Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How does a Rider/Wrecking Amendment disad work? Anyone have an old shell I could look at?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it says that this rider amendment will get attached to 'x' legislation that is passed?

 

Wouldn't that make it inevitable as long as the Senate passes something? Or is it within a specific timeframe, like midterms, that the rider is relevant? Or a specific legislation that it would be attached to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument would be that legislation like the plan encourages that specific rider. I assume cyber security stems from the national security basis of the plan. But i haven't read their link evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes sense. I still don't understand how it would be strategic. I'd assume that if not the plan passing, there would eventually be another national security legislation that would still attach the rider, unless if there's a specific time when the rider is relevant, then I guess you could run delay or some other competitive counterplan?

 

i have written a few rider disads over the years, and it is true that they are more useful at certain times. one time they are useful is before an election where everything is deadlocked. you need to find evidence that says nothing will get done in congress until X time. if you get real lucky, you can find evidence that says the reason why nothing will pass now is because some senator or congressperson will add a specific rider to the plan that the opposing party disagrees with. for instance, a few years ago i found a card that said congress was deadlocked before the midterm elections because ted kennedy had vowed to attach a minimum wage hike to any bill that had a chance of passing. most counterplans that avoid rider disads are sketchy, but you could try a delay or line item veto cp. along the same lines, there are probably some pretty good theory arguments for why the negative shouldn't get rider da's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes sense. I still don't understand how it would be strategic. I'd assume that if not the plan passing, there would eventually be another national security legislation that would still attach the rider, unless if there's a specific time when the rider is relevant, then I guess you could run delay or some other competitive counterplan?

Uniqueness assumes SQ national security, etc.

 

Same reason why "we are pulling out of iraq now" doesn't answer the Link analysis on the ptx flow against South Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiat solves the link. If it's possible to say "bills will be tacked onto the plan since it's a *must pass issue*" then the aff gets to perm out of every disad impact because they just add a rider that solves the terminal impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat solves the link. If it's possible to say "bills will be tacked onto the plan since it's a *must pass issue*" then the aff gets to perm out of every disad impact because they just add a rider that solves the terminal impact.

"Normal means" checks this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat solves the link. If it's possible to say "bills will be tacked onto the plan since it's a *must pass issue*" then the aff gets to perm out of every disad impact because they just add a rider that solves the terminal impact.

 

while i agree that fiat probably takes out the link to rider disads, i am not sure why it justifies the aff perming disads with any rider of their choosing. an interpretation of fiat that allows for rider da's would obviously allow for rider advantages, but evidence similar to the neg's link cards would have to be read to avoid being extratopical.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat solves the link. If it's possible to say "bills will be tacked onto the plan since it's a *must pass issue*" then the aff gets to perm out of every disad impact because they just add a rider that solves the terminal impact.

 

This is not how fiat solves the link. At best you could argue that an interpretation of fiat that allows for riders - i.e. normal means - justifies the Affirmative to perm out of rider DA's (which is bullshit). Fiat solves the links by claiming that the plan and only the plan would pass.

 

The only scenario under a common interpretation of fiat by which you could claim a rider would be attached to the plan that would negate another rider would be if you found evidence that such a rider would be attached - which you won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't work. What would go as the rider in the political climate now? Cybersecurity? It would be helpful if you guys could give some example of what would be attached as a rider right now, because the only thing I can find is Cybersecurity and no Congressman has said "I will pass __ as a rider if I don't get elected for midterms"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't work. What would go as the rider in the political climate now? Cybersecurity? It would be helpful if you guys could give some example of what would be attached as a rider right now, because the only thing I can find is Cybersecurity and no Congressman has said "I will pass __ as a rider if I don't get elected for midterms"

 

here is one example. insert a global warming or other pollution impact, and you may have an argument.

 

from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/what_life_will_look_like_if_re_1.html

 

That is, unless Republicans can stop the EPA. And they'll certainly try. Yesterday, the likely head of the House energy committee, Fred Upton, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times declaring war on the new pollution rules. For one, Republicans will try to pass resolutions stripping the EPA of its authority over greenhouse gases; Kit Bond, for one, has promised to attach just such a rider to every new bill that moves through the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here is one example. insert a global warming or other pollution impact, and you may have an argument.

 

from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/what_life_will_look_like_if_re_1.html

 

That is, unless Republicans can stop the EPA. And they'll certainly try. Yesterday, the likely head of the House energy committee, Fred Upton, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times declaring war on the new pollution rules. For one, Republicans will try to pass resolutions stripping the EPA of its authority over greenhouse gases; Kit Bond, for one, has promised to attach just such a rider to every new bill that moves through the Senate.

 

The link is being mean and not working...

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...