How to Run Secret Spec 1: The Theory
Your opponents are being ambiguous to avoid meaningful debate. You probably can’t run spec explicitly and expect good results. You asked simple questions in cross-ex that they refused to answer.
Now, it’s time to run Secret Spec.
Note: this works for any form of debate, not just policy.
Theory of Secret Spec
To understand why this tactic works, ask yourself: why do you bother to run a Plan observation? Perhaps your Plan is so awesome that you really want to show off every detail. But more likely, you’re running it defensively. You’re doing it not just to clarify what you’re doing, but what you’re not doing. If your opponents run a scary Disadvantage against you, you want to be able to point to your Plan and say: “That’s not what we’re doing. This doesn’t apply.”
Ambiguous affirmatives forfeit the right to do that. If you gave them the chance to take a clear position in cross-ex and they still refused, they announced that they revoke the right to say what they’re not doing. And that means that this basic de-link defense is off the table.
To put it simply:
Affirmatives who refuse to interpret their own position are vulnerable to any reasonable interpretation the negative wants to use.
So the affirmative supports invading a country, but won’t say which one. They also won’t say which one they don’t want to invade. Instead of floundering because the affirmative hasn’t given you enough to go against, do their job for them. Interpret their position in whatever way is favorable to you.
The interpretation should still be reasonable. In other words, it should be something the affirmative has not spoken against that is clearly, unequivocally topical. Within those parameters, you’re free to pick whatever you like.
This would be ludicrous behavior against a normal affirmative, because they gave you an actual position to argue against. Pretending that they said something else is an example of the classic Straw Man fallacy. But ambiguous affirmatives don’t have a position. They are a pile of straw waiting to be fashioned into a man.
Resolved: The judge should marry a villager.
Affirmative: Lakewood is full of wonderful people, and marriage is nice. We reserve the right to clarify our plan as needed.
The affirmative is ambiguously throwing their support behind any villager. So: who’s the worst one to marry? Is it Sarah, the liar? Kate, who just posted on her story about how much she hates the judge? Or perhaps it’s Monique, who turns into a werewolf every full moon?
The choice is yours. Do the affirmative’s job for them and pick a position. Then argue against it.
“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
Part 2 is around the corner. Stay tuned.