Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-- Aff must specify which branch passes the plan they dont -- Vote Neg 1. Ground robs courts, congress, executive counterplans, agent specific disads and case arguments 2. Conditionality resolved means a firm course of action not specifying allows them to shift and clarify in the 2AC 3. No solvency theres no such actor as the Federal Government, only specific branches
Brovero 94 (Adrienne, Debate Coach, Immigration Policies, Debaters Research Guide, http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Brovero1994Immigration.htm) The problem is not that there is not a plan; this time there is one. The problem is that there is no agent specified. The federal government does not enact policies, agents or agencies within the federal government enact policies. The agent enacting a policy is a very important aspect of the policy. For some of the same reasons the
affirmative team should specify a plan of action, the affirmative team should specify an agent of action.
2NC Overview
-- Offense/defense if specification is better, its a voting issue even if their interpretation is reasonable its the only non-arbitrary way to determine procedurals checks judge intervention which ruins fairness. Specification is key to all strategy A) Agent-based strategies are educational core ground vast literature exists for topic-specific agent trade-off disads, specific politics or court disad links, presidential power disads, etc. along with in-depth debates over agent, delegation, or other process counterplans. These are the only core ground because the topic is so diverse the only stable action relates to the actor. Core ground is key to fairness: its the only thing we can consistently prepare. B) Allows conditionality they can clarify the plan to an alternate actor in the 2AC to avoid offense and manipulate the plan to their advantage C) Crucial to pre-round prep the plan text is the most mainstream form of disclosure and locus of neg strategy formulation before the round anything else skews time allocation. Adequate pre-round prep is key to fair debate. D) No solvency the federal government does not exist. Extend Brovero vote neg on presumption because the plan does nothing This has to be a voter our strategy arguments implicate the way the whole debate is framed and any other remedy would create a no-cost burden for the Aff by forcing the negative to have to go for theory just to get back to square one.
-- Even if they win this, its a reason to vote Negative if the resolution doesnt require an agent, and we win that that is bad, you should vote Negative to censure the resolution for being fundamentally unfair.
-- Even if some ground exists, they still rob us of the core structural ground that is built in to the resolution that ground is key to fairness and negative strategy because its the only thing we can consistently prepare. -- Doesnt solve the arguments they allow favor the Aff because theyre specific to the plan err Neg on theory and prefer Negative strategy to Affirmative ground the Aff has structural advantages which already give them a bias like infinite prep time to create their Affirmative, the ability to choose a strategic area of the topic for the 1AC, and the first and last speech meaning they should be held to the reciprocal burden of providing an acceptable amount of negative ground. -- Ultimately, this is only defense the ground they provide is also included in our interpretation theres only a risk they deny the negative arguments about the agent.
-- In this instance, ground outweighs grammar A) The Framers of the resolution are not grammar experts each syllable was not mean to be dissected, but rather the resolution was meant to facilitate fair debates which ground is key to. B) Grammar is only useful to define predictable interpretations of the resolution, which would clearly exist regardless of inclusion of the word the. -- Their interpretation is equally ungrammatical theyve conceded our definition of Resolved meaning a firm course of action which is impossible without specification because many possible agents could implement any given plan.
Conditionality 2NC
Extend our argument that a lack of specification makes the Aff conditional. They could clarify in 2AC that the plan is done by any number of actors to avoid links to our offense or dodge counterplan competition. Two impacts A) Aff conditionality is uniquely damaging to negative strategy because the plan is the starting point and locus for debate allows the Aff to dodge all of the 1NC. B) Makes them not topical theyve conceded our definition of Resolved meaning a firm course of action which theyre not because their action can be done by varied actors. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and jurisdiction.
Solvency 2NC
Theyve conceded the solvency implication in the 1NC theres no such actor as the United States Federal Government, only specific bodies like the Congress, Supreme Court, or Executive agencies. Their plan does nothing because their actor doesnt exist and you should vote neg on presumption extend Brovero Even if you think this argument is bad, you should still vote here. It was clearly marked in the 1NC, they had time in the 2AC to answer it and didnt. Dont allow new 1AR answers because it encourages sandbagging and skews negative block strategy.
No Counter-Interpretation 2NC
They dont have a counter-interpretation, so even if our interpretation is a little bad its better than nothing and if they dont meet it, they should lose. Dont allow new 1AR interpretations because its the locus of a theory debate, encourages sandbagging, skews negative block strategy, and it was their fault for not making one in the 2AC.