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.
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.