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

It isn't a question of whose definitions are "better." It is a question of whether Neg has any theoretical grounding for their claim that they have a RIGHT to run the position absent any showing of their being competitively hindered...

 

The theoretical grounding is from the resolution. A policy requires an agency for implementation. Resolved is a firm course of action and plan text allows for actor shifting in cross-x or the 2ac which isn't. If the neg wins either of these definitions and the aff doesnt have a counter-interp on these words but rather justs says "no right to agent cps" how is the neg not entitled a ballot on T without you intervening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no reason to specify on this topic. If the literature has agent specific jusitications for plans, such as the civil liberties topic, then the aff absolutely has to specify.

 

Oh you mean like whether or not the courts or congress should repeal dadt? something like that? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your interpretation of what? How does your "interpretation" have anything to do with what Aff's obligations are with regard to agency?

 

No. I've already said this. Words in the resolution that require the aff to specify an agent in order to be topical. I.e Resolved, Policy, and federal government. This is a T violation..remember.

 

Fine. When you evaluate the original plan text "in a vacuum" (whatever you mean by that), you're going to have to convince that the REST of the plan's text doesn't make clear how the resolutional action will be taken, and by whom...

 

If you violate a word in the resolution then you are not topical...

 

Well, I would except for the fact that I'm currently disemboweling the "competing interpretations" argument (again) in another thread... wink.gif

 

The legitimacy of evaluating T through competing interpretations belongs in another thread (which you're right...it is) so i'm not going to debate about that. However, teams that are actually going to for A-Spec will most likely be good on competing interpretations to win thats how the flow should be evaluated.

 

That's because there aren't any, other than the usual claims of Neg entitlement. Give me some warrants, I'll give you some answers (or, you could use Search to find the ones I have already posted over the years)...

 

All ground arguments are entitlement arguments I guess. I'm probably not going to convince you why that ground is key to the negative. Its not worth getting into an argument over this. However, Agent PICS and generic agent disads are key to overcoming Affirmative Solvency bias, and key to checking back how broad the topic is (however, I don't know how that makes sense in context of this resolution with a limit of six topic areas ...I usually don't go for this argument on this resolution because most affs specify)

 

It isn't a question of whose definitions are "better." It is a question of whether Neg has any theoretical grounding for their claim that they have a RIGHT to run the position absent any showing of their being competitively hindered...

 

Well...the neg defines a word in the resolution (the resolutional grounding), the aff doesn't meet it. Your logic doesn't make sense, we can only arguments if our strategy is hindered, but we can't make entitlement arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh you mean like whether or not the courts or congress should repeal dadt? something like that? ;)

 

No, i mean every single aff other than DADT and women in combat. like draft, end strength, air force, nasa, special forces, anything for any of the other branches....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, i mean every single aff other than DADT and women in combat. like draft, end strength, air force, nasa, special forces, anything for any of the other branches....

 

Well it's still a debate to be had about whether or not there's resolutional basis to specify. If neg wins that there is, then whether or not normal means=congress shouldn't really be a factor. Plan text itself must be on face topical. And why not just specify congress in your plan text if it's so obvious other than to screw the 1nc?

 

And I also have a question. Would you agree then, that ASPEC would be a voter on cases like dadt or wic where there are opposing views on the actor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it's still a debate to be had about whether or not there's resolutional basis to specify. If neg wins that there is, then whether or not normal means=congress shouldn't really be a factor. Plan text itself must be on face topical. And why not just specify congress in your plan text if it's so obvious other than to screw the 1nc?

 

And I also have a question. Would you agree then, that ASPEC would be a voter on cases like dadt or wic where there are opposing views on the actor?

 

The fact that the resolution specifies other branches of national service in it which would have no literature regarding who should fund them, there would not be resolutional basis, and even if there was, that wouldnt be sufficient to overcome the resolutional loss of five branches and all but two cases. Normal means isnt relevant and is a terrible standard for competition, but that is another debate.

 

The resolution says USFG, which means if the plan text does as well, then they are on face topical. And its not to skew the 1nc, its because granting the 1nc the ability run CPs that the affirmative cannot garner specific solvency deficits to is a gross unbalancing of fairness. I mean seriously what would you say (obviously other than generic crap) to XO and Pres powers for any affirmatives other than wic and DADT?

 

As for your question, I suppose its a debate, but the interpretation that you have to specify your actor for two affirmatives is gratuitiously arbitrary and therefore would likely lose. However, it is probably a good idea to specify agent on those cases, yes, even though aspec is still a shitty strat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that the resolution specifies other branches of national service in it which would have no literature regarding who should fund them, there would not be resolutional basis, and even if there was, that wouldnt be sufficient to overcome the resolutional loss of five branches and all but two cases. Normal means isnt relevant and is a terrible standard for competition, but that is another debate.

 

I honestly have no clue what anything you say here has to do with neg arguing that you should spec your A. And I agree normal means is dumb in this debate, and thats why i referenced that by your reasoning, the fact that congress lifts end strength should mean affs shouldnt specify because congress normally does it. Not specifying is what allows for affs to claim normal means=Congress. Which doesn't make you topical because its not in plan text.

 

The resolution says USFG, which means if the plan text does as well, then they are on face topical. And its not to skew the 1nc, its because granting the 1nc the ability run CPs that the affirmative cannot garner specific solvency deficits to is a gross unbalancing of fairness. I mean seriously what would you say (obviously other than generic crap) to XO and Pres powers for any affirmatives other than wic and DADT?

 

The resolution also says policy and resolved which requires aff to specify. Since when a branch of the federal government does something it's considered "Federal government" action, then you can still uphold USFG by specifying. It's only a matter of you mooting out policy. As for how I would answer XO cp if i specified congress...hmm maybe stuff like "congress key to do plan." Regardless, specifying allowing for XO + prez powers doesn't really seem like a round winning answer on the aff if the neg is winning their arguments on T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution also says policy and resolved which requires aff to specify. Since when a branch of the federal government does something it's considered "Federal government" action, then you can still uphold USFG by specifying. It's only a matter of you mooting out policy. As for how I would answer XO cp if i specified congress...hmm maybe stuff like "congress key to do plan." Regardless, specifying allowing for XO + prez powers doesn't really seem like a round winning answer on the aff if the neg is winning their arguments on T.

 

Next year no policy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly have no clue what anything you say here has to do with neg arguing that you should spec your A. And I agree normal means is dumb in this debate, and thats why i referenced that by your reasoning, the fact that congress lifts end strength should mean affs shouldnt specify because congress normally does it. Not specifying is what allows for affs to claim normal means=Congress. Which doesn't make you topical because its not in plan text.

 

 

 

The resolution also says policy and resolved which requires aff to specify. Since when a branch of the federal government does something it's considered "Federal government" action, then you can still uphold USFG by specifying. It's only a matter of you mooting out policy. As for how I would answer XO cp if i specified congress...hmm maybe stuff like "congress key to do plan." Regardless, specifying allowing for XO + prez powers doesn't really seem like a round winning answer on the aff if the neg is winning their arguments on T.

 

aspec is not a T debate. Even if it was, im not sure how resolved or policy necessarily mean the aff has to specify. I can still interpret the word "THE" or the fact that the implementing actor in the resolution is the same as the one in the plan text, which makes the we meet debate kind of moot...

 

also - when is that last time you saw a piece of evidence that money from congressional funding was key to solve an increase in LSA volunteers? The point is that there is zero literature on WHO should fund something. Which is why specifying your agent and thus allowing agent counterplans to be competetive is ridiculous on this topic because you would never be able to generate case specific offense.

 

Honestly, this debate is kind of dumb, aspec isnt a viable strategy on this topic, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aspec is not a T debate. Even if it was, im not sure how resolved or policy necessarily mean the aff has to specify. I can still interpret the word "THE" or the fact that the implementing actor in the resolution is the same as the one in the plan text, which makes the we meet debate kind of moot...

 

also - when is that last time you saw a piece of evidence that money from congressional funding was key to solve an increase in LSA volunteers? The point is that there is zero literature on WHO should fund something. Which is why specifying your agent and thus allowing agent counterplans to be competetive is ridiculous on this topic because you would never be able to generate case specific offense.

 

Honestly, this debate is kind of dumb, aspec isnt a viable strategy on this topic, period.

 

 

i beg to differ, i am 2-0 when going for a spec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even close. I've line-by-lined that particular quote before on this website, so I'm not going to do it again, but that wretched piece of "evidence" ought to be put out to pasture....

 

AMEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aspec is not a T debate. Even if it was, im not sure how resolved or policy necessarily mean the aff has to specify. I can still interpret the word "THE" or the fact that the implementing actor in the resolution is the same as the one in the plan text, which makes the we meet debate kind of moot...

 

Aspec definitely should be a T debate. At the very least, definitional support gives you weight on your standards. I went through why policy and resolved mean the aff has to specify a few posts earlier. Defining the as a mass noun is quite easily answered, but it's not like i'm going to type out a block. Just because the res says USFG doesn't mean that branches of the FG don't make policies. If congress does something it is considered "federal government" action which means you can uphold your resolutional basis of usfg by specifying and then you wouldn't have to moot policy and resolved.

 

also - when is that last time you saw a piece of evidence that money from congressional funding was key to solve an increase in LSA volunteers?

Hahaha there's actually pretty good evidence on why LSA needs the funding increase by Congress to have more volunteers...

 

The point is that there is zero literature on WHO should fund something. Which is why specifying your agent and thus allowing agent counterplans to be competetive is ridiculous on this topic because you would never be able to generate case specific offense.

 

There's lit on why congress should do a lot of cases. And also why the courts should repeal dadt. Whether or not it legitimizes agent cps isn't necessarily bad. And even if it is, you not being topical is far worse.

 

Honestly, this debate is kind of dumb, aspec isnt a viable strategy on this topic, period.

 

I would definitely have to disagree. 3 teams have failed to specify against me this year, and all 3 times my 2nr has been aspec. So far i'm 3 for 3 and it will always be a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are cards saying the courts should overturn DADT. However, there is not a single piece of evidence which allows the affirmative to garner OFFENSE against an agent CP. For example, there is no unique reason why money from congress is better than money from the executive. This means there is no case specific literature and the affirmative is stuck with generics. thats why specification was so important last year, because there was a ton of agent specific solvency evidence. Also, this means we learn about DADT and WIC (which isnt topical) the entire year. awesome. That is also a substandard as to why your interpretation on T is absolutely absurd.

 

Just because you think aspec should be a T debate does not make it one. Aspec is just a means of avoiding affirmative abuse in debate years where specification is accepted.

 

Finally, I dont know where you debate, or who you debate for. I would like to state firstly that bringing your own personal experience into these discussions is almost always a bad idea becuase it encourages personal attacks. Maybe where you debate aspec is a more important issue, i dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The resolution says USFG, which means if the plan text does as well, then they are on face topical. And its not to skew the 1nc, its because granting the 1nc the ability run CPs that the affirmative cannot garner specific solvency deficits to is a gross unbalancing of fairness. I mean seriously what would you say (obviously other than generic crap) to XO and Pres powers for any affirmatives other than wic and DADT?

 

 

 

How about you impact turn pres powers and then win the perm do both....

 

BTW Bangladesh is totally right when he says that Aspec is a T debate...

Resolved and Policy provide the definitional support as to why there must be an agency for implementation (there's a Mayer card that talks about how not specing actually confuses the rez for policy-making, not implementation- making you NONTOPICAL)

And like he said, "The" as a mass noun is just retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there are cards saying the courts should overturn DADT. However, there is not a single piece of evidence which allows the affirmative to garner OFFENSE against an agent CP. For example, there is no unique reason why money from congress is better than money from the executive. This means there is no case specific literature and the affirmative is stuck with generics. thats why specification was so important last year, because there was a ton of agent specific solvency evidence. Also, this means we learn about DADT and WIC (which isnt topical) the entire year. awesome.
If it's so bad to allow for these agent pics you should be able to win they are illegit anyway, meaning specing your A doesn't necessarily legitimize this, it only gives us agent specific ground. Furthermore tying the aff down to an agent and making them answer sgent cps is better than the alternative where you can clarify executive as your actor in the 2ac to no link politics.

 

That is also a substandard as to why your interpretation on T is absolutely absurd.

 

Just saying it legitimizes something doesn't mean it's not the best interpretation of policy. This is why aspec seems to be a great strategy on policy topics. Most teams get up and ramble on agent cps being dumb but don't address the issue of policy. That's usually a game over.

 

Just because you think aspec should be a T debate does not make it one. Aspec is just a means of avoiding affirmative abuse in debate years where specification is accepted.

 

Absent resolutional basis, there's no reason the aff should specify. This is why aspec has to be a T debate. Otherwise, it's crying abuse without proof. And there's a difference between complaining about lack of agent and providing theoretical justification through the resolution for specifying.

 

Finally, I dont know where you debate, or who you debate for. I would like to state firstly that bringing your own personal experience into these discussions is almost always a bad idea becuase it encourages personal attacks. Maybe where you debate aspec is a more important issue, i dont know.

 

I apologize. The point of that was to respond to your statement of "aspec will never be a viable option." It surely was not intended to be a personal attack, and I didn't mention anyone but me. I'll edit the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The resolution also says policy and resolved which requires aff to specify.
I'm not sure who told you this, but they are mistaken. First, the word "resolved" in the resolution statement is there as a convention, not as a defining/limiting term. Affirmative, in their advocacy, is asking the JUDGE to be "resolved" about taking resolutional action; Negative urges her/him to do the opposite.

 

Second, there is nothing about the word "policy" which requires specification of agency beyond the USFG. Because of the size and complexity of the USFG, it is quite common for multiple agencies to be involved in undertaking a new policy. With regard to next year's topic, for instance, one would expect the State Department, HHS's Office of Global Health Affairs, and the Centers for Disease Control to be involved, at a minimum. Legislatively, I'd guess there are probably at least 2-3 committees/subcommittees in each branch of Congress who would also be involved, in oversight if not in drafting the actual enabling legislation (in the Senate, the likely candidates are Appropriations, Budget, and Foreign Relations for sure; in the House, there is a subcommittee on Africa and Global Health under the Foreign Affairs committee, plus Budget and Ways and Means). In short, the reason resolutions say USFG is because it is never a simple matter to determine which branch(es) of government would need to be involved to do Policy X, and because identifying them isn't particularly relevant to determining the desirability of Policy X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shuman is right on regarding "resolved." Contrary to popular belief, the word "resolved" is not in the resolution. Rather, the construction "resolved:" is placed before the resolution in order to identify it as such. Compare this to statement made in logical terms, such as "premise: this dog is dead," or "conclusion: we should probably bury the dog." The word premise is not part of the premise itself.

 

I also think that it is possible that Shuman's analysis in the above post ignores the significance of a term like "establish" in the resolutional text, because under one interpretation, the Supreme Court and Congress can both create a policy, but arguably neither of those two can make one firm on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "make firm" definition of "establish" isn't the only reasonable one out there. You also have "initiate or bring about" (OED), "to set up; found" (AHD), "to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement" (Merriam-Webster), and "to create and regulate" (Webster's 2nd).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nor is it so unreasonable as to design resolutions to forbid it. if we learn anything from debate, it should be that words don't "mean" anything. it seems like shaking your fist at the sun is a dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure who told you this, but they are mistaken. First, the word "resolved" in the resolution statement is there as a convention, not as a defining/limiting term. Affirmative, in their advocacy, is asking the JUDGE to be "resolved" about taking resolutional action; Negative urges her/him to do the opposite.

 

Second, there is nothing about the word "policy" which requires specification of agency beyond the USFG. Because of the size and complexity of the USFG, it is quite common for multiple agencies to be involved in undertaking a new policy. With regard to next year's topic, for instance, one would expect the State Department, HHS's Office of Global Health Affairs, and the Centers for Disease Control to be involved, at a minimum. Legislatively, I'd guess there are probably at least 2-3 committees/subcommittees in each branch of Congress who would also be involved, in oversight if not in drafting the actual enabling legislation (in the Senate, the likely candidates are Appropriations, Budget, and Foreign Relations for sure; in the House, there is a subcommittee on Africa and Global Health under the Foreign Affairs committee, plus Budget and Ways and Means). In short, the reason resolutions say USFG is because it is never a simple matter to determine which branch(es) of government would need to be involved to do Policy X, and because identifying them isn't particularly relevant to determining the desirability of Policy X.

 

this is the first time in my life I have seen bangladesh pwned on ASPEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would you be forced to specify and agent if the resolution doesnt specify an agent for you? If they were really concerned they would say so. Like the college topic says Courts...thus you must use courts.

With USFG stated in resolution instead of branch, then USFG is obviously enough. You get all USFG links boohoo.

There is no reason you are entitled to agent counterplans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude first of all you don't just jack agent cps, you jack lots of ptix das as well. Secondly, USFG is not an individual actor and therefore that claim cannot be justified. You have to spec which branch of the USFG is passing your plan so the means to passing can be debated. The process of policy is very educational so there is no point in running that our T vio jacks edu or ground. Also it's best to spec for limits

 

I think ASPEC is really legit. Spec your A man!

 

i think that if you spec you get o-spec, and of course, everybody that runs ospec says you kill links to tix and other DA's, and jack CP ground, and, they are right, and so is everyone who runs a-spec, the point is, either way there is ground loss, so, the aff should do whatever it wants, specing and not specing are both bad for the neg team. instead of relying on a-spec, just run some other counterplan that you cantrun if they do spec

 

sam, i dont enjoy your gendered language at the end of your post :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think that if you spec you get o-spec, and of course, everybody that runs ospec says you kill links to tix and other DA's, and jack CP ground, and, they are right, and so is everyone who runs a-spec, the point is, either way there is ground loss, so, the aff should do whatever it wants, specing and not specing are both bad for the neg team. instead of relying on a-spec, just run some other counterplan that you cantrun if they do spec

 

sam, i dont enjoy your gendered language at the end of your post :)

 

haha waxman as much as I love you man OSPEC is the most illegitimate argument in debate. I want you to list all the das we jack from you by specifying either the judicial, executive, or legislative branches. OSPEC could be used if I named the congressman signing/passing my plan, maybe, and even that is a stretch.

 

Secondly, if you totally disregarded my prejudice to the over-sepcification argument at least take the time to read this part. You completely disregard the latter portion of my comment. THE USFG DOES NOT PASS BILLS!! To elaborate, the USFG does not act as one system passing laws; passing plans via the judiciary, legislative, or executive are very different. There are certain things that could pass easier through a particular branch (i.e. WIC and DADT through the court). Specification is crucial. And I am not going to get into all of that shit about it being 90 percent of implementation with the ancient (though well appreciated) Elmore '80 card. Point is specification of an agent is crucial to policy making and in order to best preserve the policy makers paradigm we must follow the guidelines as closely as possible.

 

the aff should do whatever it wants

 

dude, do you even know why topicality was implemented in the first place?

 

And finally, I apologize about my gender biased remark. Allow me to rephrase: Specify your agent people!

  • Downvote 2

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...