Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
carmelo a1

Spikes.

Recommended Posts

What are they and how do you use them?

 

It seems appropriate that I answer this.

 

When someone says you "spike" something it means to get out of it in a technical way. Maybe an example would be better:

Ex. If you make a no link on a politics disad that links to congressional action by saying "our aff only uses the president" that's a link spike.

 

It's often referred to as abusive by the negative, because the aff tends to spike links in the 2ac to get out of arguments easily.

Another good example would be a K aff that defends a plan but doesn't defend fiat making "no link" arguments to disads. That's a link spike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X Spike is correct, but I think that it's worth saying more as well.

A plan spike (the noun) is usually considered to be a plank/mandate/portion of the Affirmative plan that is meant to preempt certain Negative arguments, usually DA's. Typically, a spike is arguably extra-topical, and will be mentioned only once; i.e. they won't claim advantages from it. It will only come up again if the Neg makes an argument that would supposedly be invalidated by the spike.

The way to use them is: carefully. Never ever claim advantages or solvency from a plan spike, because Negatives can run ET on it and destroy your case. The best use is as described above: discreetly insert it into your plan to discourage certain Negative arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "spike" is also used (more commonly in other debate events) as a synonym to the word "pre-empt".

 

For example, if you're a tiny ethics aff, you may have "util bad" spikes in your 1AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term "spike" is also used (more commonly in other debate events) as a synonym to the word "pre-empt".

 

For example, if you're a tiny ethics aff, you may have "util bad" spikes in your 1AC.

 

The use of plan spikes (and spikes in general) is used 10 to 20 times more to refer to plan text specifications which exclude or add to a typical plan text (whether they do so in a topical way is up for debate). I think just calling that a pre-empt is more than sufficient to explain its function.

 

If the spike is legitimate or illegitimate is generally tested by extra-topicality (or if it meets the burden of the resolution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X Spike is correct, but I think that it's worth saying more as well.

A plan spike (the noun) is usually considered to be a plank/mandate/portion of the Affirmative plan that is meant to preempt certain Negative arguments, usually DA's. Typically, a spike is arguably extra-topical, and will be mentioned only once; i.e. they won't claim advantages from it. It will only come up again if the Neg makes an argument that would supposedly be invalidated by the spike.

The way to use them is: carefully. Never ever claim advantages or solvency from a plan spike, because Negatives can run ET on it and destroy your case. The best use is as described above: discreetly insert it into your plan to discourage certain Negative arguments.

 

It seems appropriate that I answer this.

 

When someone says you "spike" something it means to get out of it in a technical way. Maybe an example would be better:

Ex. If you make a no link on a politics disad that links to congressional action by saying "our aff only uses the president" that's a link spike.

 

It's often referred to as abusive by the negative, because the aff tends to spike links in the 2ac to get out of arguments easily.

Another good example would be a K aff that defends a plan but doesn't defend fiat making "no link" arguments to disads. That's a link spike.

 

 

I've heard both of these in high school debate, usually only the latter in college. To elaborate on the first use, almost anything can be "spiked" with a tricky argument that is intended to be hidden, or a preempt, or an independent argument hidden within another.

 

Examples would be hiding an independent extra T violation in a 1NC T shell, writing a "perm- do cp" argument inside a theory block, a "sandbagging" argument at the end of a framework or theory shell, or reading premptive blocks at the end of a 1AC.

 

I'm not advocating doing any of these things. I think the word "spike" has gotten lost in the clutter of a lot of misinterpretations so I recommend not using the term in general.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...