2012 spec whore

8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

1/22

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 doesnt 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 dont 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 Years Novices: 12 off then solvency.

8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

2/22


E-Spec 1NC

A. Our interpretation of fiat is that it is an assumption we agree to make.

We dont agree to aff assumptions that arent topical nor to ones we cant

debate against.

B. They dont 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. Thats bad

1. We lose ground, without enforcement specified we lose specific links to

DAs, Ks, and case which discuss how law works since 90 percent of the

plan is in the implementation.

RichardElmore 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. Theyre effectively fiating the object. If they dont tell us what happens in

the case someone doesnt obey the plan it gives us the same ground as if

we simply assumed to plan solves, which destroys negative ground since

we cant 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 dont 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 thats

extratopical and proves the resolution is insufficient since federal actions

isnt enough and its unpredictable for the neg.

D. Vote Neg

1. They fail to affirm the resolution since they prove it alone isnt enough

2. Voting aff deprives us of neg ground and kills fairness and education


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

3/22


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 doesnt specify what kind of fiat they are using.

C. Thats bad

1. We lose the ground for politics disads, as they can just say that they arent

going through the legislative bodies and that there is no link.

2. We cant run counterplans with politics net-benefits.

3. We cant run kritiks/framework involving the process the plan goes through.

D. Its a voting issue

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

2. Negative ground is key for education and fairness.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

4/22


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 doesnt specify

their implementation, since the aff can spike out of Das by claiming that their

plan is implemented in an alternate way that doesnt 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 knowledgeof how the plan will be implemented, key facts are hidden and unknown.

C. In-round Implications

At 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.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

5/22


F-Spec

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

B. Violation: The aff doesnt specify their funding.

C. Thats 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 DAs

wont 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


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

6/22


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. Thats bad.

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

2. Kills neg ground- We lose time-sensitive DAs and CPs, and all uniqueness.

3. It means no solvency. They cant 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 wont look to the

voters, you still have to look to the zero solvency.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

7/22


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. Thats 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


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

8/22


G Spec 1nc

A. Interpretation- The grounds of a decision is as important as the decision itself. Theaffirmative 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 AmericanInternment 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 itwas wrong must be articulated again. As lawyers well know, the rationale may be asimportant as the result by itself in comprehending the meaning of legal authority. Whatis constitutional is not necessarily advisable. Technically, for all the contempt directed at the Supreme Courts internment cases, it isworth noting that the decisions have never been repudiated and actually have been followed consistently. Indeed, Chief Justice WilliamH. Rehnquist penned a book a few years ago intimating that if a similar matter were to come before the Court again he would notexpect it do otherwise. (William H. Rehnquist, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf 1998).) Imagining thecounterfactual 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 todayscircumstances. If the internment was wrong because racial classifications are to be regarded as immoral or unconstitutionalas an absolute rule, then there is no distinction to be made between Japanese Americans on the one hand and Arab Americans orMuslim Americans on the other hand. The form of the argument does not vary by specific groups. If the internment was wrong becausethe 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 wholedoes not predict the conduct of Arab Americans or Muslim Americans on the whole. There are more possibilities. If the internment waswrong because of the lack of any semblance of due process, then even the German Americans and Italian Americans in isolated caseshad 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.

Its 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 specificeducation


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

9/22


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 QuestionDoctrine, And Morrison, Constitutional Commentary, 18 Const. Commentary319, lexis

The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested "federal majority" would consistently seek toimpose more federal control over the people and the states. n10 Hence, they created a federal structuredesigned to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. Theyinstituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua states." n11 The Framers sought to protectliberty 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 thethree branches of government, and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers mostfeared) 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 Governmentisnt 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 1NCand pre-round prep are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan

D. Voter for fairness and education


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

10/22


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 plantext.

C. Standards:

1. Limits: Without using the United States Federal Government, the aff could run anyaff pertaining to a single branch of government, and the neg could never prepare forthe flood of new affs. Their plan justifies plans that have something to do with a singleperson in Congress. This kills topic specific education since we aren't talking aboutthe 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.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

11/22


M-Spec

A. Interpretation- The affirmative may not specify both the United States FederalGovernment 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 theneg to generate offense, and is infinitely regressive.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

12/22


Time-Cube Spec

A. Interpretation - the earth is a 4-sided time cube - the plan text has to specify whichside 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 mostputrid name on Earth and claim they eat

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

know I am right and that any debate will

indict them for the evil they perpetuateagainst 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 freedom

to discuss/debate Time Cube.

2. Death -

EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A SUPERNATURALTRANSCENDENTAL PRINCIPLE.

A2: 2AC clarification


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

13/22


Their clarification makes the whole situation worse.

1. Plan text is key. If they clarify, we cant 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 strategyoff of what we heard in the 1AC and you have completely skewed our time andstrategy skew.

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

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

5. Concedes they could have specified in their text the post facto nature of theirresponse means they could have easily specified in the plan no risk of offensefor the negative


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

14/22


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. Its 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. Its 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 theres no reason why its better than 1ac clarification.

4. No one flows cross-ex. Its impossible to record specifications and they may have

different interpretations of what happened.

A2: Normal Means


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

15/22



8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

16/22


A2: Optimal Means


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

17/22


A2: Leads to O-Spec

The argument is crap. Its the same as T is not a voter argument. Even if we could run

this violation on other cases, it wouldnt justify them winning because no one would

have to specify anything.

1. Its 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 dont make the argument, we cant 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 wouldnt have any relevant arguments for their solvency which

already warped the 1nc time allocation and strategy since we didnt know what the

plan did, which is the strategy skew voter. Weve 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 dont 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.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

18/22


A2: Your Cp doesnt spec.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

19/22


A2: Reasonability

THIS ISNT NAM THIS IS DEBATE, THERE ARE RULES

1. Its not what you do its what you justify competing interpretations is the onlynon-arbitrary standard of evaluating abuse.

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

3. Its a jurisdictional voting issue its not within your jurisdiction to vote for a nontopical affirmative.

4. Applied to any other argument in debate reasonability is silly you wouldnt say well we dont quite outweigh your disad but were reaallllly close

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


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

20/22


A2: Being a Spec Whore Bad

A: There is no abuse in running Specs. Specification is what checks for abuse done

within the Affirmatives 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 Affirmatives 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 to answer it.

E. No reverse voting issue.


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

21/22


A2: Competing Interpretations Bad

Competing Interpretations is best

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

2. Education competing interpretations is key to accessing in-depth grammaticaldebate over the meaning of the resolution in context based on standardsdebates.

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


8/2/2019 2012 Spec Whore

22/22


A2: No Voter

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

2. Potential abuse is a voter prefer competing interpretations they must justifytheir world of debate.

Judge: Where are you going?

2012 spec whore

Documents