but i have a bid to the TOC and maybe used an independent voter something like 4 times at Dowling, additionally u say its dumb b/c "Jason Petersonl iterally told a team that when they ran such an argument they lose credibility," and not to diss him but thats bullshit, maybe u have witnessed it but i havent and i doubt any1 else who is half as intelligent as i, havent either. Also, the term independent voter or use of a RVI doesnt mean u win the round on one arg. its used as a time suck, in other words offense against defense b/c now instead of just dropping A-SPEC the opposing team has to use time to answer it, and if they drop it it doesnt constitute an aff ballot, smart debaters will always win on more (hince why i have a bid). Furthermore if there werent any justification for it, then we should shun the use of standards and theory debate all together, b/c as u said debate is inherently time skewed, to practice argumentation of theory in round would be pointless, and also ive beaten a bellarmine team so ha.
I have a bid, and I think you're stupid.

 

P.S. Everyone who dismisses ASPEC as "the stupidest argument of all time" is just begging to get beat by the argument. I've seen it happen many times before, and I'm sure I'll see it happen again. There have been many important rounds decided on ASPEC, and a lot of the time the Negative wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the affirmative does have a burden to specify their agent....

 

1. Its key to predictable ground- USFG in plan text allows 2AC severance because they can use normal means to spike out of 1NC disads.

2. Normal means explodes the reasearch burden, small schools cannot be possibly prepared to read a card about the actor of every case.

3. Cross-x clarification is just dressed up severance- see number 1

4. The USFG is not an actor, plan never happens without specification

5. Not voting on it because its not T justifies things like a million topical counterplans or aff conditionality because theory against them is not topicality.

 

PS. just because you have a TOC bid doesnt mean shit.... Bruce Najor got 2 and look at him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...