Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have my state debate tournament this weekend, and word is that that teams on the other side of the state read a lot of plan texts with specified funding. How would I make go about making shell for extra topicality regarding it? Also, would reading xtra T be a good or bad idea in front of a comms judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interp: Affs shouldn't spec funding

 

Violation: They specified their source of funding as **blank**

 

Vote neg:

Extra T - No resolutional basis for funding specification, bad for reasons that XT is bad. Independent voter for fairness and education.

 

Kills core neg ground by eliminating links to trade off and general spending DA's. Voter for fairness.

 

They could specify any source of funding, unpredictable as fuck. Voter for fairness.

 

 

Sorry if that seems crappy, I just wrote it.

 

I would just start it as f-spec bad and have the option of breaking extra t off as an independent voter.

 

 

And idk about your second question. Should probably ask with paradigm questions before the round.

Edited by SpiderCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably just turns into an OSPEC debate at some point. Most standards from those shells would probably apply here as well

Edited by Unico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if T is the best way to go in front of lay judges.

 

You can make a generic abuse claim that because they've spec-ed their funding, they're skewing the debate because you have no ability to research their funding mechanism before the debate.

 

 

But, it could give you more CP ground.

 

 

1. CP- Use the funding from [insert Aff funding source] for [insert anything else]. They've granted you competition for this CP (which can be literally anything, not even remotely related to the topic, like end world hunger) no matter what via spec of their funding. Don't let them perm, or say it's illegit. this is what they get for spec-ing their funding.

 

2. CP - Fund the plan from (some other funding account) instead. All you have to do is research what you think is the best method to fund something right now (Loan from the IMF? Loan from Canada? I don't know, research is your job). The perm is severance, they shouldn't have spec-ed their funding if they wanted to access perm ground.

 

 

But aside from all that, you should still be able to use any spending DA that relies on the USA Debt Rating as an internal link. This way, the actual spending doesn't trigger the impacts--it doesn't matter where the $ comes from-- it's that when the international community (IMF?) perceives that the US is spending, then that will trigger them to lower our credit rating---> Econ Collapse ---> ??? ---> Extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not make an issue of it at all. In circuits where people often specify funding, there's usually substantial resistance to challenging the funding mechanism, regardless of whether it's challenged through CPs or theory (but CPs are better).

 

Focus on more substantive strategies and your judges will like you better. That's a pretty good rule of thumb.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to pre-empt their argument about creating more ground for you--its unpredictable ground which isn't particularly good. There are arguably 100s of potential funding mechanisms they could use to create favorable budget trade-offs (ie any military system or base or government program). No neg would be ready for that.

 

Also, by being extra-topical, their aff is your counterplan ground. Which means they directly stole your ground in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
their aff is your counterplan ground. Which means they directly stole your ground in this debate.

 

I hate this argument. It applies to every affirmative, not just extra topical ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL,DR

 

There is nothing wrong with overspecification... unless the aff actually tries to gain an advantage from it. The neg can claim that the aff can gain a competitive advantage from it by eliminating potential counterplan or disad ground... but thats a rather trivial argument because the mere fact that the aff spoke a topical case in the 1ac means that the negative's options are limited regardless of the overspecifcation of spending. If you proceed to run an argument which the overspecification argument answers on face, then you're just pursuing a shoddy strategy. If your idea is "see, it proves abuse!" then this is equally idiotic as the fact that the aff spoke a topical case means they lose the ground of the topical case already spoken. (Its easier to conceptualize if you think of argument ground as a venn diagram)

 

Unless in the 1AC the affirmative claims an advantage off the overspecification, its better to leave it alone, not challenge it, and focus on substantive arguments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL,DRby eliminating potential counterplan or disad ground... but thats a rather trivial argument because the mere fact that the aff spoke a topical case in the 1ac means that the negative's options are limited regardless of the overspecifcation of spending.

 

I agree with the first half but not with the second. Specifying funding can have horrible implications for DA debates.

 

For example, there's this team on my circuit who read a SPS affirmative with a plank to fund it from the secret portions of the US budget. That precluded all links to politics and to spending, which are core negative ground. I don't want to suggest that the negative is entitled to all DA ground, but they certainly are entitled to some. I'm not really sure where to draw the line, or how, but I think that sometimes it's acceptable for the negative to challenge the fairness of the specified funding mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It was semi-legitimate because I think TSPS may actually be under the black budget for normal means. Although it did open them up for inherency/theory about black budget bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coercion K/DA is a big thing on my circuit so I was thinking about adding a "through volunteer funding" addendum to the end of my plan text. It would also (I didn't intend on this but it just kinda happens to work out this way) avoids the link to tradeoff disads, most variations of the spending disad, and spending-based links to politics. Is this justifiable? What should I do in the way of CPs competing off of funding locations or OSPEC? I think funding spec good might be a good way to answer OSPEC because it's a reason why specifying the only extra thing that the plan text specifies is good, but I might be wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the first half but not with the second. Specifying funding can have horrible implications for DA debates.

 

For example, there's this team on my circuit who read a SPS affirmative with a plank to fund it from the secret portions of the US budget. That precluded all links to politics and to spending, which are core negative ground. I don't want to suggest that the negative is entitled to all DA ground, but they certainly are entitled to some. I'm not really sure where to draw the line, or how, but I think that sometimes it's acceptable for the negative to challenge the fairness of the specified funding mechanism.

 

you miss my point.

 

just because you WANT to run a funding linked disad... doesn't mean you should run one or that you have a right to run one in the same way that your desire to run a topical counterplan and oh shit it just happens to be the plan doesnt mean you get to claim abuse. the whole point of picking an argument (regardless of side or speech) is to gain a competitive advantage. making an answer, asserting a turn is an attempt to gain an advantage. there is nothing uniquely bad about claiming SPS funding from 'secret budget' (which I personally find hilarious). i would just coopt the funding and claim that we can do something else like harnessing solar flare electromagnetic power which renders SPS obsolete with a solvency deficit competitiveness argument... or my ever favorite, plants trees and be happy CP.

 

its only uniquely bad when the aff is claiming solvency or advantages through the use of extra topical plan planks. let them read forty extra topical plan planks. if they aren't harming you, let them waste 1ac time.

 

worse still is the fact that its now commonplace to run disads off plan planks which were assumed to be encompassed by fiat. if anything, the disad is treading on definitively preserved affirmative ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree that the neg doesn't have a sacrosanct right to funding ground, but disagree with your characterization of how and when arguments should be rejected. topicality isn't contingent on what advantages you read, that's mixing burdens, etc. if you specify something that violates a word in the resolution or goes beyond the scope of the words in the resolution, you should lose. the 2ac can read add-ons or spike out of things that appear germane based out of the 1ac, and there's little justification for fucking up the negative strategy.

 

'competitive advantages' are only justified if they don't alter the stasis point for a predictable debate. your competitive advantage should be that you cut other cards, not that you unpredictably alter the filter through which your arguments have been presented so that teams can't respond to them reasonably. for example, an aff has a plan that gives assistance to Iraq, read cards about giving assistance to the Middle East, and when the neg has an Iraq aid bad DA, they can say "haha- joke's on you fuckers, aff gets to define the words in the plan text - Iraq means Saudi Arabia, we still solve our advantage but you have no DA". that still gives the aff a 'competitive advantage', but not one that they have a right to. just as teams don't have the prima facie right to a certain type of ground, teams don't have the right to a competitive advantage unless they earn one (which typically occurs through research and not shenanigans, unless the shenanigans happen to be dropped or answered terribly)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would just coopt the funding and claim that we can do something else like harnessing solar flare electromagnetic power which renders SPS obsolete with a solvency deficit competitiveness argument... or my ever favorite, plants trees and be happy CP.

 

I think there's a serious problem when your best negative strategy is a "Steal the Funding" or a "Plant Trees and Be Happy" CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a serious problem when your best negative strategy is a "Steal the Funding" or a "Plant Trees and Be Happy" CP.

 

please understand sarcasm when you see it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please understand sarcasm when you see it.

 

You weren't being sarcastic with the Steal the Funding CP, or if you were you did a horrible job expressing it. You seemed to really think that a solvency deficit net benefit was a viable negative strategy, which probably explains why you're okay with allowing the affirmative to weasel out of almost every DA through bizarre funding mechanisms.

 

I understood that the tree CP was sarcastic, but my point is that the only policy oriented negative strategies available are almost equivalently stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate this argument. It applies to every affirmative, not just extra topical ones.

 

Chaos, you may hate the argument, but its a TRUE argument when used with a TRUE violation. Extra-topical affs are the easiest to spot in my opinion (in some cases, yes it does require extra evidence to explain why its extra topical, but thats only because the nature of affs that explain what they do in 3 words or less).

 

The argument is a quick way to reverse the discussion about ground in debates where the aff doesn't really increase "good/predictable/fair" ground for the negative.

 

In regards to what Ankur said....arguably funding spec can also be used to get a link to your funding position--so using the two in combination can work. However, I think that generally cross-ex should be sufficient. It does help to add teeth (aka a voting issue) if a team tries to be shady or hyper-vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos, you may hate the argument, but its a TRUE argument when used with a TRUE violation. Extra-topical affs are the easiest to spot in my opinion (in some cases, yes it does require extra evidence to explain why its extra topical, but thats only because the nature of affs that explain what they do in 3 words or less).

 

This argument begs the question by using the fact that the negative feels they are entitled to the affirmative case as a reason that the affirmative is not entitled to it. For the negative to prove that they are entitled to the affirmative, they need to win a different standard. However, if they win a different standard, this standard has zero utility. It's thus a horrible argument, and its widespread popularity is due to its simplicity and the fact that even debaters are horrible at recognizing logical fallacies.

 

The argument is a quick way to reverse the discussion about ground in debates where the aff doesn't really increase "good/predictable/fair" ground for the negative.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Could you rephrase this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reviving a dead thread, but I can't find where to start one so I'm not sure where else to post this.

 

Anyways, my question is: Is it a fairness issue if the neg runs budget trade-off DAs? Because the aff can't specify where funding comes from (__SPEC) so how can neg run something that attacks where the money comes from?

 

I had a hard time answering an obscure tradeoff DA last tournament and was wondering if this is an easy way out.

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...