aspec - ddi 2013 ss.docx

8/14/2019 ASPEC - DDI 2013 SS.docx

1/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

1

===DDI 13 ASPEC===


2/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

2

1NC

Failure of the 1AC plan text to specify its agent kills negative ground and debateability.Government power is divided into 3 branchesRotunda,professor of law at the University of Illinois,2001 [Richard, 18 Const. Commentary 319, THE

COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND MORRISON, l/n, (m7,06)]No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. Its state/federal division of authority protects liberty - both by restricting the burdens that

government can impose from a distance and by facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer to home. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the majority,agreed. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that the people's rights would be secured by the division of power." n9 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 Framerssought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers.

They divided powerbetween the state and federal governments, and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it

among the three branchesof government, andthey further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between

two Housesof Congress. n12

a) Makes the plan conditionalThey can change their plan after hearing our strategy. Aff

conditionality is uniquely bad because the plan is the focus of debate.

b) Kills 1NC StrategyCant determine implementationwithout determining the agent. Not

only are our DA links hurt, but the ability to have a competitive CP is lost because textual

competition is the key basis for the community. You should be extra strict about this given

disclosure rules and the need for education at a camp tournament.

Its not what they do, but what they justify. Even if you think there is no in round abuse, they

justify worse debates. However, there is in round abuse because we couldnt read our sweet agentcounterplans and agent based DAs since the aff had the possibility of no-linking out of them.


3/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

3


4/19


5/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

5

Overview

1. Not specifying the agent in the plan text destroys competitive equity

a) Makes the plan conditionalthe affs ability to specify the agent in the 2AC or 1AR after

hearing our strategy devastates negative ground and is uniquely abuse because the plan is the

focus of debate.

b) Having the agent in the plan is key to 1NC strategy choices, who does the plan is key to DAs,

Kritiks, and CPsIts all about textual competition.

2. There are not an unlimited number of potential agentsSolvency evidence and mechanisms

check. Only a limited number of people advocate actors for increasing economic engagement

towards countries.

3. Proves the need for CP limitsIf too many agents are unfair to the neg, then they are

reciprocally unfair for the aff.

4. Vote neg to preserve competitive equity. In round abuse is irrelevant because the theory of the

plan destroys fair debate.


6/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

6

AT Not Conditional

1. Sure they defend that the plan happens but not HOWwhich is what is important for

discussion. Its 90% of policy

Elmore, Univ Wash, 80(Political Science Quarterly 79-80, p. 605)The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discover by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing.

Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementating 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 1- percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

2. Evaluating the multi-faceted systems of administrating is crucial for a critical approach

toward environmentalism and issues of power

TORGERSON, POLITICAL STUDIES, ENVTL & RESOURE STUDIES PROGRAM @ TRENT, 99(Douglas, the promise of green politics: environmentalism and the public sphere, p. 11)The image of the administrative mind suggests an impartial reason, which exercises a supreme, unquestionable authority in pursuit of the universal well-being ofhumanity. In its contemporary technocratic form, the administrative mind gestures to the functional operations of a multifaceted system, monitored and regulated

through depersonalized analytic techniques. Yet technocratic images still mingle with more traditional ones, suggesting command and obedience in an

organizational hierarchy subordinated to a single head. These traditional images have still deeper connections with monarchial and even theocratic ideas. Detachedfrom mundane conflicts and error, the administrative mind casts a benign aura of assured order. Under the unified direction of this mind, an otherwise confusing

and uncertain world becomes calculable and controllable. Understanding the historical context of power depends on

understanding the administrative sphere. For, with the emergence of modern bureaucracy and its panoply of

technocratic devices, the public discourseof citizens and debatesby citizen representatives in parliamentary assembliescame to bedisplaced in significance by administrative operations. In the emerging administrative sphere, officials of

government agencies and business corporations especially played key roles in formulating and implementing policies to

promote an orderly course of industrialization. To ask whether a democratic or authoritarian model of government best promises ecologicalrationality is an exercise that borders on irrevelencyif one ignores this context of power.

3. The plan text is the focus of the debateagent specification is critical to prevent shifting theinterpretation of what the USFG is. This is k2 fairnessmoving targets destroy ground

because we never get links to DAs and Ks and CPs never compete.


7/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

7

AT Its Not in the Res

1. Infinitely regressiveencourages affs to just read the resolution and write vague plan texts -

skews the debate to breadth over depth. Prefer depth-

a. Education: depth is crucial to our understanding of issues. This education outweighs the

superficial education we get with breadth.

b. More limiting: depth focuses the topic on what is essential and allows us to have fair debates

for which we are prepared

c. Most real world: policy makers discuss all the intricacies of an issue so they can make the best

decisions and formulate the best policies- we can never make informed decisions when we have

only superficial knowledge of the topic

d. Breadth is pointless without depth-it's terminal impact is topic specific education, but depth

solves that better

2. Its the affs job to parametracize the resolution, otherwise we should be able to run disads to

all of the topic, not just their specific example.

3. The USFG as an actor does not exist, as it is split into three separate branches, thats Rotunda.

Therefore, it is impossible to get links to disads to a debate term actor

4. The res is not key to fairnessit doesnt determine our speech limits, status of CPs, or whetherthe affirmative should need to specifyall of what are key to neg ground.


8/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

8

AT Infinite Regression

1. Real world disprovesAll three branches never do anything simultaneously.

2. Future fiatindependent voting issue for fiating the future action of the other branches. This

future fiat distorts our perception DAs and allows them to claim advantages for the future that

we will not be prepared for.

3. Turn: aff is worsethey justify saying one or more of the countries preventing any real

discussion of any of the countries.

4. No bright linespecifying a branch is not an onerous burden and allows for better discussion

since literature is written in that context.

5. Turnif we win that process is important to education, then their vagueness is infinitelyuneducational.


9/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

9

AT Normal Means

1. Makes aff conditionalallows the aff to change their agent in the 2ac based off of a card

debate. Cross apple the textual competition debate. Also allows them to moot our strategies with

one card. This also makes them not topical because resolved means a firm decision to do

something according to Orans Dictionary of Law in 91, which is an independent voting issue.

2. TURN: Hurts the neg morethis forces us to read solvency cards for them to clarify the plan,

causing a 1nc time skew.

3. Side biasWith the affs infinite prep time, they can out research a neg on different ways their

aff can occur, tilting the balances too far since they also have first and last speeches.

4. 2ar preventsif we read cards about the plan in the 1nc and the aff read more, the 2ars

persuasiveness, and community consensus, would allow them to clarify their plan as they wish.

Getting to pick the way their aff works after were stuck with the 1nc strategy means neg can

never win.

5. There is no normal means for economic engagement because it is vague and could be anything

proving there is no reason for them to not specify the agent in the plan.Britsch, Professor of History, 95(R. Lanier Britsch *, 1995, 1995 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 347, Brigham Young

University Law Review, INTERNATIONAL CHURCH-STATE SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: The Current Legal

Status of Christianity in China, * Professor of History and Director of the David M. Kennedy Center for

International Studies at Brigham Young University; Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, 1968.)

Considerable discussion has focused on the word normal, most observers concluding that the intendedmeaning is "legal [*354] religious activities."n16 In other words, normal means whatever the state or its

representatives allow.n17

6. Minimal meansminimal amount of fiat is slightly

more than of congress.

7. 2ac clarification is a voting issueshouldve told us what normal means was before hand

they moot all of the 1NC.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1276843960365&returnToKey=20_T9577822804&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.216606.05375346987#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1276843960365&returnToKey=20_T9577822804&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.216606.05375346987#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1276843960365&returnToKey=20_T9577822804&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.216606.05375346987#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1276843960365&returnToKey=20_T9577822804&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.216606.05375346987#n16


10/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

10

AT Topic Education

1. Plan text keyWe couldntprepare our 1nc strategy until after the cross-xthis hurts neg

prep and prevents good negative strategies because it influences are DAs, Ks and case arguments

2. Key to relations DAsNot specifying the agent allows the aff to decide whether Obama or the

congress opposes or supports the plan, changing how the country perceives it

3. Cant access topic education if we cant read about the way implementation goes down.

4. Implementation is90% of policy decisions

Elmore, Univ Wash, 80(Political Science Quarterly 79-80, p. 605)The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discover by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing.

Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementating those choices is poorly

understood. In answering the question, What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmentalaction is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified? Allison estimated that, in the

normal case, it was about 1- percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.


11/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

11

AT But We Still Solve

Doesnt mean you should win if your plan doesnt followthe rules of debate you lose.


12/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

12

AT Well Specify for DAs and Not CPs

1. ArbitraryThis is just like the aff could specify for topicality, but not for solvency. These

arbitrary distinctions are literally infinite and would prevent clash, hurting education

2. This CP/DA Distinction is meaningless; both neg arguments prove the plan is a bad idea.


13/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

13

AT Agent CPs BadYou cant beat ASPEC with Agent CPs bad at worst we just lose the CP. Its not a reason why

we dont get DAs and solvency take-outs.

But agent CPs are awesome:

1. Encourages plan focus debate by testing the merits of the actor

2. Key to neg ground: lit indicates the plan is not a question of the advantages but rather

implementation

3. Neg flex is goodaff structural bias justifies the CP

4. Agent counterplans are necessary to solve for new affirmatives, or advantages that are morally

impossible to answer, and are critical to participation by smaller programs by allowing them to

control the amount of required research.

5. They dont steal aff ground the counterplan is fundamentally different than the plan

6. Encourages specific research by making the aff find the best actor and reasons why other

agents are not as good


14/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

14

AT CX Checks

1. Still kills CP competitionJudges decide based off of what is written in the texts.

2. Infinitely regressivethis justifies the aff just saying Plan ask us about it in cross-x

3. Kills cross-ex timewere forced to waste time on the agent instead of using it effectively to

ask about their shady 1AC internal links

4. Destroys 1NC and pre round prepwaiting until cross-ex forces us to make strategic decisions

based on an aff cross-ex whim, making neg debate impossible. We just get the plan, even if they

say they will answer questions, you have no verification

5. Gives too much power to the affthey can moot all of our prep up to that point by changing

their answer


15/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

15

AT 2AC Specification

1. 2AC is too latethey have already mooted the 1nc. Its not like we can read new Das and CPs

and forget about the 1NC

2. Proves the 1NC aff conditionality and moving target arguments. This skews predictability and

ground because they could clarify to get out of any 1NC argument. They waited until after they

heard our speechthis is an independent voting issue.

3. Doesnt meet the resolution basis of resolvedAmerican Heritage2000The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition,http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company,Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about

This is a voting issue for fairness and ground


16/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

16

AT OSPEC Bad

1. Moving targetsaying that we should debate about what the plan means puts the negative

way behindthey will always be ahead on normal means debates because they have infinite prep

for their plan, that means that negs will virtually NEVER get a link to a disad, and the aff can

change from round to round, or concede later in the round, and the plan has a different meaning

that makes them conditional and is not fair

2. There are a limited number of actorstheir claims that they could use some crazy actor to get

out of our links should be evaluated with scrutinythere are only a couple actors that can do the

planwe should get to know which one they useand, even if they do specify a crazy actor, at

least we get our agent cp and can compare


17/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

17

AT We are all 3 branches

1. They dont specify how they are all 3 branches, it makes no sense how this would work.

2. They are still vague because they dont explain what each branch does, they obviously cant all

do the exact same thing.


18/19

Document1 DUDA 2010

1

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM

18

AT No Abuse

1. Irrelevantevaluate this like a limits topicality argumentthey have to justify the practice of

not specifying their agent.

2. Arbitrarythey force judge intervention to decide what is enough abuse is enough, making

debates about a particular judge and not our arguments.

3. Skewing the 1NC proves actual abusewe shouldnt have to give up 1NC time to read DAs

and solvency arguments they are going to no link out of.

4. Counterplan competitionthey ignore our CP competition argument from above

5. Plan still conditionalthey still have the possibility of changing the plan hurting neg strategy.


19/19

aspec - ddi 2013 ss.docx

Documents