Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LilMax

Best Ever...

Recommended Posts

>Implying you need more than 1 card to win on A-spec

>Implying that card isn't topic specific

>Implying theory debates are won with blocks

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Implying you need more than 1 card to win on A-spec

>Implying that card isn't topic specific

>Implying theory debates are won with blocks

 

>You do.

>Doesn't need to be.

>They are.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Implying that the judge voting for you when you go for A-spec is a "win"

 

Dowling round 2:

Judges paradigm said "Aspec is not a reason to vote neg"

Went for Aspec and won.

 

Get on my level.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get on my level.

 

OK. I'm on your level. Now what? I could debate you on A-Spec, but that seems like a trivial endeavor. I stand by my original post: an A-spec file needs 1 card and 1 card only, and that is a piece of evidence specific to the TOPIC for why specification is relevant. Everything else is pointless filler. Your file lacks that card, making it worth less than the ram needed to boot it up.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I'm on your level. Now what? I could debate you on A-Spec, but that seems like a trivial endeavor. I stand by my original post: an A-spec file needs 1 card and 1 card only, and that is a piece of evidence specific to the TOPIC for why specification is relevant. Everything else is pointless filler. Your file lacks that card, making it worth less than the ram needed to boot it up.

 

Nah, mane. You be trippin'...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry.

 

curiosity killed the cat? haha

 

but not gonna lie, this file is pretty extensive. I consider it a decent buy

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this.

 

I also love how this is in the topic specific section of the site, but for different reasons entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on "THE ULTIMATE WIEPOUT FILE" with over 500 pages of pure awesomeness

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author should also make a BEST EVER OSPEC file so that way he makes $ no matter what.

  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author should also make a BEST EVER OSPEC file so that way he makes $ no matter what.

 

Don't worry it's already in the making

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspec file.

178 Pages.

11-1 Record

Undefeated on the national circuit

 

What are you waiting for?

 

Check it out here:

 

http://www.cross-x.c...file-178-pages/

Aspec file.

178 Pages.

11-1 Record

Undefeated on the national circuit

 

What are you waiting for?

 

Check it out here:

 

http://www.cross-x.c...file-178-pages/

 

only max

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the round at dowling in question the one where I remember a judge in the break room with his head in hands, muttering to his friend "I just voted on ASPEC... I want to kill a baby. I WANT TO KILL A BABY!" perchance?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

178 isn't just overkill... its just functionally useless. Though I suppose if you printed it out, it could make for hemherroid-inducing toilet paper. And it reeks of just a combination of old camp files on ASPEC.

 

The reason ASPEC is a terrible theory argument is that it lacks validity derived from either the resolution or commonly accepted debate norms. There is nothing in the resolution which states that the negative is guaranteed the right to assert a specific argument or even a specific side of the resolution! Nothing in the rules (for most tournaments) state the affirmative need to even affirm the resolution. The terms "affirmative" and "negative" are derived from a relational positon to one another - one team affirms a position, the other negates the position. Accordingly, the affirmative is equally justified in affirming the resolution as they are in negating it. The idea that the teams are "assigned a side of the resolution" is rather antiquated and not based on the resolution and as it is also not based on the rules, its an arbitrarily imposed restriction on the affirmative. Only by placing this arbitrary rule can one even BEGIN to discuss ASPEC.

 

But therein lies an even greater theoretical discord - the sheer act of speaking on the resolution, as either affirming the resolution or negating it, results in an irreparable shift in argument ground regardless of specification of actor. It is the act of the first affirmative opening his or her mouth which creates an actual shift in argument ground, and not the lack of specification which creates only an illusion of altered ground. The lunacy of ASPEC is best described with an example. If the affimative were to read a standard topical plan during 1ac, the 1nc cannot and should not be permitted to claim that they were entitled to arguing that very same position as counterpoint and that the affirmative should have read a different 1ac (legitimacy of topical counterplans or plan plan is a gray undefined and debatable area). This notion reinforces the only theoretical solution to the ASPEC problem is to view the debate as an affirmation of a position (not the resolution) and a negation of the aforementioned affirmed position thereby structuring a debate in which the notion of ASPEC is rendered impotent by theory as it illustrates the negative never retained any right to the argument ground encompassed by the affirmative. And in such a light, there can never be any detriment to negative strategy regardless of lacking specification because the speech act of the first affirmative guarantees the negative all ground not affirmative. This is a far superior distinction because is preserves a clear balance in argument ground (irrespective of style) and infringement by either party is both definitive and obvious without a grey area dependent on arbitrary imposition of rules and interpretation of those rules in the context of hypothetical or actual abuse.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only fools use Elmore in ASPEC.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...