Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Debate Theory File
Debate Theory File
***Negative***
Counterplan 1NC
-- The counterplan is conditional proving the counterplan bad does not prove the plan good. The status quo should always be an option. Logic outweighs it's a prerequisite to good education -- And, presumption stays Neg its less change than the plan and tie goes to the runner
-- No strategy skew ---- the counterplan is a self-contained strategy --- it doesnt link more to or contradict any of our other arguments. -- Disads dont check --- the murders bad DA against an Aff that provides assistance and shoots 9 people cant outweigh without the counterplan. -- Err Neg --- the Aff gets 1st and last speech, infinite prep, and the advantage of choosing their Aff. -- Not a voting issue --- reject the argument, not the team
B. CPs are needed to deal with entrenched status quo trends as well as understand different processes, instead of simply debating DAs every round that never get the heart of agent debates The crux of policymaking education is found in agent and implementation issues focus should be applied on resolving those issues Schuck 99 (Peter H., Professor, Yale Law School, and Visiting Professor, New York Law School, Spring
(Delegation and Democracy Cardozo Law Review) http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/schuck.htm God and the devil are in the details of policymaking , as they are in most other important thingsand the details are to be found at the agency level. This would remain true, moreover, even if the nondelegation doctrine were revived and statutes were written with somewhat
greater specificity, for many of the most significant impacts on members of the public would still be indeterminate until the agency grappled with and defined them. Finally, the agency is often the site in which public participation is most effective. This is not only because the details of the regulatory impacts are hammered out there. It is also because the agency is where the public can best educate the government about the true nature of the problem that Congress has tried to address. Only the interested parties, reacting to specific agency proposals for rules or other actions, possess (or have the incentives to ac-quire) the information necessary to identify, explicate, quantify, and evaluate the real-world consequences of these and alternative proposals. Even when Congress can identify the first-order effects of the laws
first-order effects of policies usually are less significant than the aggregate of more remote effects that ripple through a complex, interrelated, opaque society. When policies fail, it is usually not because the congressional purpose was misunderstood. More commonly, they fail because Congress did not fully appreciate how the details of policy implementation would confound its purpose. Often, however, this knowledge can only be gained through active public participation in the policymaking process at the agency level where these implementation issues are most clearly focused and the stakes in their correct resolution are highest.
that it enacts, these direct impacts seldom exhaust the laws policy consequences. Indeed,
Their logic destroys democracy delegation proves we need to focus on process Schoenbrod 99 (David, Professor of Law, New York Law School, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute, Former
Staff Attorney and Co-director, Project on Urban Transportation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Former Director of Program Development, Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, Former Staff Attorney, Association of the Bar, City of New York Committee on Electric Power and the Environment, Former Professor, Yale Law School, and Member, American Tree Farmers Association, (Delegation and Democracy: A Reply to My Critics Cardozo Law Review) http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/schoenbrod.htm
Mashaws allocation of responsibility is wrong-headed on many levels. It is not as if voters get to choose between candidates who delegate and those who do not. When the Republicans in Congress think environmental regulation is too aggressive, they do not replace the Clean Air Act with a regulatory regime in which Congress takes responsibility or even use the Congressional Review Act to challenge regulations such as the new ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. Instead, they introduce legislation that would delegate in ways that would make it harder to regulate strictly. Indeed, the Washington Post took exception to a recent Republican environmental bill on the basis that the way for Congress to change the EPAs priorities is to stop delegating and start taking some responsibility. That will not happen read ily, however, because delegation gives the electoral advantage to those who duck the hard choices. As I said before, delegation is not so much an issue of left versus right as insiders versus outsiders. With insiders having such a significant stake in delegation, outsiders opposed to delegation face a tremendous organizational challenge. Moreover, it is hard to get ordinary voters to focus on the issue. It is human nature to care more about what a particular piece of legislation does to one directly rather than whether the process by which the legislation is passed will do indirect harm by undermining democracy in the long run. Even law students have to be hit on the head by us professors to get them to look beyond the direct consequences in cases about the structure of government and see the long-term stakes. Ordinary voters are apt to care more whether a particular bill seems to help them than whether it delegates. For example, even in 1970 when there was a public outcry against Congress because it had dropped the ball on air pollution by delegating broadly to agencies and Congress promised explicitly that it would make the hard choices, Congress easily got away with delegating again. The 1970 statute camouflaged its delegation with the kind of spurious detail that even an expert such as Jerry Mashaw confuses with nondelegation.
to acknowledge a far larger and more complex sphere of responsibility. Though one's own state and fellow citizens retain a certain priority in the good citizen's concerns, this priority is neither absolute nor exclusive. The citizen's responsibility regularly extends to many other people and many other places. Sometimes it is global. Whatever gap may once have existed between
what makes one a good citizen and what makes one a good person has thus been substantially narrowed, if not completely closed.
-- Neg flex it checks Aff exploitation of the benefits of US action and one-sided harms -- Functional limits: international counterplans provide a T-style check on topic explosion. Most Affs have no U.S. warrant. -- Eurocentrism they exclude non-U.S. perspectives this should be rejected -- Real world: the US frequently does not act because others should DEFENSE -- Predictable: literature, advocates, and net-benefits limit our options -- U.S. key warrants check theyre easy to find and beat every international actor -- Decision-maker is wrong: the judge is an activist, not the government. Its more real world, and avoids stupid arguments like intrinsicness that ruin debate. Also, theres no singular actor who can do the Aff, so vote Neg on presumption -- Not a voting issue: reject the argument, not the team
to acknowledge a far larger and more complex sphere of responsibility. Though one's own state and fellow citizens retain a certain priority in the good citizen's concerns, this priority is neither absolute nor exclusive. The citizen's responsibility regularly extends to many other people and many other places. Sometimes it is global. Whatever gap may once have existed between
what makes one a good citizen and what makes one a good person has thus been substantially narrowed, if not completely closed.
-- Real world: countries frequently take coordinated actions: Kosovo proves DEFENSE -- No ground loss: they can read add-ons like soft power, impact turn, or say it doesnt solve trade -- Predictable: literature, advocates, and net-benefits limit our options -- U.S. key warrants check theyre easy to find and beat every international actor -- Decision-maker is wrong: the judge is an activist, not the government. Its more real world, and avoids stupid arguments like intrinsicness that ruin debate. Also, theres no singular actor who can do the Aff, so vote Neg on presumption -- Not a voting issue: reject the argument, not the team
7. Doesnt force the AFF to debate themselves they only have to defend the plan, straight turn checks, and its counterintuitive to let them vacate defense against the status quo 8. Perms arent just tests judges vote for them, this standard justifies intrinsicness, and the CP is also just a test of plans necessity 9. No argument irresponsibility straight turn checks, natural disincentives ensure no repugnant arguments, and other arguments dont entail same responsibility 10. Not a voting issue just stick us to the CP
***AFF***
Extra T Good
Extra Topicality isnt a voting issue A. Increases NEG ground through DA links B. They can always CP out or simply sever extra-topical parts C. Increases policy analysis and education every plan includes some extra topical part
PICs Bad
PICs are a voting issue A. Reciprocal Ground we defend the entirety of the plan, they should attack PICs steal critical affirmative ground B. Time Skew PICs constitute a time skew from the 1AC our entire harms contention is lost C. Infinitely regressive they justify trivial CPs that undermine education and any number of infinite methods, including penny-less CPs, to do the plan D. No Offense they can always run DAs and solvency arguments to test the plan and use micro-advantage CPs
Conditionality Bad
-- Conditionality is a voter creates time and strategy skews, not reciprocal, promotes argumentative irresponsibility, and dispo solves their offense Or.. -- Conditionality is a voting issue A. Education the NEG only goes for what has the least coverage and analysis, preventing in-depth discussion B. Strategic Skew conditionality undermines AFF ability to generate offense and skews time allocation undermining AFF ability to hedge against the block C. Advocacy conditionality prevents the NEG from learning consistent advocacy and encourages argument irresponsibility D. No Offense pre-tournament research and dispositional CPs capture all NEG offense, while still preserving side balance
Dispo Bad
Dispositionality is a voting issue A. Education the NEG only goes for what has the least coverage and analysis, preventing in-depth discussion B. Strategic Skew dispo undermines AFF ability to generate offense and skews time allocation undermining AFF ability to hedge against the block C. Advocacy dispo prevents the NEG from learning consistent advocacy and encourages argument irresponsibility D. No Offense pre-tournament research capture all NEG offense and straight turn option is hollow, since the NEG has the block and permutations are essential AFF defense
the version of a bill signed by the officers of both houses of Congress and the president stands, even if the language differs from what Congress voted on. So, if the mistake changes the substance of the legislation, then the erroneous language is usually law unless Congress decides to do something about it. In that case, Congress can pass "technical corrections" in separate legislation to remedy the mistake. According to the Library of Congress' Thomas database, more than 20 technical-corrections bills have
been introduced since the current Congress began last January.