Jump to content
Eric_W.

Question about what something means? Ask here!

Recommended Posts

Mod edit up in hurr: Instead of making twenty-thousand threads about what GSPEC means, ask here in this thread what certain terms/acronym mean or how to pronounce certain names/etc.

--------------

Just a quick question: What do "AT" and "A2" mean? I see it in a lot of the camp files, but I'm not really sure what they mean....

 

Many thanks!

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does _SPEC mean? For example: What does ASPEC mean?

SPEC is a specification arguement - the plan text fails to articulate some important matter of plan passage.

 

ASPEC is the least ridiculous (which isn't saying much). It argues that the Affirmative needs to specify their agent of action beyond the simple "United States Federal Government." A correctly specified plan text would include "The Legislative Branch of the United States Federal Government should do X" or (to take an example from my novice year) "The Federal Bureau of Prisons should do Y".

 

There are others, including FSPEC (funding method specification), CSPEC (Congressional Committee Specification), etc...but the increased level of obscurity tends to be inversely proportional to their quality.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like a T shell, interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. It's a theory arg.

 

whoever neg repped me is a fucking idiot

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note from an experienced judge on -Spec arguments. Only run them in cases of tangible abuse. If a team refuses to clarify plan in c-x, go for it. If you're running "either spending or F-spec" then you need a real neg strat.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are all these Ks and Ts??

 

in totally new to this debate thing.

A "K" is a kritik (german for critique). It is an advanced argument focusing on the assumptions, thinking, language or behavior of your opponent.

 

"T" is topicality. An affirmative team is topical if their plan fits within the boundaries of the resolution. A team is non-topical if they do not fit. Generally, this is argument alone, if negative wins, is enough to win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ive gotten ahold of this aspec file. It has the shell and answers to just about every possible agrument against aspec in it, from infinately regressive to cx checks, the list goes on, there was one argument on there that im not sure what it means. Its called multiactor fiat legitimate. i understand fiat, and i understand multiactor, but when u put it together im not sure of what argument you can pull from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So ive gotten ahold of this aspec file. It has the shell and answers to just about every possible agrument against aspec in it, from infinately regressive to cx checks, the list goes on, there was one argument on there that im not sure what it means. Its called multiactor fiat legitimate. i understand fiat, and i understand multiactor, but when u put it together im not sure of what argument you can pull from it.

 

to actually answer your question, multiactor fiat good (as you have) is, naturally, an answer to multiactor fiat bad. Counterplans that have the US do something, as well as another nation for example, would require to defend multiactor fiat. For example:

 

CP: Have Britain fund the plan, and have the US overturn the death penalty.

 

 

That would be multiactor fiat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
false

your false is false

to actually answer your question, multiactor fiat good (as you have) is, naturally, an answer to multiactor fiat bad. Counterplans that have the US do something, as well as another nation for example, would require to defend multiactor fiat. For example:

 

CP: Have Britain fund the plan, and have the US overturn the death penalty.

 

 

That would be multiactor fiat.

 

Too explain it more in the context of ASPEC, one would argue that using Congress, The Supremen Court, and The executive branch to carry out the plan would be illegitmate because you just faited three different actors to do the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is coersion (in a T) and unilateralism?

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by coercion in a T, but I believe you are referring to the Topicality Interp that says that Public Health Assistance needs to be coercive or something similar.

 

To my understanding this really just "guarentees" your link to a Coercion Kritik, essentially you put them into a double bind either A. they are topical and use a coercive policy or B. they dont link to the K but aren't topical which means they lose. Most teams would probably just bite the link to the K and impact turn or garner offense another way but this is only the real usefulness of this interp in my opinion.

 

Unilateralism is where one country is "in charge" of world politics. Its the opposite of multilateralism....heg people should be able to provide you more detailed response but unilateralism in debate usually means that the US is the sole hegemon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unilateralism is where one country is "in charge" of world politics. Its the opposite of multilateralism....heg people should be able to provide you more detailed response but unilateralism in debate usually means that the US is the sole hegemon.

 

No. That's unipolarity vs. multipolarity.

 

Unilateralism is when a country acts alone. Multilateralism is when a country acts in cooperation with others.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by coercion in a T, but I believe you are referring to the Topicality Interp that says that Public Health Assistance needs to be coercive or something similar.

 

To my understanding this really just "guarentees" your link to a Coercion Kritik, essentially you put them into a double bind either A. they are topical and use a coercive policy or B. they dont link to the K but aren't topical which means they lose. Most teams would probably just bite the link to the K and impact turn or garner offense another way but this is only the real usefulness of this interp in my opinion.

 

Unilateralism is where one country is "in charge" of world politics. Its the opposite of multilateralism....heg people should be able to provide you more detailed response but unilateralism in debate usually means that the US is the sole hegemon.

Of course, most good teams will try to prove that being non-coercive does not mean they aren't T by presenting a competing interpretation. That way, you don't have to bite the K, especially because most K's don't allow for plan based impact turns.

 

But most teams aren't very good, and have a half-assed idea of kritiks, so you're probably right that most teams would try to impact turn the kritik. (Guaranteeing a loss if neg and the judge both know what they're doing.)

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...