T- Framework

A. Interpretation: The affirmative must present and defend the process of implementation of the plan by the United States federal government Resolved proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy, not assume plan has been passed The USFG is the government in Washington D.C. B. Violation: The affirmative does not go through the normal process of lawmaking C. This interpretation is best A. If we win this argument, the affirmative is not topical because they do not defend the resolution, thats a voting issue to preserve competitive equity and jurisdictional integrity B. Our interpretation includes politics Disads and agent counterplans which is core negative ground and are good
First real world education politics disads are the only way debaters get to learn about the passage and the current political climate. Our Disad claims are real politicians are willing to form roadblocks on other issues if theirs is not address. - Debate ability Politics are usually linear with one similar internal link to everything with a single issue that is related if we prove a specific links means our claims are related. - Policy Making- Policy makers must be able to recognize how separate legislation affect one another in terms of political capitol and time restraints. C. Agent CPs Good 1. Predictable aff should have prepared, theyre run every round and our actor is completely legit and not obscure. 2. Key to negative ground agent counterplan make up the core of the negatives strategic options and not getting them is grossly unfair towards the aff. 3. Increases aff ground they can turn or read offense against our agent to win the round. 4. Lit checks abuse there arnt many actors through which to do the plan , the aff had the same opportunity to research and write answers as we did 5. a voter reject the team 6. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep

This is a prior question that must be resolved first it is a pre-condition for debate to occur. There cant be any debate without having any agreement of what the topic is and how it should be debated. Not having a set standard for the basis of the debate means that debates will be clashless and one sided.