279910423

DUDA 2010

===DDI 13 ASPEC===

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

1NC
Failure of the 1AC plan text to specify its agent kills negative ground and debateability.
Government power is divided into 3 branches
Rotunda, 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 Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers.
They divided power between the state and federal governments, and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it
among the three branches of government, and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between
two Houses of Congress. n12

a) 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.
b) Kills 1NC Strategy Cant determine implementation without 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 agent
counterplans and agent based DAs since the aff had the possibility of no-linking out of them.

2NC/1NR Blocks

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

Overview
1. 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 DAs,
Kritiks, and CPs Its all about textual competition.
2. There are not an unlimited number of potential agents Solvency evidence and mechanisms
check. Only a limited number of people advocate actors for increasing economic engagement
towards countries.
3. Proves the need for CP limits If 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.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Not Conditional
1. Sure they defend that the plan 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.

3. The plan text is the focus of the debate agent specification is critical to prevent shifting the
interpretation of what the USFG is. This is k2 fairness moving targets destroy ground
because we never get links to DAs and Ks and CPs never compete.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Its Not in the Res

1. Infinitely regressive encourages affs to just read the resolution and write vague plan texts skews the debate to breadth over depth. Prefer deptha. 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 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.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Infinite Regression
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. Turn: aff is worse they justify saying one or more of the countries preventing any real
discussion of any of the countries.
4. No bright line specifying a branch is not an onerous burden and allows for better discussion
since literature is written in that context.
5. Turn if we win that process is important to education, then their vagueness is infinitely
uneducational.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Normal Means
1. Makes aff conditional allows 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 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. 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 intended
meaning is "legal [*354] religious activities." n16 In other words, normal means whatever the state or its
representatives allow. n17

6. <<IF READING COURTS OR XO>> Minimal means minimal amount of fiat is slightly
more than of congress.
7. 2ac clarification is a voting issue shouldve told us what normal means was before hand
they moot all of the 1NC.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Topic Education
1. Plan text key We couldnt prepare our 1nc strategy until after the cross-x this hurts neg
prep and prevents good negative strategies because it influences are DAs, Ks and case arguments
2. Key to relations DAs 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
3. Cant access topic education if we cant read about the way implementation goes down.
4. <<READ IF YOU HAVENT ALREADY>> Implementation is 90% 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 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.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT But We Still Solve

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

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

279910423

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 COUNTERPLANS GOOD HERE IF YOU ARENT ELSEWHERE>>

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

10

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT Agent CPs Bad

You 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 good aff 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

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

11

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT CX Checks
1. Still kills CP competition Judges decide based off of what is written in the texts.
2. Infinitely 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. We just get the plan, even if they
say they will answer questions, you have no verification
5. Gives too much power to the aff they can moot all of our prep up to that point by changing
their answer

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

12

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT 2AC Specification
1. 2AC is too late they 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 speech this is an independent voting issue.
3. Doesnt meet the resolution basis of resolved
American Heritage 2000 The 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

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

13

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT OSPEC Bad
1. Moving target saying that we should debate about what the plan means puts the negative
way behind they 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 actors their claims that they could use some crazy actor to get
out of our links should be evaluated with scrutiny there are only a couple actors that can do the
plan we should get to know which one they use and, even if they do specify a crazy actor, at
least we get our agent cp and can compare

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

14

279910423

DUDA 2010

AT We are all 3 branches

<<IF YOURE JUST LOOKING FOR A POLITICS LINK, CONCEDE THIS AND MOVE ON
WITH THE CP AS A PIC OUT OF CONGRESS>>
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.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

15

279910423

DUDA 2010

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. Skewing the 1NC proves actual abuse 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 competition argument from above
5. Plan still conditional they still have the possibility of changing the plan hurting neg strategy.

Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM

16

279910423

DUDA 2010

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 0/0/00 0:00 AM

17