Jump to content
TheBrain

ONcase?! OFFcase?!

Recommended Posts

okay, people have explained this to me about twenty seprate times, but i still don't get it. What's the diffrience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oncase are issues that continue on the 1ac's flow. Offcase are new flows altogether.

 

How else have people tried to explain it to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oncase-Inherency, Solvency, Harms, Plan, any advantages you may have

 

OffCase-Just about everything else (DAs, T, Kritiks, SPECs, and procedurals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPECs-an argument saying that the aff needs to specify something, such as implementation (which would be ISPEC) and a card saying why its important, like a card that says implementation is 90% of policy making, and say they should lose if they don't clarify.

 

Procedurals-arguments with voters, that say that a team should lose for one reason or another, can be made for aff or neg, an example would be if in the 1NC the neg team read off all source qualifications, then in the 2AC the aff didn't, the neg could run a procedural saying they should win because the aff didn't read qualifications, even though they set the standard.

 

Both are kind of cheap, though there are a lot better procedurals, topicality is a procedural, though don't confuse them with kritiks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<begin mini rant>

dont worry about specs. if you are aff and you arent changing your story mid-round... then specs are irrelevant and no self respecting judge votes on it...

 

neg is never entitled to any specification.

 

<end mini rant>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<begin mini rant>

dont worry about specs. if you are aff and you arent changing your story mid-round... then specs are irrelevant and no self respecting judge votes on it...

 

neg is never entitled to any specification.

 

<end mini rant>

 

<begin mini rant> I lost on ASPEC in octafinals at Whitman this year (laugh all you want) because I didn't have offense on the theory flow (I mostly won that cross-x checked abuse). So you can lose on those arguments, if the negative is dedicated enough or if you have a pair of college judges whose favorite strategy is ASPEC on your panel. But it's true; in general it's hard to lose on ASPEC.<end mini rant>

 

P.S. Specification arguments are considered a type of procedurals, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the SPECS are quite nice as a time suck for the Neg. They take like 15 secs, but it takes about 30 for even a good team to answer

 

Exactly. I think aspec is a crap argument, but that doesn't stop me from running it every round. (And then kicking it, of course! :P)

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...