2 Ways to Run Spec (that Probably Won't Work)
In the last post, we explained why policy debate needs specification to force affirmatives to fully participate in the debate. Unfortunately, that line of thinking puts us in a strange place.
The Problem
Behind the scenes, we know that the affirmative not presenting their entire Plan in the first speech is toxic to debate. But on the surface, that behavior doesn’t seem that harmful. Judges call into two categories:
Those who are already familiar with Spec. They know the underlying theory and will respond well to an argument.
Those who are not already familiar with Spec. They can’t see the underlying problem and it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to sway them on it in a live round.
If that dilemma looks familiar, it’s because it’s common to all Kritiks - and that’s what Spec is, if we only use the logic from the last post.
Option 1: Kritik
You can run Spec as a conditional punitive behavioral Kritik, as follows:
Standard: Prima Facie. The affirmative must present enough about their Plan in the first speech that it can be fully evaluated and arguments can be formed against it.
Violation: Vague Plan. The Plan we just heard doesn’t specify which country the affirmative wants to invade.
Conditional Violation: New Info. If the affirmative “clarifies” their Plan in the next speech, they’re abusing the format and wasting everyone’s time. That behavior would be anti-debate.
Impact: Punitive Loss. If the conditional violation is triggered, punish the affirmative for their unethical behavior by voting negative.
This is coherent, but it’s a real reach because, again, the behavior Spec targets doesn’t look that bad from the judge’s perspective. The abuse is invisible. Unless the judge is ready and eager to vote on Spec, this tactic probably won’t work.
Option 2: Objection
Instead of a Kritik, you can simply say that the affirmative hasn’t presented enough information to prove the resolution true. This is a much lighter argument persuasively, and unlike the Kritik variant, it plays well with other arguments like Disadvantages and Backfires.
Thesis 1: Insufficient Advocacy. The affirmative hasn’t presented their Plan in enough detail that you can decide whether or not it’s a good idea. We can’t know whether invasion is good until we know where we’re invading.
Thesis 2: Clarification Unacceptable. The aff might present the essential information later in the round under the guise of clarification. But if they do, the round will end before you’ve heard enough back-and-forth on it and gain confidence in a decision. This speech should be full of arguments about a Plan that we all fully understand, not this Spec Objection.
Conflict: First Speech Sufficiency. The question is less about whether or not the Plan is a good idea, and more about whether or not you heard enough about it in the first speech to allow a full debate.
Alternative: Presumption. The round started with presumption applied, and since you can't possibly hear enough in this round to displace it, it will remain in force.
Impact: Default to Neg. Maybe there was a good idea in the resolution somewhere, but you can’t confidently affirm that.
This is much stronger in most scenarios, but it still poses problems. Affirmatives are likely to say: “If there was something the neg wanted to know, they could have asked in cross-ex! If the negative had all this time to run the objection, why couldn’t they have just run impact calculus arguments instead?”
The bottom line: while the objection is usually more viable, neither option is strong enough to merit consistent use. There are too many moving parts, and it’s too much of a risk. You should only run these arguments if you’re confident the judge will respond well to them.
The good news: there is a third option. We call it Secret Spec, and it is devastating.
Come back soon to learn about Secret Spec.