Aspec


 * Agent Specification (A-Spec)**

ASPEC is a specific type of specification argument used against a plan or counterplan. It has elements in common with Vagueness, but specification debates are really creatures all their own and should be treated as such.

ASPEC argues that if a plan or counterplan does not state, explicitly, who the agent of action is, the other team should win. A sample shell is below.

A. Interpretation: All plans must specify an agent of action--a single, cohesive body which can act to pass and implement the mandates. In the case of U.S. federal actors, this means giving us one of the three branches of government: the Presidency, Congress, or the federal judiciary.

B. Violation: They don't! The standard for evaluation here is plan in a vacuum, the literal plan text that was read in the first speech.

C. Vote opp!

1. Plan lacks solvency. Implementation is 90 percent of policy, and they can't tell you how their plan gets implemented. Policy makers don't pass plans or vote for bills that aren't detailed enough to include an implementing agency! (Richard Elmore in 1980 specifically wrote that "The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysis that decisions are not self-executing. [...] it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.")

2. Ground loss. Their lack of specification destroys our ground to run disadvantages on a specific agent or counterplans to an alternate agent. Potential abuse is real abuse because it would waste our time to run dummy positions just so they could link out of them to prove abuse on A-spec. It's bad enough that we can't run those arguments because their plan isn't stable.

3. Plan is a moving target. If we commit our strategy against a specific agency, they would have the option of saying that they don't use that agency. That hamstrings our strategic calculations and hurts competitive equity in the debate round. They must have a stable advocacy.


 * When to run ASPEC!**

When should you run A-spec? Well when your opponent fails to specify an actor of course! Some people talk about A-spec as a procedural time suck and it often is a procedural time suck. However, when employed well, most teams will not answer this position sufficiently, I think the South Carolina team will attest to this.

You most likely will not win many rounds on A-spec if you aren't running the position sincerely. That means you have to commit to 'earning' a link to this position. Ask your opponents who implements their plan. Ask them again. Press them for an answer. If they refuse, then run the position and run it with gusto. Refer to the fact that they wouldn't answer or take your questions on the subject. Explain how that supercharges the link to the position. This is the reason for POI's, plan clarification, and they are refusing to answer. Explain that this makes it very hard for you to attack the plan, and that at the very least should guarantee you links to your disadvantages, kritiks or alternate agent counterplans.

Alternatively, if they don't specify and you don't feel like asking, run ASPEC anyway. It's not your job to make sure they have a complete plan text--it's theirs. If they didn't specify mandates, would they expect you to just ask about that?


 * Answering A-Spec**

This should be pretty easy. Always specify an Actor! You won't get into this discussion if you specify your agent. Also, if they haven't pressed you for an actor point out that they had the opportunity for clarification via a POI. Also, get in the habit of pausing for questions after you've read plan text, and always read it twice. I mean it, finish plan text (twice) and stop. Say "If there are any questions about plan, let's hear them now before we move on...no questions? Okay, Advantage One." That will really gain you points with the judge. A-Spec is often about perception. Does the judge perceive you using plan text to gain an advantage in the round? Were you fair in your disclosure of plan to your opponents? Do all that you can to convince the judge that your plan text was entirely forthcoming and that if your opponents had questions, they could have asked.

Also, ask your opponents and the judge where specification arguments stop? Even if we specified the agent, it would be infinitely regressive, next they will be asking which Congresspeople vote for it or if it goes through a certain committee. There is no end to this type of argument which means that as long as you can prove that your opponent still had ground in the debate, then there was enough specification in plan text.

Consider whether it is more dangerous to have a live A-spec violation or a live disadvantage/CP/K guaranteed to link due to specification. Often, the disads which are paired with A-spec are terrible positions animated mostly by the desire to demonstrate that there is some position which specification should link you to. If the off-case is literally "If plan was implemented by Congress, then Bush would gain credit for its passage, and that leads to him gaining political capital and nuking China. Next.", then you should be able to not just beat that disadvantage but turn it. In this case, it is to your strategic advantage to say "Alright, we'll concede for the purposes of this discussion that we do, indeed, use Congress, so their off case links to us. Thank you for reading another advantage to plan." On the other hand, if the disadvantage is well-constructed and run better than the A-spec shell, you might be better of just engaging the A-spec shell and beating the disadvantage with a simple no-link. Note that you can test the waters during the LOC by asking "If we were to concede the link to your off case positions, does A-spec go away?", a question which does not commit you to the concession but lays the groundwork for it if you decide to go down that route (and if they say "No, A-spec is still a live issue", that gives you some leverage with which to attack their "meaningless procedural game").