Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cleelau

Vague Affs V. Specific Affs

Recommended Posts

Do you think having a broader plan text is better than having a more specific plan text? For instance, if your text is the U.S. should significantly increase funding for Space Missile Defense v. "The USFG should revive the Brilliant Pebbles Program" Do you think specific plan texts link to more disads or do you think you can have better solvency arguments with specific plans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specify unless you're trying to be vague to dodge PICs. If you're too vague it makes PICs easier, but if you say things like "substantially increase funding" it makes it easier to avoid PICs. However, this makes it harder to access solvency arguments and exposes you to vagueness arguments. It should be determined on a case by case basis, based on your relative vulnerability to the above arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think having a broader plan text is better than having a more specific plan text? For instance, if your text is the U.S. should significantly increase funding for Space Missile Defense v. "The USFG should revive the Brilliant Pebbles Program" Do you think specific plan texts link to more disads or do you think you can have better solvency arguments with specific plans?

 

In this specific instance, you should consider every single component of the Brilliant Pebbles Program, and ask if a PIC can be cut. Once you specify a program, literally every single line of text which officially defines that program becomes PIC ground. For example, the Clean Water Act had a provision specifying the privatization of water supplies, which was easy PIC ground and kept a lot of teams from specifying that act in their plan during the Africa topic. For Brilliant Pebbles, consider the agents of implementation, the materials specified in the program, and everything else similar to that. If you just said "the USFG should increase its space missile defense" you would be better off in terms of PICs, and would still get to access the same literature base because you can claim normal means for the plan is modeled off Brilliant Pebbles.

 

Avoid using phrases like "significantly" or "substantially" in the plan. Why? 2 possible doomsday scenarios:

1. T cards that say absent defining those words, they are meaningless. This can be a fairly back-breaking vagueness argument specific to these 2 terms because there is a wealth of legal literature giving examples of cases that were thrown out on the grounds of vagueness (that's a real thing, IRL), because of the non-definition of those terms.

 

2. The CX of the 1AC begins with "please define substantially" and you say "whatever you define it as we'll defend" or something similar. If this happens and the neg is actually prepared for such a scenario, they can read a PIC that defines substantially as amount which best suites them. They could say it's incredibly small and then you'll have trouble making a solvency deficit to a private donors CP or something similar. They could say it's incredibly large (100%, etc) and then rock out on a spending or trade-off DA, and your link defense will become trivial by comparison.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. PICs (outlined above)

2. What are the extra-advantages you think you gain by going generic?

3. What are the risks to going generic?

 

The largest risk is the neg. figures out that they can use the block to dump generic cards on you--which narrows the debate.

You probably can only find out by experimenting (ie actually trying both...although this means you eventually need to write 2 sets of 2ac blocks...even if they are similar).

 

The largest distinction I can think about is plan text based definition of increase--

revive is not an increase

although obviously there is an increase violation to be had with BMD/NMD, but slightly different.

 

Can you answer the just do Brilliant Pebbles counterplan? I'm not sure what the DA it avoids that would link to NMD/BMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can you answer the just do Brilliant Pebbles counterplan? I'm not sure what the DA it avoids that would link to NMD/BMD.

 

That's the point - the CP does the entirety of the aff because the CP is a clarification of the aff. Saying Brilliant Pebbles is good does not disprove that the USFG should increase space missile defense. Thus, you cannot have a NB (nor will you find one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you talk more about that Subs T stat Steven? Is this something that you would deem strategic on a round-by-round basis? How legit are Ts that define a specific amount of funding and create a double bind stategy with spending disads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How legit are Ts that define a specific amount of funding and create a double bind stategy with spending disads?

He wasn't advocating that unless the affirmative refused to specify the amount of funding they use and would only defend a "substantial increase". This double bind strategy is much more winnable under this scenario because you can make a compelling case that they were trying to completely deny your DA links and CPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't advocating that unless the affirmative refused to specify the amount of funding they use and would only defend a "substantial increase". This double bind strategy is much more winnable under this scenario because you can make a compelling case that they were trying to completely deny your DA links and CPs.

 

By "more winnable," you mean that it's still a stretch in that it's a spending disad right? The only reason I'm wondering is because I've always debated subs T with a specific funding amount as being super over-limiting and prevents the aff from debating as it should. If it's legit in the case that they don't define their funding (which happens VERY often in my circuit) then I would make it a centerpiece of my strat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "more winnable," you mean that it's still a stretch in that it's a spending disad right?

It doesn't have to be a spending DA, see Maury's original post on the various ways that the negative can strategically exploit that kind of stuff.

I meant nothing in particular by the phrase "more winnable" except that one argument is better than the other.

 

The only reason I'm wondering is because I've always debated subs T with a specific funding amount as being super over-limiting and prevents the aff from debating as it should. If it's legit in the case that they don't define their funding (which happens VERY often in my circuit) then I would make it a centerpiece of my strat.

It's not a funding spec argument, it's saying that if they refuse to disclose a specific outline of what they do for the program. "Substantially increasing" funding can arguably be anything from preventing future budget cuts to tripling the program in its scope to repairing a few satellites; the phrase is too vague to mean anything. The spending DA and other tactics only come into play if your can force the 1A to grant you the right to define substantial for the purposes of DA links and CP ground and solvency arguments. If they refuse to do that then you hit them with the vagueness argument.

 

It's definitely not a funding spec argument. Also FSPEC or any other kind of SPEC should never be the centerpiece of your strategy. Negative stategies should probably never have centerpieces at all, they should be composed of multiple potential paths to victory so that you can exploit the time disparity between the Block and the 1AR as ruthlessly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...