Jump to content
kasn113

How do I run a plan specification argument?

Recommended Posts

I want to run a plan specification argument, but I'm not really sure how to go about doing so. I know there are TSPEC and ASPEC args to make, but the one I'm looking to do deals more with the amount of immigrants being let in. 

Do I need cards with this spec arg?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 4:28 PM, kasn113 said:

I want to run a plan specification argument, but I'm not really sure how to go about doing so. I know there are TSPEC and ASPEC args to make, but the one I'm looking to do deals more with the amount of immigrants being let in. 

Do I need cards with this spec arg?

1

If you want to run ASPEC, use Elmore 80. Even if they contest that it's not a voter, you can still use it as a solvency takeout.

Also, if you're going to make an arg on the number of immigrants let in just run T substantial (though I would recommend not to unless you think you can adequately argue a clear brightline)
What aff(s) are you going to run it against?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1nc is structured like a t violation:

- interp

- violation

- standards

- voters

 

The interp should be "the aff should specify x"

Usually the violation can be assumed but you can say it if you want to make if clear that you do not, in fact, think they specified. 

The standards are almost always going to be geared toward ground arguments, so something like neg ground loss, aff conditionality, etc. Always flag what arguments that they make problematic, what DAs you cant get, what CPs. Remember, you don't have to zero in on in round abuse, procedurals are establishing the best standard for what affs should do on this topic or generally, so justifying those arguments is bad enough.

You can make other standards but a) you're less likely to win them (like limits is kind of more of an aff arg since specifying increases the number of aff cases), b) other standards args you make would really just be used to hedge against aff answers, so you can save time in your 1nc and just make those arguments in 2nc/1nr blocks. An exception to that is when you're reading a specification arg that is topic specific (like exact increase on visas), in which case you should make a topic education arg. This is really the only place you should need to use a card in a spec debate and evidence you read should be like "specification on x thing is important to the immigration discussion."

For voters, fairness is the impact to ground. Topic education is a voter in and of itself. 

This is kind of rambling, I hammered it out on my phone.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 9:51 PM, Sparks29032 said:

If you want to run ASPEC, use Elmore 80. Even if they contest that it's not a voter, you can still use it as a solvency takeout.

Also, if you're going to make an arg on the number of immigrants let in just run T substantial (though I would recommend not to unless you think you can adequately argue a clear brightline)
What aff(s) are you going to run it against?

I planned to run it against a T visa case. They say they are going to increase the cap, but they never "clarified" and told us a number

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo make sure you run T substantial with that

3 hours ago, kasn113 said:

I planned to run it against a T visa case. They say they are going to increase the cap, but they never "clarified" and told us a number

you could then do a sort of double bind, either the neg gets to assume you don't meet the t interp, or the aff proves that by not specifying the cap, they just get to spike out of T

ask them how much they increase cx, if they aren't sure, drag them

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

yo make sure you run T substantial with that

you could then do a sort of double bind, either the neg gets to assume you don't meet the t interp, or the aff proves that by not specifying the cap, they just get to spike out of T

ask them how much they increase cx, if they aren't sure, drag them

 

If I'm understanding correctly, I ask in cx about the specification. If I don't get the specification, then I can run T substantial and put them in a double bind. Is that correct?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kasn113 said:

If I'm understanding correctly, I ask in cx about the specification. If I don't get the specification, then I can run T substantial and put them in a double bind. Is that correct?

pretty much, however the double bind isn't flawless, ask them something like "do you increase the cap by [whatever you define substantial as]" if they say anything other than yes, you can do the double bind

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlistairTheKDebater said:

pretty much, however the double bind isn't flawless, ask them something like "do you increase the cap by [whatever you define substantial as]" if they say anything other than yes, you can do the double bind

👌

  • Upvote 1

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...