Document1

DUDA 2010

1 Agent specification Index

ASPEC 1NC............................................................................................................................................................ 2 2NC Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 AT plan is not conditional....................................................................................................................................... 4 AT Resolution doesnt require it/ C-I only do the resolution ................................................................................. 5 AT causes infinitve regressive ................................................................................................................................ 6 AT Plan = normal means ........................................................................................................................................ 7 AT hurts topic education ......................................................................................................................................... 8 AT But we still solve .............................................................................................................................................. 9 AT Well specify for DAs and not CPs ................................................................................................................ 10 AT CX checks ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 AT 2AC Specification........................................................................................................................................... 12 Agent debates are good ......................................................................................................................................... 13 AT: No Abuse ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 2NR fairness first ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 ASPEC 1NC
Failure of the 1AC plan text to specify its agent kills negative ground and debateability 1. Makes the plan conditional They can change their plan after hearing our strategy. Aff conditionality is uniquely bad because the plan is the focus of debate. 2. Kills 1NC Strategy Who does the plan determines all of our arguments we cant talk about military intricacies without knowing whether the plan is legislative or an executive order; we cant talk about implementation without knowing if it is judicial or not. Our DAs, Kritiks, case arguments are all based off of the agent. CP competition in particular is based off of the TEXT of the plan 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 agent counterplans and agent based DAs since the aff had the possibility of no-linking out of them.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 2NC Overview
Not specifying the agent in the plan text destroys competitive equity a. Makes the plan conditional the 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 politics, Kritiks, and CPs. Vote neg to preserve competitive equity. In round abuse is irrelevant because the theory of the plan destroys fair debate.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT plan is not conditional

1. they defend it happens but not HOW which 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 of humanity. 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. Detached from 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 discourse of citizens and debates by citizen representatives in parliamentary assemblies came to be displaced 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 ecological rationality is an exercise that borders on irrevelency if one ignores this context of power.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT Resolution doesnt require it/ C-I only do the resolution

1. The res is not key to fairness it doesnt determine our speech limits, status of CPs, or whether the affirmative should need to specify all of what are key to neg ground. Res focus is bad this justifies counter warrants, which empirically cause horrible debate and prevent the aff from ever winning 2. This is not a T violation the USFG in the resolution just gives the aff the choice to pick one of the three branches. Regardless of the resolution, specification is key to education and ground 3. This justifies reading the resolution as your plan, which is uniquely bad on this topic because then the 2ac could pick which combination of countries it removes presence from killing 1NC strategy and topic education.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT causes infinitve regressive

1. Real world disproves All three branches never do anything simultaneously. 2. future fiat independent 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. No bright line specifying a branch or branches is not an onerous burden and allows for better discussion since literature is written in that context. 4. turn: aff is worse they justify saying one or more of the countries preventing any real discussion of any of the countries.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT Plan = normal means

1. Makes aff conditional allows the aff to change their agent in the 2ac based off of a card 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 VI 2. TURN: Hurts the neg more this forces us to read solvency cards for them to clarify the plan, causing a 1nc time skew. 3. Side bias With 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 prevents if 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. TURN double bind either A. There is no normal means because it is vague and could be anything 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 intended meaning is "legal [*354] religious activities." n16 In other words, normal means whatever the state or its representatives allow. n17 OR

b. If Normal means does exist, than the aff should do the research and ut that agent in their plan proving there is no reason for them to not specify.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 T hurts topic education

1. cant access topic education if we cant read about the way implementation goes down. 2. Plan text key if its not in the plan text, we can not prepare our 1nc strategy until after the cross-x, hurting neg prep time and preventing good negative strategies because it influences are DAs, Ks and case arguments 3. key to relation DAs A. Not specifying the agent allows the aff to decide whether Obama or the congress opposes or supports the plan, changing how the country perceives it B. Agency and court action are less perceived than the congressional passage

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT But we still solve

1. Doesnt mean you should win. You may stop juvenile crime, but if your plan doesnt follow the rules of debate you should lose.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

Document1

DUDA 2010

AT Well specify for DAs and not CPs

1. Arbitrary - This 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. [ read agent debates good if not reading it elsewhere]

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

10

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT CX checks
1. still kills CP competition Judges decide based of of what is written in the texts. 2. Infinitelly regressive this justifies the aff just saying Plan ask us about it in cross-x 3. Kills cross-ex time were 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 prep waiting until cross-ex forces us to make strategic decisions based on an aff cross-ex whim, making neg debate impossible.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

11

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT 2AC Specification
1. Proves our plan conditionality they specified after hearing our strategy which proves the plan is conditional. This is an indepdent VI 2. 1NC strategy still destroyed we cant redo the 1NC and our strategic decisions have already been compromised. Its not like we can read new DAs and CPs and forget about the 1NC

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

12

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 Agent debates are good

1. You cant beat aspec on agent CPs bad A. the neg should still get DAs, solvency args, etc B. if the agent CPs are really that abusive the aff should just specify and beat the CPs on that theory argument. 2. Politics DAs are good A. they encourage civic awareness, we have to focus on current events in Congress, allowing us to more effectively engage with the government B. specific link arguments provide specific debate about the plan and how its implemented. 3. Agent CPs are good A. key to neg flex on such a large topic the neg cant do enough research to defend the status quo B. Agent net benefits dont outweigh the case agent Cps are key to discuss those issues C. Agent CPs key to prevent the neg from having to argue racism good because the aff has the moral high ground. 4. key to relation DAs A. Not specifying the agent allows the aff to decide whether Obama or the congress opposes or supports the plan, changing how the country perceives it B. Agency and court action are less perceived than the congressional passage 5. Key to solvency arguments its key to solvency arguments about the institutional effectiveness of different agents. <Read the Elmore card on the plan is not conditional block if you havent already>

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

13

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 AT: No Abuse
1. Irrelevant - ,evaluate this like a limits topicality argument they have to justify the practice of not specifying their agent. 2. Arbitrary they force judge intervention to decide what is enough abuse is enough, making debates about a particular judge and not our arguments. 3. skews the 1nc we shouldnt have to give up 1NC time to read DAs and solvency arguments they are going to no link out of 4. Counterplan competition they ignore our CP competiton argument from above 5. Plan still conditional they still have the possibility of changing the plan hurting neg strategy.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

14

Document1

DUDA 2010

1 2NR fairness first

Fairness trumps education All of their offensive arguments are about education but fairness is a prerequisite for education. If we dont have fair debates, neither side will be able to clash with the other preventing education. Also, if there isnt fairness for both sides than people will quit debate and do some other game that is more fair. If we win one of our reasons why the aff justifies an unfair practice, than you should vote for us.

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

15

Document1

DUDA 2010

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

16

Document1

DUDA 2010

Last printed 10/14/2012 5:56:00 PM

17