You are on page 1of 19


DUDA 2010


===DDI 13 ASPEC===

Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM


and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between two Houses of Congress. 18 Const. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals. (m7. Its state/federal division of authority protects liberty . but what they justify. that is. b) Kills 1NC Strategy – Can’t determine implementation without determining the agent. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that the people's rights would be secured by the division of power.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 1NC Failure of the 1AC plan text to specify its agent kills negative ground and debateability. professor of law at the University of Illinois. AND MORRISON”. agreed. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 2 . and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government. 2001 [Richard. Commentary 319. they created a federal structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. Even if you think there is no in round abuse. THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE. Government power is divided into 3 branches Rotunda. It’s not what they do. the people. Aff conditionality is uniquely bad because the plan is the focus of debate. n12 a) Makes the plan conditional – They can change their plan after hearing our strategy. there is in round abuse because we couldn’t read our sweet agent counterplans and agent based DAs since the aff had the possibility of no-linking out of them. not the "states qua states." n11 The Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers. n10 Hence. However. 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.both by restricting the burdens that government can impose from a distance and by facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer to home. Not only are our DA links hurt. for the majority." 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. l/n.06)] No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. “THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. they justify worse debates. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist. They divided power between the state and federal governments.

Document1 DUDA 2010 1 Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 3 .

Document1 DUDA 2010 1 2NC/1NR Blocks Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 4 .

Only a limited number of people advocate actors for increasing economic engagement towards countries. In round abuse is irrelevant because the theory of the plan destroys fair debate. Not specifying the agent in the plan text destroys competitive equity a) Makes the plan conditional – the aff’s 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. There are not an unlimited number of potential agents – Solvency evidence and mechanisms check. 4. Vote neg to preserve competitive equity. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 5 . then they are reciprocally unfair for the aff. 3. and CPs – It’s all about textual competition.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 Overview 1. 2. Kritiks. b) Having the agent in the plan is key to 1NC strategy choices. Proves the need for CP limits – If too many agents are unfair to the neg. who does the plan is key to DAs.

Detached from mundane conflicts and error. ENV’TL & RESOURE STUDIES PROGRAM @ TRENT. Under the unified direction of this mind. It’s 90% of policy Elmore. “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that. POLITICAL STUDIES. an otherwise confusing ¶ Understanding the historical context of power depends on understanding the administrative sphere.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT Not Conditional 1. it was about 1. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 6 . In the emerging administrative sphere. the promise of green politics: environmentalism and the public sphere. This is k2 fairness – moving targets destroy ground because we never get links to DA’s and K’s and CP’s never compete. suggesting command and obedience in an organizational hierarchy subordinated to a single head. officials of government agencies and business corporations especially played key roles in formulating and implementing policies to promote an orderly course of industrialization. Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementating those choices is poorly understood. Univ Wash. the administrative mind casts a benign aura of assured order. 11) The image of the administrative mind suggests an impartial reason. 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. which exercises a supreme. 99 (Douglas. the public discourse of citizens and debates by citizen representatives in parliamentary assemblies came to be displaced in significance by administrative operations. In its contemporary technocratic form. in the normal case.percent. The plan text is the focus of the debate – agent specification is critical to prevent shifting the interpretation of what the USFG is. 2. These traditional images have still deeper connections with monarchial and even theocratic ideas. 3. Sure they defend that the plan happens but not HOW – which is what is important for discussion. Yet technocratic images still mingle with more traditional ones. unquestionable authority in pursuit of the universal well-being of humanity. ¶ rationality is an exercise that borders on irrevelency if one ignores this context of power. Evaluating the multi-faceted systems of administrating is crucial for a critical approach toward environmentalism and issues of power TORGERSON. with the emergence of modern bureaucracy and its panoply of technocratic devices. leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. For. To ask whether a democratic or authoritarian model of government best promises ecological and uncertain world becomes calculable and controllable. the administrative mind gestures to the functional operations of a multifaceted system. p. monitored and regulated through depersonalized analytic techniques. 80 (Political Science Quarterly 79-80. In answering the question. p.

Therefore. Prefer deptha. Most real world: policy makers discuss all the intricacies of an issue so they can make the best decisions and formulate the best policies. as it is split into three separate branches. It’s the aff’s job to parametracize the resolution. The res is not key to fairness – it doesn’t determine our speech limits. otherwise we should be able to run disads to all of the topic. Infinitely regressive – encourages affs to just read the resolution and write vague plan texts skews the debate to breadth over depth. it is impossible to get links to disads to a debate term actor 4. but depth solves that better 2. Education: depth is crucial to our understanding of issues.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT It’s Not in the Res 1. The USFG as an actor does not exist. status of CPs. This education outweighs the superficial education we get with breadth.we can never make informed decisions when we have only superficial knowledge of the topic d. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 7 . that’s Rotunda. or whether the affirmative should need to specify – all of what are key to neg ground. b. Breadth is pointless without depth-it's terminal impact is topic specific education. More limiting: depth focuses the topic on what is essential and allows us to have fair debates for which we are prepared c. not just their specific example. 3.

Turn: aff is worse – they justify saying “one or more of the countries” preventing any real discussion of any of the countries. then their vagueness is infinitely uneducational.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT Infinite Regression 1. No bright line – specifying a branch is not an onerous burden and allows for better discussion since literature is written in that context. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 8 . 2. 5. 4. 3. Real world disproves – All three branches never do anything simultaneously. This future fiat distorts our perception DA’s and allows them to claim advantages for the future that we will not be prepared for. Turn – if we win that process is important to education. Future fiat – independent voting issue for fiating the future action of the other branches.

2ar prevents – if we read cards about the plan in the 1nc and the aff read more. which is an independent voting issue. 2. INTERNATIONAL CHURCH-STATE SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: The Current Legal Status of Christianity in China.U. 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. Kennedy Center for International Studies at Brigham Young University.Y.D. This also makes them not topical because resolved means “a firm decision to do something” according to Oran’s Dictionary of Law in 91. 7. 2ac clarification is a voting issue – should’ve told us what normal means was before hand – they moot all of the 1NC. Getting to pick the way their aff works after we’re stuck with the 1nc strategy means neg can never win. 4. tilting the balances too far since they also have first and last speeches.. 347.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT Normal Means 1. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 9 . Side bias – With the aff’s infinite prep time. Makes aff conditional – allows the aff to change their agent in the 2ac based off of a card debate. n17 6. they can out research a neg on different ways their aff can occur. Rev. 3. 1968.) Considerable discussion has focused on the word normal. Ph. causing a 1nc time skew.L. Claremont Graduate School. TURN: Hurts the neg more – this forces us to read solvency cards for them to clarify the plan. most observers concluding that the intended meaning is "legal [*354] religious activities. normal means whatever the state or its representatives allow. Professor of History. Lanier Britsch *. would allow them to clarify their plan as they wish. and community consensus. 1995. Also allows them to moot our strategies with one card. Britsch. 5. Cross apple the textual competition debate. <<IF READING COURTS OR XO>> Minimal means – minimal amount of fiat is slightly more than ½ of congress. Brigham Young University Law Review. the 2ar’s persuasiveness. 1995 B. * Professor of History and Director of the David M. 95 (R." n16 In other words.

Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementating those choices is poorly understood. leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT Topic Education 1.percent. Univ Wash. Ks and case arguments 2. in the normal case. 80 (Political Science Quarterly 79-80. Can’t access topic education if we can’t read about the way implementation goes down. Key to relations DAs – Not specifying the agent allows the aff to decide whether Obama or the congress opposes or supports the plan. 4. 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. <<READ IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY>> Implementation is 90% of policy decisions Elmore. p. In answering the question. changing how the country perceives it 3. “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that. Plan text key –We couldn’t prepare our 1nc strategy until after the cross-x – this hurts neg prep and prevents good negative strategies because it influences are DAs. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 10 . it was about 1.

Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT But We Still Solve Doesn’t mean you should win – if your plan doesn’t follow the rules of debate you lose. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 11 .

<<READ AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD HERE IF YOU AREN’T ELSEWHERE>> Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 12 . but not for solvency. Arbitrary – This is just like the aff could specify for topicality. hurting education 2.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT We’ll Specify for DAs and Not CPs 1. This CP/DA Distinction is meaningless. both neg arguments prove the plan is a bad idea. These arbitrary distinctions are literally infinite and would prevent clash.

It’s not a reason why we don’t get DAs and solvency take-outs. Encourages specific research by making the aff find the best actor and reasons why other agents are not as good Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 13 . But agent CPs are awesome: 1. Encourages plan focus debate by testing the merits of the actor 2. 5. Key to neg ground: lit indicates the plan is not a question of the advantages but rather implementation 3. and are critical to participation by smaller programs by allowing them to control the amount of required research. Neg flex is good – aff structural bias justifies the CP 4. or advantages that are morally impossible to answer.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT Agent CPs Bad You can’t beat ASPEC with Agent CPs bad – at worst we just lose the CP. Agent counterplans are necessary to solve for new affirmatives. They don’t steal aff ground – the counterplan is fundamentally different than the plan 6.

Destroys 1NC and pre round prep – waiting until cross-ex forces us to make strategic decisions based on an aff cross-ex whim. even if they say they will answer questions. Kills cross-ex time – we’re forced to waste time on the agent instead of using it effectively to ask about their shady 1AC internal links 4. Infinitely regressive – this justifies the aff just saying “ Plan – ask us about it in cross-x” 3. making neg debate impossible.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT CX Checks 1. Gives too much power to the aff – they can moot all of our prep up to that point by changing their answer Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 14 . 2. We just get the plan. you have no verification 5. Still kills CP competition – Judges decide based off of what is written in the texts.

To make a firm decision about This is a voting issue for fairness and ground Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 15 . 2AC is too late – they have already mooted the 1nc.html. Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. It’s not like we can read new Das and CPs and forget about the 1NC 2. This skews predictability and ground because they could clarify to get out of any 1NC 3.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT 2AC Specification 1. http://www. Doesn’t meet the resolution basis of resolved American Heritage 2000 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. They waited until after they heard our speech – this is an independent voting issue. © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Proves the 1NC aff conditionality and moving target arguments.

even if they do specify a crazy actor. 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. 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. at least we get our agent cp and can compare Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 16 . or concede later in the round. that makes them conditional and is not fair 2. that means that negs will virtually NEVER get a link to a disad. and the aff can change from round to round. and the plan has a different meaning.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT OSPEC Bad 1.

They are still vague because they don’t explain what each branch does. CONCEDE THIS AND MOVE ON WITH THE CP AS A PIC OUT OF CONGRESS>> 1. They don’t specify how they are all 3 branches.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT We are all 3 branches <<IF YOU’RE JUST LOOKING FOR A POLITICS LINK. they obviously can’t all do the exact same thing. it makes no sense how this would work. 2. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 17 .

Arbitrary – they force judge intervention to decide what is enough abuse is enough. making debates about a particular judge and not our arguments. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 18 . 4. 2. Skewing the 1NC proves actual abuse – we shouldn’t have to give up 1NC time to read DA’s and solvency arguments they are going to “no link” out of. Plan still conditional – they still have the possibility of changing the plan hurting neg strategy. Counterplan competition – they ignore our CP competition argument from above 5.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 AT No Abuse 1. 3. Irrelevant – evaluate this like a limits topicality argument – they have to justify the practice of not specifying their agent.

If we don’t have fair debates. Also. Last printed 11/6/2013 11:39:00 AM 19 . If we win one of our reasons why the aff justifies an unfair practice. neither side will be able to clash with the other preventing education.Document1 DUDA 2010 1 Fairness First Fairness trumps education – All of their offensive arguments are about education but fairness is a prerequisite for education. if there isn’t fairness for both sides than people will quit debate and do some other game that is more fair. than you should vote for us.