Jump to content
Lucience

Offense For I And F Spec

Recommended Posts

So I hit a lot of teams that run stupid spec arguments (mostly ISPEC and FSPEC) just to suck up time and they always wind up kicking them. Is there some way I could put offense on these spec args or even specs in general? I would rather it be something relatively short and unsuspecting so the other team doesn't immediately notice it, and then when they try and kick it I can point out that you can't just kick something with offense against it and blow it way up. Any suggestions? EDIT: I removed the K idea cuz I got too many people focusing on some off the wall idea that I spent exactly 20 seconds considering and threw in because I happened to think of it as I wrote my post. Please bring it back to topic, any REAL help is appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways, but they are really dumb and you should NOT run them. They are called RVIs, and other people on this thread may recommend them, but they are considered by many to be the worst arguments in debate (up there with Timecube). Also, the kritik idea wouldn't work. "Spec" is short for specification and has nothing to do with the derogatory term.

 

You should never be spending much time on really stupid spec arguments anyways. You shouldn't spend more than 15-20 seconds on these 90% of the time. If you are confident that a team is just going to kick it in the block, you can spend even less. Assuming it was blippy in the 1NC, if they blow it up in the block that probably justifies a pretty good amount of 1AR extrapolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "spec" that's derogatory. You're thinking of "spic," racist.

 

and just put enough on it that it isn't much of a time trade off and so that they can't go for it. RVI's will probably get some more leeway from judges when they're read on stupid spec arguments, but it's still probably not worth the time reading them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways, but they are really dumb and you should NOT run them. They are called RVIs, and other people on this thread may recommend them, but they are considered by many to be the worst arguments in debate (up there with Timecube).

 

Are RVIs really thought to be that bad in policy? I'm currently doing LD, and they seem to be a fairly accepted practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are RVIs really thought to be that bad in policy? I'm currently doing LD, and they seem to be a fairly accepted practice.

 

Yes, they really are. There are some judges that will take it if the neg doesn't answer it at all, but they usually hate them so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are RVIs really thought to be that bad in policy? I'm currently doing LD, and they seem to be a fairly accepted practice.

 

RVIs make zero sense

 

they only work in LD because time distribution makes an aff win basically impossible without absurd tricks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVIs make zero sense

 

they only work in LD because time distribution makes an aff win basically impossible without absurd tricks

 

Yeah, I remember watching an LD round at BF between two 4-0 debaters, and I got really confused when I heard them talking about RVIs. Also, all LD judges are point fairies. Top speaker at BF got something like 4 30s and 2 29.5s. Rounds where both debaters get 30s happen multiple times at most national circuit tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reverse voting issue; for example, "T is a RVI because it's a timeskew", its basically a reason to not only reject the arg but reject the team for bringing up such an uneducational and meaningless argument taking out/decreasing education/fairness, that being said, never run these types of args in policy

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...