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

Well...that's why CX is so useful. They use the USFG within Plan, then ask them in CX if they use all 3 branches or a single one. IF they continue to say USFG run A-Spec and say Courts claiming by them not specifying their agent they can't simply spike out of the courts CP...if the judge allows them to do so within a round then run 3 mins of Courts bad in the 2n with an XO counterplan...sure you can get into a theory debate about how abusive a CP is in the 2 (because there are NO rules saying it cannot be ran in the 2)but you will also win the theory debate because it will ultimately backlash upon the aff for not specidying the agent in the 1st CX

 

Have a cookie, that strat's definitely a winner. I just thought of an even better idea: run a consult CP, and then if they make answers specific to the country you consult, kick it in the 2nc and consult someone else instead!

 

Out of curiousity, is there any reason that you recommend precisely 3 minutes of courts bad arguments in the block? Or could it be more? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have a strong personal opinion, but a few arguments to consider:

 

* USFG is modified by "the", which can mean one of a group. This syntax encourages agent specification.

 

* The "We'll defend all three" makes the Judiciary's job problematic.

 

I can only envision two scenarios, and both seem wrought with problems.

 

(1) If the Judiciary simply retains power of review over the constitutionality of the plan, it doesn't have any topical role in decreasing authority.

 

(2) In another scenario, if the Judiciary simultaneously issues legislation with the Executive and Congress, it seems to be an imaginative way to utilize the Judiciary, but not particularly realistic.

 

* Not having reserved negative ground is not a reason that ground shouldn't exist. In all the rounds I've run A-Spec, I've never heard a persuasive reason why an affirmative interpretation which uses all 3 branches is better for ground. This isn't to say it doesn't exist, but its hiding itself well/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe some opinions may change with the next resolution.

 

It's so small in some aspects, due to the logistical problems, that I don't think it's very viable to even run ASPEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, you have absolutely no clue what opportunity cost is - opportunity cost REQUIRES mutual exclusivity. Seriously. go look it up. If you continue to redefine economic terms however you want to define them, well, go ahead, but a) dont expect me to care and B) if you want me to care, then you must warrant why opportunity cost should have nothing to do with foregone opportunities.

 

When you decide to do the plan you forgo the option of not doing the plan. If the ideal world is a world where only the Cp (and not the plan) is done then you forgo this world by doing the plan meaning that the benefits of the world (aka the disad) prove the opportunity cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the aff specify? I say, do not give the neg more ground than neccessary, you're cool unless they call you on it and still it is really easy to block out ASPEC. The only thing stupider than ASPEC is OSPEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question on this topic, is whether or not teh specification has to be in Plan text? If they specify in Solvency ddoes it necessarily have to be in plan text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a debate to be had but the simple answer would be yes.

 

1) plan in a vacuum. The 1NC strategy is based on simply looking at plan text especially when it comes down to an A spec debate or a CP debate

 

2) Solvency doesnt matter. Forcing a negative or the judge to look at solvency in order to meet an interpretation on T or on a Spec is mixing burdens (read a mixing burdens block)

 

3) Moving Target---the aff can simply still win a solvency debate by reading 2 cards i.e Congress solves but so does an XO...if you go congress bad they can pull through the XO and win the debate

 

4) Plan text is really the only binding thing in a debate round anyways...if an affirmative changes plan text in the 2AC make sure you yell abuse of aff conditionality bad and go suicide theory at that point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you decide to do the plan you forgo the option of not doing the plan.
Well, yes, doing the plan IS mutually exclusive with maintaining Status Quo... ;)
If the ideal world is a world where only the Cp (and not the plan) is done then you forgo this world by doing the plan meaning that the benefits of the world (aka the disad) prove the opportunity cost.
No. Whether CP alone is more desirable doesn't make it a foregone opportunity. An opportunity is foregone if we no longer have the chance to take an action, net beneficial or otherwise. Your claim that only net beneficial actions are opportunity costs is at odds with just about every economist who has ever written on the subject...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a dumb question. of course the aff should specify their agent. i have yet to hear a good offensive answer to ASPEC (when the aff doesn't specify in plan text or at least in response to c-x questions)

 

of course, there are times when specifying your agent isn't necessary. for example, i don't do it in my 1AC. but then again, the college topic specifies the supreme court so go figure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is also no offensive reason justifying specification - and "loss of disad/cp ground" is not an offensive reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should specify. It's key to solvency turns, agent CPs, Capital DAs (Courts vs Congress/Executive), impact turns (Pres Power and others), specific links and internals (Congress vs Executive on politics), kritik link ground (jurisprudence kritiks if courts are used) etc. Education is boosted because of clash, it encourages better/more specific plan writing, and probably some other reasons I can't recall right now. I see no reason why the aff wouldn't want to specify. If anything, it gets you out of a stupid A-SPEC debate and you won't get dropped on an abuse story for spiking out of a DA that you probably should have won anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspec is just something to run when you dont have any other strategic options and you know the judge might buy it. Otherwise its just whining about abuse before it happens and when it doesnt actually harm any real ground (since agent CPs blow and shouldnt be a main part of your strat anyway). At least it's better than Ospec though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once won the debate on the Elmore in 80 card that was run as part of a 30 sec ASPEC violation. The aff dropped Elmore, the block extended it, the 1AR in their haste said

 

"As for Elmore, even with aff only having 10% solvency we win. 1% S is all that is required"

 

That canned statement lose them the round, we went for a Courts CP, said we had 100% solvency, they never made the Perm do CP (we did ASPEC anyway)

 

Agent CPs should be run where the agent is significant in the plan's impact. For example, I think DADT should spec because social change/gay marriage/homophobia solvency are all affected...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the aff can just say USFG for the following reasons:

 

1 res. states USFG should

2. leaves plenty of ground. neg can run CP, Statism, or even a congress bad DA

3. increases education by expanding knowledge on checks and balances and how our governmental system works:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that affs should be able to explain, if not by the 1AC plan, then with 1AC cross-ex, how the plan is to be implemented. Pick a branch of government, or a governmental agency - you don't have to get it down to the molecular level.

 

You can say 'by normal means' I suppose, but then I think the negative has the right to theorize how 'normal means' is likely to occur.

 

I think that in generaly, debaters would be wise to make sure that they have specific cards suggesting that their agent of choice is the most appropriate agent for the enactment of their plan. This might be the most important research duty of an affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because thats non-topical.

it is part of the USFG, but the XO is not the USFG.

 

thats the funny thing with definition/interps that say one of the three branches... that also means that the other two are NOT usfg. funny.

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...