Spec Whore

1China /Edina Debate 2k8 Liao SHITSPEC

1NC

Espec.2

Fiat-spec.3

I-spec.4

F-Spec.5

Time-spec (T-spec).6

Death Spec.7

G-Spec. 8

A-Spec.9

O-Spec.10

M-Spec.11

Time-Cube.12

2NC/1NR

A2:2AC clarification.13

A2:Cross-Ex checks.14

A2:Normal Means.15

A2:Optimal Means.16

A2:Leads to O-Spec.17

A2:Your CP doesn’t spec.18

A2:Reasonability.19

A2: Being a Spec Whore Bad.20

A2: Competiting Interpretations Bad.21

A2: No voter.22

Note that these are bullshit arguments. Each spec takes 25 sec. avg. to read. If 9 specs are read, it takes about or 3.75 minutes to read them. To answer a spec, ~35 seconds are devoted to the task. This takes the aff ~5.25 minutes, leaving them with only 2.75 minutes to answer or other args. Also, I don’t think the aff has blocked out Death-Spec answers or whatnot. The best part is: Dropped Spec=/=Insta WIN!1!1

Judge: Where are you going?Next Year’s Novices: 12 off then solvency.


E-Spec 1NC

A. Our interpretation of fiat is that it is an assumption we agree to make. We don’t agree to aff assumptions that aren’t topical nor to ones we can’t debate against.

B. They don’t specify their enforcement- the plan may be civil or criminal with unknown detterents and actors. The aff has to present evidence about that to make a prime facie case.

C. That’s bad1. We lose ground, without enforcement specified we lose specific links to DA’s, K’s, and case

which discuss how law works since 90 percent of the plan is in the implementation.Richard Elmore 1980, public affairs at U of Washington, Polisci Quarterly v. 94 n.4 pg. 605

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of the policy choices matters very little if the mechanisms for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

2. They’re effectively fiating the object. If they don’t tell us what happens in the case someone doesn’t obey the plan it gives us the same ground as if we simply assumed to plan solves, which destroys negative ground since we can’t make solvency arguments so our strategy has to be based on impact turns which makes the neg lose against cases that ban racism or they have to run tricky CPs.

3. They don’t justify the resolution since they also ask we assume in the world follows the plan as a precondition to it being a good idea, since that’s extratopical and proves the resolution is insufficient since federal actions isn’t enough and it’s unpredictable for the neg.

D. Vote Neg1. They fail to affirm the resolution since they prove it alone isn’t enough2. Voting aff deprives us of neg ground and kills fairness and education



Fiat Spec 1NC

A. Interpretation: The Affirmative must specify whether their plan goes through normal means or is “magic wand” fiat.

B. Violation: The Affirmative doesn’t specify what kind of fiat they are using.

C. That’s bad

1. We lose the ground for politics disads, as they can just say that they aren’t going through the legislative bodies and that there is no link.

2. We can’t run counterplans with politics net-benefits.

3. We can’t run kritiks/framework involving the process the plan goes through.

D. It’s a voting issue

1. Voting aff kills neg ground, as we lose the majority of our available arguments.

2. Negative ground is key for education and fairness.



I-Spec

A. Intepretation: The aff must specify how the plan will be implemented.

B. Violation: The aff did not specify how the plan will be implemented.

C. Reasons to prefer: ISPEC is essential for good debate

1. Loss of DA ground. The neg loses DA ground when the aff doesn’t specify their implementation, since the aff can spike out of Das by claiming that their plan is implemented in an alternate way that doesn’t link.

2. Moving target- They can sever out of multiple link scenarios by changing their advocacy.

3. Specifying implementation is key to avoid ignorance. Without the knowledge of how the plan will be implemented, key facts are hidden and unknown.

C. In-round ImplicationsAt best, this is a voter for fairness and education, as we lose Neg ground, which is key to fairness, and that without specifying implementation, education is lost due to hidden important facts. At worst, it takes out solvency – Without implementation, affirmative solvency is dubious at best.



F-Spec

A. Interpretation: The aff must specify how their plan will be funded.

B. Violation: The aff doesn’t specify their funding.

C. That’s bad.

1. Kills neg ground to argue funding by allowing aff clarification in the 2AC. Clarification in the 2AC makes the 1AC conditional. Aff conditionality is bad because it makes them a moving target and justifies spiking out of all 1NC attacks with 2AC advocacy shifts. It also kills neg ground as Spending DA’s won’t link.

2. It decreases topic specific education by avoiding debate over specific aspects of how to fund plans.

3. It means they have no solvency. Nothing in the government can happen without funding, so without funding the plan could not happen.

D. This is a voter for fairness education and competitive equity



Time-Spec

A. Interpretation: The aff must specify what time their plan will be enacted.

B. Violation: The aff does not specify when their plan will be enacted.

C. That’s bad.

1. The aff can warp their plan to work in any time.

2. Kills neg ground- We lose time-sensitive DA’s and CP’s, and all uniqueness.

3. It means no solvency. They can’t solve within the timeframe that is required to solve the

Harms before we all die.

D. Voter for education, competitive equity, and fairness. If you won’t look to the voters, you still have to look to the zero solvency.



Death Spec

A. Interpretation: The aff must specify how people die from their harms

B. Violation: The aff fails to specify what kills people in their harms

C. That’s bad

I. It allows for cheap affs. Harms can state that deaths will occur for no specific reason, and the aff will warp it so that only their aff can solve, no matter how unrealistic it is.

II. The aff can claim to solve for deaths that are inevitable or unable to be prevented, and these deaths are simply naturally related, not caused by their impacts.

III. It kills neg strategy as the neg can never successfully answer arguments like how racism somehow causes deaths.

IV. Education is lost, as we debaters never learn what is the true cause of these deaths, and therefore can never offer a true solution to the problem.

D. This is a voter for fairness education and competitive equity



G Spec 1nc

A. Interpretation- The grounds of a decision is as important as the decision itself. The affirmative must specify it in the plan text

Frank H. Wu, 2002, a law professor at Howard University Criminal Justice Magazine, “Profiling in the Wake of September 11: The Precedent of the Japanese American Internment” Pg. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/cjmag/17-2/japanese.html

In that context, the conclusion that the internment was wrong is not enough. The reasons it was wrong must be articulated again. As lawyers well know, the rationale may be as important as the result by itself in comprehending the meaning of legal authority. What is constitutional is not necessarily advisable. Technically, for all the contempt directed at the Supreme Court’s internment cases, it is worth noting that the decisions have never been repudiated and actually have been followed consistently. Indeed, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist penned a book a few years ago intimating that if a similar matter were to come before the Court again he would not expect it do otherwise. (William H. Rehnquist, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf 1998).) Imagining the counterfactual hypothetical of a Supreme

Court that struck down the internment, then, also entails supplying an intellectual foundation. There are multiple possibilities. They lead to different outcomes in today’s circumstances. If the internment was wrong because racial classifications are to be regarded as immoral or unconstitutional as an absolute rule, then there is no distinction to be made between Japanese Americans on the one hand and Arab Americans or Muslim Americans on the other hand. The form of the argument does not vary by specific groups. If the internment was wrong because the particular racial generalization was in the aggregate false, then it may well be possible and appropriate to distinguish between the Japanese Americans and Arab Americans or Muslim Americans. The premise is that the conduct of Japanese Americans on the whole does not predict the conduct of Arab Americans or Muslim Americans on the whole. There are more possibilities. If the internment was wrong because of the lack of any semblance of due process, then even the German Americans and Italian Americans in isolated cases had their rights violated. Individual Arabs and Muslims who are aliens may be entitled to more due process than equal protection.

B. Violation: They fail to specify their grounds of a decision.

It’s a voting issue for fairness :

1. Failure to specify destroys alternate grounds counterplans and disad links, they can switch their advocacy in the 2ac making the plan conditional

2. Understanding the grounds of the decision is the basis of all topic specific education



A-Spec

A. Interpretation – power is divided among the 3 branches of governmentRonald D. Rotunda, Albert E. Jenner professor of law at the University of Illinois, Summer 2001, “The Commerce Clause, The Politcal Question Doctrine, And Morrison”, Constitutional Commentary, 18 Const. Commentary 319, lexis

The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested "federal majority" would consistently seek to impose more federal control

over the people and the states. n10 Hence, they created a federal structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua states." n11 The Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers. They divided power between the state and federal

governments, and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government, and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between two Houses of Congress. n12

B. Violation – the Aff fails to specify the agent of action

C. Standards1. Ground – the Aff is an incomplete policy without an agent – specific case, DA, CP, and K ground is predicated on the agent

2. Real world – no policy can be established with an agent, since the Government isn’t a single entity – this is a full solvency takeout – vote neg on presumption

3. Plan text key – textual competition, lack of precise cross-ex, and neg loses 1NC and pre-round prep are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan

D. Voter for fairness and education



O-Spec

A. Interpretation: The plan text must specify the United States Federal Government.

B. Violation: The aff does not state the United States Federal Government in their plan text.

C. Standards:

1. Limits: Without using the United States Federal Government, the aff could run any aff pertaining to a single branch of government, and the neg could never prepare for the flood of new affs. Their plan justifies plans that have something to do with a single person in Congress. This kills topic specific education since we aren't talking about the entirety of the government, but only a small piece of it.

2. Ground: The neg loses ground since they can spike out of politics DA's. It also justifies reading a seven minute plan text that doesn't link to any arguments.

D. Voter for fairness and education.



M-Spec

A. Interpretation- The affirmative may not specify both the United States Federal Government and an agent.B. Violation- The affirmative specifies both the USFG and an agent.It's a voting issue:1. Kills Neg ground. By specifying both the USFG and their agent, we can't run A or O-spec. Specs are key to ensure a plan actually does what it is supposed to do. 2. Fiating multiple actors detracts from topic-specific education, impossible for the neg to generate offense, and is infinitely regressive.



Time-Cube Spec

A. Interpretation - the earth is a 4-sided time cube - the plan text has to specify which side the plan passes on

Ray, No Date [Dr. Gene, Cubic and Wisest Human. “Time Cube.” www.timecube.com

you realize that a 4 cornersquare rotating 1/4 turn creates a fullcircle? A full rotated square will create

16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous24 hour Day circles within only a single

imaginary cubed Earth roation. Thisamounts to a spiraling quad helix ofEarth as it revolves around the Sun -

rotating as it revolves around the Sun,to induce the value of the Sun revolving

about the Earth.

B. Violation - they fail to specify what side the plan passes on

C. Standards

1. Education - I can call singularity educators the most putrid name on Earth and claim they eat

cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass bastards will not even object - for they

know I am right and that any debate will indict them for the evil they perpetuate

against the students and future humanity.

2. Ground - I lose links to side-specific DAs and counterplans

D. Voting issue

1. Jurisdiction - you lose automatically because

You do not have the freedomto discuss/debate Time Cube.

2. Death -

EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A SUPERNATURAL TRANSCENDENTAL PRINCIPLE.



A2: 2AC clarification

Their clarification makes the whole situation worse.

1. Plan text is key. If they clarify, we can’t debate around a binding text, which is the basis of the entire round. Clarification moots the 1nc and makes it impossible for neg to debate the aff since they can just spike out of parts of our strategy. This is a voter for ground and timeskew/fairness.

2. Too little, too late- the damage has already been done, we based our strategy off of what we heard in the 1AC and you have completely skewed our time and strategy skew.

3. Justifies aff conditionality- they can sever out of any part of their plan to spike out of our disads- this destroys competitive equity.

4. If they specify in the 2AC, it means they intended to be abusive – make them pay for not putting it in their plan text or clarifying in CX, they might have had a chance then, but now its game over on the abuse story.

5. Concedes they could have specified in their text– the post facto nature of their response means they could have easily specified in the plan – no risk of offense for the negative



A2: Cross-X checks

Cross-ex does not check.

1. It makes disclosure irrelevant; if the plan is really just explained during cross-ex, their disclosure is misleading since we prep against what they might say.

2. It’s infinitely regressive. They could read a meaningless plan text, then clarify all of it during cross-ex, which gives the neg zero prep until the end of the 1ac cross-ex.

3. It’s a bad standard for debate. Not everyone thinks that cross-ex is binding, and partner miscommunication can substantially change the round for either teams benefit, and there’s no reason why it’s better than 1ac clarification.

4. No one flows cross-ex. It’s impossible to record specifications and they may have different interpretations of what happened.



A2: Normal Means



A2: Optimal Means



A2: Leads to O-Spec

The argument is crap. It’s the same as T is not a voter argument. Even if we could run this violation on other cases, it wouldn’t justify them winning because no one would have to specify anything.

1. It’s easier for critics to ignore spec arguments if they think the aff specifies enough, thus helping the aff, then it is for them to come up with Spec arguments as a reason to vote neg. If we don’t make the argument, we can’t win on it, but the aff can always win on the implicit answer.

2. In-round potential abuse comes first. As of the 2ac they could have specified everything and we wouldn’t have any relevant arguments for their solvency which already warped the 1nc time allocation and strategy since we didn’t know what the plan did, which is the strategy skew voter. We’ve got a more direct link to the terminal impact since their hypothetical scenario relies on vapid perception internal links and a snowball effect that assumes a super-informed community.

3. Overspecifying is inevitable; as long as the affirmative has to say anything, the neg can ask them more questions. If they don’t have to specify on, like, enforcement, a lot, they would still have to specify a lot about something else, like intent, even as per their own interpretation of the priorities of debate.



A2: Your Cp doesn’t spec.



A2: Reasonability

THIS ISN’T NAM – THIS IS DEBATE, THERE ARE RULES

1. It’s not what you do it’s what you justify – competing interpretations is the only non-arbitrary standard of evaluating abuse.

2. Reasonability allows every case to be topical because every case links to generic arguments like NATO, malthus and spark.

3. It’s a jurisdictional voting issue – it’s not within your jurisdiction to vote for a non topical affirmative.

4. Applied to any other argument in debate reasonability is silly – you wouldn’t say – “well we don’t quite outweigh your disad but we’re reaallllly close”

5. No impact to substance crowd out – topicality debates are good because they increase critical thinking to determine what kind of topic the aff justifies, and are key to small schools being able to compete.



A2: Being a Spec Whore Bad

A: There is no abuse in running Specs. Specification is what checks for abuse done within the Affirmative’s plan.

B: Under the competing interpretations framework, if the negative presents a better interpretation than the affirmative's (which the affirmative does not meet), the negative wins. In other words, the affirmative's burden is to meet the best interpretation in the round. Also, under this framework, the negative is allowed to run as specs as necessary to ensure that no abuse has been done.

C. Prefer this framework

1. Specification is a way to check for abuse in the Affirmative’s plan.

2. This framework is used throughout the debate community.

3. Running specs is very predictable. Almost every team will run them.

4. It prevents the Aff from being lazy and not answer Specs, while reading an abuse argument in place of it.

D. No abuse has been done

1. The Negative is only requiring the aff to specify in their plan text ______.

2. No education has been lost. Specification checks that we are focusing on policy, not on something that is completely irrelevant to debate.

3. Specs are fair. It is a very predictable argument, and the Aff should be prepared toanswer it.

E. No reverse voting issue.



A2: Competing Interpretations Bad

Competing Interpretations is best –

1. Not a race to the bottom – Aff can just argue that our standards are bad, as long as we win our interpretation is best, we have proved it advantageous. Make them read offense to our interpretation.

2. Education – competing interpretations is key to accessing in-depth grammatical debate over the meaning of the resolution in context based on standards debates.

3. Most objective – only our paradigm can actually determine the winner of the debate with complete neutrality by evaluating it based on offense and defense instead of whether the judge thinks the affirmative interpretation is accurate.



A2: No Voter

1. There is in round abuse – by not specifying, we lose ground and education that would be in a specific debate.

2. Potential abuse is a voter – prefer competing interpretations – they must justify their world of debate.


Spec Whore

Documents

Transcript of Spec Whore