Jump to content

Workability Not a Voter

Recommended Posts

What are some reasons that workability is not a voter?  Specifically, no timeframe specification, funding specification...

What is workability? I've sincerely never heard of it. Could you give an example of an [theory, I suppose] argument where workability is a voter?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is based off my 1-time exposure in a very lay tournament, but i think it's some mesh of solvency arguments with spec theory. something like "how does the plan work if we don't know how much it costs", etc. IF that's close to what the argument is referencing, then i would first reccomend that you block out a sufficient response to each solvency/spec/theory argument you're used to hitting. 


as far as it not being a voter, the warrant for this changes depending on the neg arg. The spec args you listed would, i think, make your 1AC extra topical (especially the funding spec argument. literally every aff that specifies some obscure source of funding that i've hit (kansas HS circuit) uses that specification to dodge some of the only stable links that you get for disads). Timeframe is also another shady spec--lets you dodge any politics DA, and the neg can't reasonably prepare for 100 versions of each aff with different hypothetical advantages/solvency mechanisms for each time-frame specified. 


If it's a solvency argument about funding, you can just say you deficit spend. very few bills are rejected because we don't know how much they're cost. hope this is useful

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Answer


First, you should know how your affirmative would be implemented and be able to answer some basic questions about how the plan is passed, where the money comes from and a rough estimate of the cost.


If you are asked those questions in cross ex, answer them, and there is no workability argument.


If you are not asked in cross ex, make the argument that "cross ex checks- they couldve asked us and we wouldve told them".


If they make the argument that you have to specify in the 1AC and that these questions are a waste of cx, my first answer (angrily in my head) would be fuck you we have to ask if the CP/K are condo and if the alt is a floating pik, but then my actual answer would be that if you had to specify everything there would be an infinite number of infinitely regressive specifications that would require the 1AC to be an 8 minutes plan text.


If your problem is you dont want to answer basic questions in cx, then youre out of luck. Know your aff better, I guess.

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.

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.


  • Create New...