Jump to content
gcsdebate

Agent Specification

Should the aff specify their agent?  

824 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the aff specify their agent?

    • definitely
      325
    • no way
      209
    • if they can get away with it, no
      290


Recommended Posts

agent counterplans are not competitive. loss of agent ground is meaningless

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they run a SC CP, just argue why the whole USFG will be needed instead of saying you use the Supreme Court. Not specifying an agent isn't abusive most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the aff should specify agent. Not as loss of CP ground but for solvency issues - a great deal of solvency depends on which part of the government enacts/enforces plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if oyu dont name it it kills all solvency arguement towards the usfg not being able to solve if you attack one aspect of it it will claim the other so technically you have to beat all three separate parts of the usfg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It justifies an advocacy shift in the 2a to spike out of DAs, moving target, et cetera.

 

Debate should be about clash - not finding ways to avoid potential arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. It justifies an advocacy shift in the 2a to spike out of DAs, moving target, et cetera.

 

Debate should be about clash - not finding ways to avoid potential arguments.

 

Then what's the point of strategy, if not to avoid args. Aspec only becomes a problem when the aff actually does a 2a advocacy shift to spike out of shit. But you should be able to hold them to that w/o argueing that they are entitled to agent cp's and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agent counterplans are not competitive. loss of agent ground is meaningless

 

I beg to differ. Agent CPs are net-benefits and solvency-competitive. I just made up the second term, but I basically mean that there's no added solvency for a perm of Courts and Congress do plan (a ruling and a bill doing the same thing at the same time is redundant if you assume enforcement), thus there's no reason to prefer for the perm and any risk of the DA means you vote neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "shift" (specification) out of agent specific ground is innevitable. an aff that doesn't spec will be able to specify in the 2AC and moot the agent ground from the 1NC. a 1AC that specifies the agent has "shifted"(specified) out of that ground before the negative has the chance to run it. so, decide where you want the shift(specifiation) to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the "shift" (specification) out of agent specific ground is innevitable. an aff that doesn't spec will be able to specify in the 2AC and moot the agent ground from the 1NC. a 1AC that specifies the agent has "shifted"(specified) out of that ground before the negative has the chance to run it. so, decide where you want the shift(specifiation) to happen.

 

If the shift happens in the 2ac, then you have the entire block to say advocacy shift and if they don't shift, you have the solvency deficit. Why does the neg have to bitch about it in the 1n before any actual abuse or solvency issues have come up. It may be advisable to go through the agent, but there is no resolutional /theory/fairness reasons why you have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

definently you should have to specify because this usfg = all three arg that i keep hearing is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. it is impossible to involve all three branches of the govt equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...parametrics? "The USFG" just means you have to pick a branch or agency. Even if not specifying isn't abusive, specifying is definitely not abusive,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
definently you should have to specify because this usfg = all three arg that i keep hearing is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. it is impossible to involve all three branches of the govt equally.

 

Not just that, but at the point where they stretch the definition of "The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government" to mean that you HAVE to use all three, I would extend their reasoning and logic and say that that means we have to use EVERY part of EVERY branch (yep, that's right, every executive agency). I think USFG is a bad argument, but I'm still not sure where I stand on ASPEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...