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

No, they don't. There are literally hundreds of new policies enacted by the executive branch alone every year, and the federal judiciary "does something" about almost none of them. Do I need to type it in all caps? How about italics instead? A federal court isn't going to express an opinion one way or the other about a legislative enactment or an executive order until there is a case at law before it. Unless your argument is that every single legislative enactment or executive order sparks a lawsuit, you are simply mistaken about the role of the courts in our political system. Get over it.

 

You obviously didn't pay attention to anything i said. I was agreeing with you...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously didn't pay attention to anything i said. I was agreeing with you...
You weren't, actually. First, you wrote...
The Courts have no role in proposing/drafting a policy, but they still determine the constitutionality of legislation. And yes, I know about a veto override...that doesn't mean that the executive isn't somewhat involved in the legislative process.
And then you wrote...
Um..what i said about the way that the government works isn't incorrect...All of the branches of the government do something related to a policy that is enacted by Congress or the Executive, even if the courts role is only circumstantial.
Now, how you can spin this as agreement with what I wrote escapes me. The federal courts simply are not involved in policy-making. As for "determin[ing] the constitutionality of legislation," they only do that when a case at law is brought before them; as I've noted earlier, the vast majority of policy enactments by either congress or the president face no such legal challenges. The federal courts, then, are silent on those policies. In a policy debate, therefore, it is silly to speak of the federal courts as if they had some meaningful input into policy-making...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand what you are trying to say...they determine the constitutionality of policies after things are brough to them, you are forgetting the part where i say "even if the courts role is only circumstantial"....

 

I never said you were wrong...either way, this isn't worth arguing about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand what you are trying to say
What I'm trying to say is that the federal courts "determining the constitutionality of legislation" isn't something that happens as a routine part of policy-making. The courts are only rarely asked to do that sort of thing. It is simply false to assume or assert that "normal means" in USFG policy-making includes the federal courts doing something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes..i never said that it was normal means to do that...

 

All i was saying that there are instances where they can get involved if a case is brought to them. Not involved in policymaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they shouldnt-- 1st of all the neg should be smart enough in CX to ask if they specify at all-- for example, the aff might answer: we take on congress for DA's/ CP's, but we dont specify a specific actor-- this should be their cue for a agent CP.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they shouldnt-- 1st of all the neg should be smart enough in CX to ask if they specify at all-- for example, the aff might answer: we take on congress for DA's/ CP's, but we dont specify a specific actor-- this should be their cue for a agent CP.

 

cx is for clarifcations, not plan amendments.

 

how is the neg supposed to be able to predict that you will use congress when your plan text specifically denotes "USFG"?

 

first you skew our strat by not specifying, and now you specify in cross-x that you use congress. if you were planning on using congress, maybe you should have put it in your plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is the neg supposed to be able to predict that you will use congress when your plan text specifically denotes "USFG"?
Congress isn't part of the USFG???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cx is for clarifcations, not plan amendments.

 

how is the neg supposed to be able to predict that you will use congress when your plan text specifically denotes "USFG"?

 

first you skew our strat by not specifying, and now you specify in cross-x that you use congress. if you were planning on using congress, maybe you should have put it in your plan text.

 

The problem is your position is infinitely regressive. If we specify Congress you could easily argue that we didn't specify which committee the bill would originate in (there is usually a great deal of latitude in that decision), and if we did specify that you could argue we didn't specify which sub-committee we used, and if we did specify that you could argue we didn't specify which member(s) of Congress would sponsor/introduce the legislation (which matters a lot in terms of the politics scenarios)....virtually all of the arguments I've ever heard on A-spec could easily be modified to cover the specifications I've listed above.

 

Ask in CX; its fast, its clear, and its binding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congress isn't part of the USFG???

 

from the same school of thought that said the VP isn't a part of the Executive Branch.......:P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cx is for clarifcations, not plan amendments.

 

how is the neg supposed to be able to predict that you will use congress when your plan text specifically denotes "USFG"?

 

first you skew our strat by not specifying, and now you specify in cross-x that you use congress. if you were planning on using congress, maybe you should have put it in your plan text.

 

Here's a thought - maybe your strategy shouldn't depend on the affirmative being kind enough to offer you arguments against their case? :eek:

 

And how is it not a form of clarification to specify that they're using Congress, given that it's, I dunno, a part of the USFG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Otherwise dumb shit like this happens:

1A: "What's the status of the counterplan?"

1N: "We're running it conditionally."

2AC: Conditionality bad, judge.

2NC: "Cross-ex isn't binding, we're running the c/p dispo."

 

Or:

2N: "What agent enacts the aff plan?"

1A: "Congress."

1NC: Courts counterplan!

2AC: "C/P not competitive - we use courts for our agent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think every neg should get up during cross x and ask 'is cross-x binding?' if the answer is no... then waste time asking about the weather and your opponent's hookerboots. and then in the 1nc read an entire violation in a different language. you can make it up if you want.... a modified piglatin or something. the aff will never actually answer it... because you can be equally shady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the only reasonable answer to "What's the status of the counterplan?" is "Well, obviously we think it's winning at this point!" ;)

 

Ask a better question, get a better answer, folks...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I think the only reasonable answer to "What's the status of the counterplan?" is "Well, obviously we think it's winning at this point!" ;)

 

Ask a better question, get a better answer, folks...

 

That makes a whole lot of sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the aff should specify their agent
"Our agent is the United States Federal government, as stipulated by the resolution." Your turn... ;)
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year A-spec makes no sense. There is no ground loss, the agent CP's don't solve (considering most foreign aide requires executive and legislative action, to PIC out of one is...vacuous), the agent DA's are terminally non-unique (except tix, but you dont need an agent for that), and it's not like the aff has to spec for anything else. Last year, A-spec made no sense. Two years ago it made a hell of a lot of sense because the topic almost necessitated the agent CP/ DA to leverage against the amazingly small affs that existed. And the solvency stuff/ agent DA's were almost unique. It's probably true that there are topics where the aff needs to spec their agent, and during those topics A-spec is a pretty good arg. Sadly, this years isn't one of them by any logical stretch of the imagination. But thankfully for you A-spec hoss's (hossi?) out there, next years topics are shaping up so that it very well might matter again.

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...