How illegit is this?

[verditude 23]

At a tournament last weekend, I hit an interesting case. It basically repealed the WIC laws and DADT. But what was really weird was how they specified (or did not) their agent. What their text said was: The USFG should establish a policy substantially increasing the # of persons serving in the Armed Forces. By "USFG" we mean the U.S. Congress, and/or the DoD, and/or the USSC, and/or the Executive Branch. Then the WIC and DADT stuff.

My question is, what kind of abuse arg can be run on someone who specs multiple agents but reserves the right to kick out of any of them?

[smoth as sandpaper 230]

aspec

[The Incredible Hulk? 2106]

Moving Target. Moots your 1nc and is severance out of the 1ac. This is bad because it kills neg ground, put an independent voter on it for fairness.

[dropk2day 51]

my 1nc would be 4 minutes of laughing at how stupid they are, and 4 minutes of theory.

[loofus 30]

my 1nc would be 4 minutes of laughing at how stupid they are, and 4 minutes of theory.

 

Mine would be 8 MINUTES OF CAPITAL LETTERS.

[Little Miss Sunshine 1244]

-caps T

-a-spec abuse

-aff interpretation explodes the topic (31 eligibility requirements)

-restrictions on homosexual conduct eliminated, but still have restrictions on heterosexual conduct

[Little Miss Sunshine 1244]

militarism kritik is always fun to run against women in combat

[dziegler 1548]

Test whether they're a moving target. Run a CP PIC'ing out of one of those listed actors and say that any permutation of "well, plan wasn't going to include one of those agencies afterall" is proof of conditionality and is a voting issue. Then, you can run a bunch of offense on the one area you PIC out of (XO's, bad, for example).

[Neurotic_Mastermind 1650]

The only real way you'll win an abuse arguement is if you can win abuse in-round. Run a CP, or a branch-specific DA. If they moot w/a no-link or a vague perm do-the-plan, argue almost solely on abuse in your 2nc. Really stick them with the position they take in the 2AC.

[JustinP 117]

Um, no. When the option is in-round vs. potential abuse, potential will almost always win-- much better warrants behind it.

[Neurotic_Mastermind 1650]

Um, no. When the option is in-round vs. potential abuse, potential will almost always win-- much better warrants behind it.

 

Clarify.

 

And in-round abuse subsumes potential abuse, so...

[Guest Unconditional Fiat]

Um, no. When the option is in-round vs. potential abuse, potential will almost always win-- much better warrants behind it.

Hey, dumb-nuts, the short bus just left.

 

It's easy to determine in-round abuse, in this example, because of the wording of the plan. it was created to be vauge to get out of those "stupid" dis-ads and cp's.

[Lockesdonkey 421]

non-t

 

Are you seriously suggesting that they run T on the resolution?

 

While the way they're going about it is bizzare, it used to be that the affirmative would defend the whole resolution. T isn't an issue.

[JustinP 117]

Prefer potential abuse b/c:

 

1. only way to objectively evaluate abuse--- different judges have different standards as to what is and isn't abusive (for example, some judges think conditionality is ridiculously abusive, others think it's sweet/not abusive).

 

2. key to our ground: neg shouldn't have to read a full disad/cp and get it no linked by the text (thus screwing their time allocation) just to get back to ground zero.

 

3. set a precedent---

[Tomak 1214]

Test whether they're a moving target. Run a CP PIC'ing out of one of those listed actors... Then, you can run a bunch of offense on the one area you PIC out of (XO's, bad, for example).

The only real way you'll win an abuse arguement is if you can win abuse in-round. Run a CP, or a branch-specific DA. If they moot w/a no-link or a vague perm do-the-plan, argue almost solely on abuse in your 2nc. Really stick them with the position they take in the 2AC.

Usually I would agree with you. The neg needs to prove ground loss to win on a procedural, otherwise the round itself proves that the neg had fair chances to win on a substantive issue. Here though, unless your usual strategy is a solid agent counterplan, you're probably making a tactical error by going all-out on the CP.

 

The aff's strategy is pretty obvious. Simply asking the right questions in cross-ex will be enough of a proof of ground loss.

 

1. Ask them why they defend such-and-such an agent, and what evidence they have supporting it.

2. Look baffled by their answer, and try to get a straight answer out of them exactly what their agent is.

3. After this fails, ask them straight-up what they're going to do after you prove that using such-and-such an agent is a terrible idea.

 

I don't think you need to actually run the counterplan in this case. They told you what they were going to do. Run a procedural titled either "vagueness" or "moving target" explaining that you couldn't run your usual strategy against such-and-such and agent, that they already technically spiked out of it, and that cross-x proves the abuse. Then run your typical negative strategy against DADT and WiC. Better yet, counterplan out of either DADT or WiC and debate against the weaker of the two (I can't believe nobody else mentioned that). If they go really heavy on "no in-round abuse", just run the damn thing in the 2NC.

 

The aff obviously has a lengthy theory block explaining why they can do what they're doing. Why debate on their turf? Let them burn all their time defending themselves against a relatively weak strategy and beat them where you're strong.

[dziegler 1548]

Usually I would agree with you. The neg needs to prove ground loss to win on a procedural, otherwise the round itself proves that the neg had fair chances to win on a substantive issue. Here though, unless your usual strategy is a solid agent counterplan, you're probably making a tactical error by going all-out on the CP.

 

The aff's strategy is pretty obvious. Simply asking the right questions in cross-ex will be enough of a proof of ground loss.

 

1. Ask them why they defend such-and-such an agent, and what evidence they have supporting it.

2. Look baffled by their answer, and try to get a straight answer out of them exactly what their agent is.

3. After this fails, ask them straight-up what they're going to do after you prove that using such-and-such an agent is a terrible idea.

 

I don't think you need to actually run the counterplan in this case. They told you what they were going to do. Run a procedural titled either "vagueness" or "moving target" explaining that you couldn't run your usual strategy against such-and-such and agent, that they already technically spiked out of it, and that cross-x proves the abuse. Then run your typical negative strategy against DADT and WiC. Better yet, counterplan out of either DADT or WiC and debate against the weaker of the two (I can't believe nobody else mentioned that). If they go really heavy on "no in-round abuse", just run the damn thing in the 2NC.

 

The aff obviously has a lengthy theory block explaining why they can do what they're doing. Why debate on their turf? Let them burn all their time defending themselves against a relatively weak strategy and beat them where you're strong.

 

Er... no.

 

The fact that you can answer DADT and WIC disproves the moving target theory cuz they'll say that they're not going to move out of the arguments you made. Then they take their premade case blocks that they could have predicted months in advance because that's what you'd run against those cases anyhow.

 

Teams that do shady actor shit don't have justification for actors. With the strategy of PICing out of one of the listed actors, you can claim that it's textually competitive, and even if you lose the theory debate, you have a CP that they can't argue against. Plus, you have the block to capitalize on something that the 2AC won't have the best answers to.

 

By running on-case like that, you are playing their game. They can answer your 20 second theory shell in, literally, *10 seconds*. Make the theory shell justification and a preempt to "PICs Bad" and make them debate on the turf of the PIC. I guarantee you, they aren't going to be able to.

[Tomak 1214]

By the way, the DoD is part of the executive branch. If the plan text really does say "DoD and/or executive branch," it is kind of nonsensical. This could at least be added as a subpoint to the vagueness shell, if that's what you want to call it.

[Tomak 1214]

they'll say that they're not going to move out of the arguments you made.

I don't think that disproves the ground loss, since you spent an entire cross-ex trying to nail them down to the agent you want to PIC out of. It would probably come down to the judge, but I think most would sympathize with you if you point out that they spiked out of your CP in cross-ex and there really was no point of actually running it.

 

Besides, if this really is the argument they are going to lean on, run the CP in the 2NC. I'll elaborate below.

 

Teams that do shady actor shit don't have justification for actors.

Good point. But again, they're probably never going to defend an agent, so you're going to be obligated to win the theory debate to win the round. Whether it was a beautifully built counterplan or a one sentence blurb is unlikely to be relevant.

 

With the strategy of PICing out of one of the listed actors, you can claim that it's textually competitive, even if you lose the theory debate, you have a CP that they can't argue against

If they somehow actually win that they can shift and sever agents, your counterplan is in the toilet. How are you going to get a net benefit against a case that can instantaneously become identical to your CP?

 

By running on-case like that, you are playing their game.

I would suspect that they are at least equally prepared for the theory debate.

 

They can answer your 20 second theory shell in, literally, *10 seconds*.

By saying "no in-round abuse" and nothing else? Great! If that's all they do, run the CP in the 2NC. They will have NO arguments on the flow allowing them to spike out of it in the 1AR. Retrofit the CP to suck up as many of your 1NC disads as possible, run one more if you need a guaranteed net benefit, and pull across the vagueness shell to cover your ass.

 

Even if you're right, what have you lost? Ten seconds?

 

But let's get real. Will the aff really only spend ten seconds answering the shell? I'm not a psychic, so I can't prove it to you, but my experience tells me otherwise.

 

Make the theory shell justification and a preempt to "PICs Bad" and make them debate on the turf of the PIC. I guarantee you, they aren't going to be able to.

They aren't going to at all. Judging by their plan text, they're going to spike out of it.

 

If you run a CP to prove abuse, I agree you should be prepared to win on it if they don't spike out of it. But you also shouldn't put all your eggs in that basket - at least not right away. Theory debates get messy, and the aff is likely to surprise you with a minute-plus long shell. Wouldn't it be nice to just run your usual WiC/DADT bad strategy (whichever is your stronger), and just let the aff screw over their own 2AC time allocation?

[King of All Cosmos 3387]

Acronems (sp) bad.

[xacalite 28]

Prefer potential abuse b/c:

 

1. only way to objectively evaluate abuse--- different judges have different standards as to what is and isn't abusive (for example, some judges think conditionality is ridiculously abusive, others think it's sweet/not abusive).

 

2. key to our ground: neg shouldn't have to read a full disad/cp and get it no linked by the text (thus screwing their time allocation) just to get back to ground zero.

 

3. set a precedent---

 

1. Potential doesn't solve your arg: judges still would evaluate how abusive they think something is, potential abuse is still evaluated by the judge.

 

2. Doesn't prove potential comes first: this is in-round abuse because it moots the 1nc strategy. ptx ground is guaranteed by the res/inherency, aff steals it with their shifting agents.

 

3. in-round subsumes all your claims: in-round is just a form of potential abuse that has actually happened, there is no reason your potential abuse claims would become less abusive once they've happened.

Acronems (sp) bad.

 

and run a cp with it all spelled out. textual comp good, severance perms bad, net benefit....

[brorlob 1369]

At a tournament last weekend, I hit an interesting case. It basically repealed the WIC laws and DADT. But what was really weird was how they specified (or did not) their agent. What their text said was: The USFG should establish a policy substantially increasing the # of persons serving in the Armed Forces. By "USFG" we mean the U.S. Congress, and/or the DoD, and/or the USSC, and/or the Executive Branch. Then the WIC and DADT stuff.

My question is, what kind of abuse arg can be run on someone who specs multiple agents but reserves the right to kick out of any of them?

That's a huge contradiction. They want the USFG to do something, but exclude the executive, legislative and judicial branches from the action. You should have no problem running A-spec, T(USFG), and both as a-priori voters as a result of loss of ground. Moreover, you have a great solvency analytic. After all, without the Congress, the Executive and USSC, that leaves only lower courts to imlpement and enforce the plan. Since district and appellate courts do not have the authority to establish policy, and even less to enforce it, there can be no solvency.