You are on page 1of 31

9-0 Courts CP

ADVICE FROM COACH JAMES:


1) Before running this counterplan, you must admit to yourself that you are being abusive. Admit to yourself that this counterplan is completely freaking evil. Its okay, being abusive and evil may earn you a first-round bid to the !" someday. Its best to be honest about your pet strategies and #hether or not they are abusive because then you can start thinking like your $udge instead of the cocky debater that you are %and should be.) !ont let this counterplan be a crusade & its not your $ob to actually make it a legitimate strategy, its your $ob to make it seem that #ay based on ho# much youre kicking the other teams ass on theory. 'Its not #hat you kno#, its #hat you can prove.( & "raining !ay )) *inning that the +, is theoretically legitimate and competitive is key, #inning the substance is secondary. -ike a counterplan that solves the entire case and avoids a politics disad, you dont have to #in 1../ risk of the !A to #in the debate & if you solve all the case, #hy #ould the $udge ever risk the !A0 1ou should #in that debate every time. 2imilarly, if you #in that its okay for you to be clarifying that the +, is done on a 3-. on the negative, and if you #in thats okay for you to assert that the plan is a split decision, then its all do#nhill from there. 1ou honestly think that people are going to have cards that say it #ould be better to do the plan on a 4-50 1ou honestly think that people are going to be packing reasons #hy 3-. decisions are bad0 And even if they are, you honestly think that theyll be able to read more cards than you #ill be able to considering there are like 14 of them in this file and you have the #hole negative block to lay the smack do#n0 !ont s#eat the substantive debate. 6ead enough cards to make it clear that youve #on a risk of a net benefit and then lock do#n the theory & thats #here the true battle resides. 7) 6ead the theory blocks SSSSLLLLOOOOWWWWLLLYYYY & not ridiculously slo# like you #ere $ust hit #ith a tran8uili9er, and you dont have to be at complete conversational speed, but -::; A" "<= >?!@= and make sure he or she is @=""I @ A-- :A "<= A6@?B= "2. ,A?2= in bet#een arguments. 2peak clearly like youre talking to your grandma instead of monotonously like youre reading a sle# of solvency evidence. Ive already told you that theory is the most important part of this debate and that you are, in all honesty, on the #rong side of it. B?" as long as you can get all of the B.2. reasons Ive included in this file as #ell as any of your other theory blocks that you rely on onto the $udges flo#, the rest of the debate should be gravy. "his is good advice for A 1 theory debate. >udges may call for cards, but they rarely call for theory blocks after the debate. 1ouve got : = 2<:" to make sure its on their flo#. !ont scre# it up. 5) +oncoct a solvency story & youve got lots of cards that say 3-. is key to lo#er court enforcement, changing societal attitudes, congressional overturn, etc. As they are, these are >?2" *:6!2, they need your special blend of B.2. that is specific to the situation and to the affirmative for them to become A+"?A- A6@?B= "2. Aind reasons #hy the plan #ould be likely to be overturned, find reasons #hy police officers or local authorities #ouldnt follo# the supreme court decision, find reasons #hy the decision #ould be too ambiguous to fully solve. A 1"<I @. >udges that dont #ant to vote on abusive counterplans might be persuaded by 'no net benefit( if youre not careful. But all you really have to do is eCplain some reason #hy the affirmative is at risk of not solving due to enforcement problems that they cant fiat past, read a bunch of cards, and youre set. 4) ?se the +, as a special #eapon & a doomsday device if you #ill. "he key element of the +, is the element of surprise. Dery fe# people run it and fe#er people #in consistently on it. If people kno# you run it a lot theyll prepare for it and since youre on the #rong side of the debate %see E1) youll lose to a #ell-prepared team thats better than you. "ake note of #ho

your $udge is. *ar 2tory timeF I ran this my $unior year in high school in the prelims of the Barkley Aorum. *e thought #e #ere all hot shit because #e had 8ualified for the ":+ the #eekend before, but the truth #as that #e #ere nervous #recks and #e #erent all that good. *e hit -eCingtons top team in the presets, a team that #as much better than us and if #e had run anything else #e #ouldve been 8uickly crushed. Alas, unpredictable and 8uirky strategies are the Achilles <eel of many of the giants out there #ho make a name for themselves #inning off of their coaches blocks. ot that -eCington did that, they #ere legitimately good, but #e still beat them because they didnt have crap to say to this counterplan. *ait until the time is right and run this #hen you need it the most. A big upset over a better team in the late prelims or early elims #ill be a lot more important than beating some scrub team that youre going to beat any#ay #ith this file as though it #ere a sledgehammer. G) *rite out the counterplan teCt. 1ou can either $ust do the eCact same plan teCt eCcept indicate 'on a unanimous 3-. decision( at the end of it. :r you could say '*e #ill advocate that the plan #ill be decided on a 3-. decision( or something like that, #hich may help you get out of some competition problems. *hatever you do, think it through, practice $ustifying it before the round, make sure you kno# #hat youre doing. H) "he :ffice of -egal ,olicy cards came from a ,!A that I found online %though you can find it at a university library #ith a good @ov!ocs section, the call number is in the cite) & but I had to copy the image directly, it #ouldnt copy it as teCt & so youll have to underline it after you print it out. I) If some team #ises up and #rites 'on a 3-.( in their plan teCt, run the eCtra-topicality violation at the end of this file and make them sorry. "hey #ill only be doing that because they are scared of the +,, they #ont really be able to $ustify it on its o#n merits. 3) <ave fun, good luck, email me at $thomas1Jmy.#estga.edu if you have any 8uestions or you #ant to tell me ho# it #orked out for you. 1.) ,ace Academy has ans#ers to this. 2o dont bother. K) 11) ?se the 1A+ cross-C #isely. If you can manage to get the enemy to admit that the plan is done 'normally,( uses 'normal means,( or that 'sure, some of the $ustices dont like the plan thats #hy its not being done, of courseL( thatd be dope. But dont tip your hand or else they might clarify 3-. in the cross-C and limit your options. 1)) As of the day I uploaded this file to eva9on, there are only I supreme court $ustices. If thats still the case, you should obviously take that into account #hen #riting up your +, teCt. -ove >ames

1NC
WE PRESENT THE FOLLOWING COUNTERPLANF <write up a counterplan text and insert it it should be identical to the plan except it should indicate that the case is ruled on with a unanimous 9-0 decision OBSERVATION ONEF +:B,="I"I: a) competes by net benefits & only the counterplan captures the solvency net benefits of ,lurality Bad and the 6ule of -a# b) competes by mutual eCclusivity & the +ourt cant rule t#o separate #ays on the same case. OBSERVATION TWOF "<= =" B= =AI" "he fragmented decisions #hich are normal means for the 2upreme +ourt devastate solvency COOPER 9! M,hillip & prof polisci Dermont & Battles on the BenchN "he eCcessive fragmentation of the +ourt noted by :Brien, particularly during the 13I.s and 133.s, flashes a #arning. "he eCpansion of separate opinions, among other uses, provides a means to vent disagreement, and these opinions have clearly been used for that purpose. But the character of separate opinions has changed. Aurthermore, the rise in the number of pluralities and opinions for the +ourt $oined only in discrete parts by members of the +ourt is particularly troublesome. It is as though the members of the +ourt are avoiding the task of compromise and are moving back to#ard the tradition of seriatim opinions that >ohn Barshall #orked so hard to eliminate. @ranted, too much concern #ith consensus may paper over in public #hat are serious differences #ithin the institution. +onversely, ho#ever, too little concern #ith the coherence of institutional decisions in order to purchase tran8uility and avoid hard negotiations #ithin the +ourt is conflict by another means, and it is far less helpful than a careful compromise hammered out through intense negotiations. "he current spate of opinions in #hich one $ustice concurs in parts A, +, =, and A, and t#o other $ustices concur only in parts A and = is reminiscent of AleCander <amiltons complaint about the plethora of state court rulings #ith no coherent synthesis in a national body. <is observation that so many opinions 'are a hydra in government from #hich nothing but confusion and chaos can proceed( is #orth remembering for those #ho prefer apparent peace to effective institutional $udgment. ,lurality opinions limit the +ourts ability to solve and change social attitudes. OFFICE OF "E#A" PO"IC$ %% M!eparment of >ustice document, A e# -ook at ,lurality, !" #$%#&'(9 #9)9 p5-GN

&

,lurality decisions inhibit transformative efforts, stop reform, and destroy the moral leadership that is critical to the solving the institutional roots of the case harms. OFFICE OF "E#A" PO"IC$ %%

M!eparment of >ustice document, A e# -ook at ,lurality, !" #$%#&'(9 #9)9 pG-HN

'

,lurality decisions mar the +ourts institutional legitimacy and the rule of la#, inviting backlash and noncompliance over issues of constitutional rights BAN(S 99 M+hristopher & assiprof polisci ? Akron & 7) Akron -. 6ev. )77N

Associate >ustice 6obert <. >ackson once suggested that rulings from the 2upreme +ourt of the ?nited 2tates have Oa mortality rate as high as their authors.O n1 >acksonPs 8uip is significant since it is consistent #ith the political reality that the +ourt often manipulates the la# to make social policy. "he remark is also controversial since it raises the 8uestion of #hether the 2upreme +ourt, led by +hief >ustice *illiam <. 6ehn8uist, is engaging in result-oriented $urisprudence. "his is a significant issue since some claim that the 6ehn8uist +ourt uses an unprincipled theory of stare decisis to achieve partisan ob$ectives in la#. +ritics argue that this diminishes the +ourtPs institutional prestige and undermines the rule of la#. n) otably, since 13IG the 2upreme +ourt seems to invite condemnation in some of its high-profile cases, especially in those instances #hen a defendantPs constitutional rights are at issue. In ,ayne v. "ennessee, n7 for eCample, the 2upreme +ourt reversed itself t#ice by admitting into evidence victim impact statements in capital sentencing proceedings. In ,ayne, dissenting >ustice "hurgood Barshall denounced 6ehn8uistPs plurality opinion on the grounds that the +ourt #as creating a novel theory of stare decisis. ,ayne, in other #ords, held that the force of precedent is at its acme in cases involving contract or property rightsK and, conversely, that it is at its nadir either in opinions relating to procedural and evidentiary rules, 4-5 decisions, or ma$ority opinions achieved over Ospirited dissents.O "he +hief >ustice responded to Barshall by saying that Ostare decisis is not an ineCorable commandK rather, it Pis a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision . . . .PO n5 As a policy matter, therefore, prior la# did not prevent the MQ)75N statements from being admitted into evidence.

?pholding the 6ule of -a# is a !-6ule to uphold the fundamental rights of all humanity RAW"S )1 M>ohn & prof <arvard & A "heory of >ustice & p)74N I no# #ish to consider rights of the person as these are protected by the principle of the rule of la#. As before my intention is not only to relate these notions to the principles of $ustice but to elucidate the sense of the priority of liberty. I have already noted %1.) that the conception of formal $ustice, the regular and impartial administration of public rules, becomes the rule of la# #hen applied to the legal system. :ne kind of un$ust action is the failure of $udges and others in authority to apply the appropriate rule or to interpret it correctly. It is more illuminating in this connection to think not of gross violations eCemplified by bribery or corruption, or the abuse of the legal system to punish political enemies, but rather of the subtle distortions of pre$udice and bias as these effectively discriminate against certain groups in the political process. "he regular and impartial, and in this sense fair, administration of la# #e may call '$ustice as regularity.( "his is a more suggestive phrase than 'formal $ustice.(

B*o+,s-E.TN/s

2NC-1NR OVERVIEW
"he only possible #ay to capture the affs advantages is to vote negative for the counterplan. *e fiat and ensure that the 2upreme +ourt decision is a unanimous 3-. #hile the plan offers no such certainty. "he 1 + evidence indicates that split decisions #hich are the norm in the status 8uo carry #ith them a lack of leadership and inherent dissent #hich doom long term solvency. *e also have the eCternal impact of the 6ule of -a# #hich our 6a#ls evidence indicates should be a decision rule for the debate. Ainally, pluralities undermine $udicial efficiency and give the lo#er courts no guidance. Stare decisis is ignored, dooming solvency. 0123t 4562 +ou*71/t 89t :2r2 sorr;<

10

OFFICE OF "E#A" PO"IC$ %% M!eparment of >ustice document, A e# -ook at ,lurality, !" #$%#&'(9 #9)9 pG-HN

11

!issent #ithin the decision lessens the credibility of the court and the policy itself & unanimous decision key to maCimum effectiveness. #"IC( 93 M<enry, +ourts, ,olitics, and >ustice, prof polisci A2?, p751N "here may be several reasons for this. Airst, some $udges believe that the larger the ma$ority, the more impact a decision is likely to have as public policy. Aor eCample, chief $udges may strongly urge the members of the court not to dissent in highly controversial civil rights or religious freedom cases so that a decision has the maCimum legal and political impact. 2ince one group or another in society is likely to oppose a decision regardless of #hich #ay the court goes, dissents give ammunition to those #ho #ould challenge the courts authority and legitimacy to make decisions. A unanimous court makes it appear that all the $udges give their full support to the decision, thereby strengthening the courts po#er and authority.

12

3-. decisions key to compliance & Bro#n D. Board proves and scholarly research arrives at a consensus EPSTEIN & 9% M-ee, "he +hoices >ustices Bake, prof *ash ?. pI4N In fact, it #as not 'necessary to emphasi9e( the pointF Burgers colleagues understood that a unanimous opinion in such a ma$or case #ould have a greater chance of remaining undisturbed by eCternal political actors than a divided opinion. "he value of unanimity #as one of the lessons of *rown +& *oard o, -ducationK and it is also the moral of scholarly research on the +ourt, suggesting that ruling on #hich the entire +ourt agrees are less susceptible to overturning and more likely to be follo#ed.

13

+lear decisions key to solvency & it ensures compliance and acceptance among those opposed to the decision CANNON 99 MBrad, #ith +harlie >ohnson, profs polisci ?; and "CARB, >udicial ,olicies p1H.N +lear decisions not only minimi9e lee#ay, they also minimi9e distortion in the communication of the decision to relevant groups. 6ichard >ohnson points out, for eCample, that 'behavior congruent #ith the message depends in large measure upon #hether the ruling is received in a relatively undistorted state by those #ho are affected.( "hus, for those #ho are largely indifferent to a courts policy, a clear statement of eCpectations is more likely to be met #ith the acceptance and positive responses than is an ambiguous one. And for those #ho are not inclined to obey a court policy, a clear policy statement provides a standard against #hich nonacceptance or noncompliance can be evaluated and perhaps sanctioned.

1&

?nanimous decisions key to check congressional override EPSTEIN & 9% M-ee, "he +hoices >ustices Bake, prof *ash ?. pI4N Bore broad-based support comes from a recent study by =pstein and 2egal that considered agendasetting behavior during the 1347 through the 1337 terms of the +ourt. "hese researchers begin #ith the basic dispute-avoidance hypothesisF $ustices avoid placing policies on their agenda #hen they believe that members of the other branches #ill move policy far from their ideal points. "o this hypothesis, they add the follo#ingF $ustices behave in this #ay unless they also believe that they can insulate their holdings from reversal by reaching consensual decisions. "his claim, =pstein and 2egal argue, flo#s from the comments of scholars, legislators, and the $ustices themselves that suggest the more authoritative a holding %for eCample, a unanimous decision) the less likely that +ongress #ill attempt to overturn it.

1!

!issenting opinions kill solvency & no long-term adherence to the decision BAN(S 99 M+hristopher & assiprof polisci ? Akron & 7) Akron -. 6ev. )77N

Aormer +hief >ustice +harles =van <ughes once said that, Oa dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the la#, to the intelligence of a future day #hen a later decision may possibly correct the error into #hich the dissenting $udge believes the court has been betrayed.O n57 "he brooding spirit of dissension substantially undercuts $udicial devotion to a legal rule over time. *ithout unanimity, adherence to the rule of la# is difficult because Othe first essential of a lasting precedent is that the court or the ma$ority that promulgates it be fully committed to its principle.O

1'

2plit decisions are more likely to be overturned BAN(S 99 M+hristopher & assiprof polisci ? Akron & 7) Akron -. 6ev. )77N

"hat courts analy9e eCtant precedent in light of the solidarity of the court issuing the underlying rule of la# is intuitive. "he more dissension in a case cannot help but signal to prospective litigants and courts that a disfavored precedent is on #eak footing and ripe for an aggressive challenge in court. "able 7, a summary of the percentage of unanimity or dissension in overturned cases by the 6ehn8uist +ourt, partially belies this traditional logic, ho#ever. :f the total number of overturned cases, t#elve, or 7G.5/, #ere decided by a bare ma$ority %i.e. a 4-5 vote). In addition, in cases featuring three dissents or more, the +ourt reversed them nearly one-half %5I.4/) the time. "hese findings sho# that opinions resulting from closely-divided +ourts are indeed more vulnerable to subse8uent attack. evertheless, "able 7 also discloses that unanimity is not a guarantee that precedent is sacrosanct. :f the thirty-four toppled decisions, eleven precedents, or 77.7/, #ere unanimous. *hile unanimity or dissension is still a conventional part of the +ourtPs approach to stare decisis, the eCpectation that unanimity strengthens the force of precedent and dissension #eakens it is not, therefore, completely met.

1)

4-5 decisions reduce the value of the cases precedent & certainty and $ustice are at risk PADDEN 9& MAmy & >! @eorgeto#n & I) @eo. -.>. 1GI3N

"he doctrine of stare decisis is #ell established in American $urisprudence. "he doctrine takes its name from the latin phrase stare decisis et non 8uieta movere, #hich translates as Ostand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm.O n1 It represents the general proposition that a precedent must be follo#ed unless there is a compelling reason to overrule it. "his note criti8ues a ne# approach to stare decisis developed by +hief >ustice 6ehn8uist and >ustice 2calia, #hich reduces the precedential effect of decisions that #ere rendered by 4-5 votes that addressed constitutional issues or #ere recently decided. "his approach to stare decisis is un#orkable because it does not serve the important goals underlying the doctrine. Although adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis has been the general rule in 2upreme +ourt $urisprudence, it is often manipulated by liberals and conservatives alike #hen precedents are vie#ed as unappealing. 2uch manipulations have often caused the doctrine to be vie#ed as one of convenience. !espite this perception, adherence to precedent serves many important goals in American $urisprudence, including certainty, e8uality, efficiency, and the appearance of $ustice. "he ne# approach articulated by the +hief >ustice and >ustice 2calia fails to serve these goals. <o#ever, because any discussion of stare decisis #ill necessarily be dicta in 2upreme +ourt cases, this ne# approach is not binding as precedent on future +ourts. "his note therefore criti8ues the 6ehn8uist-2calia approach by contrasting its effects #ith those of the traditional stare decisis frame#orkK it does not address any issues that #ould arise if this ne# approach #ere itself entitled to stare decisis effect.

1%

4-5 decisions arent likely to be enforced by lo#er courts PADDEN 9& MAmy & >! @eorgeto#n & I) @eo. -.>. 1GI3N

"he +ourtPs eCplicit acceptance of limited precedential effect for 4-5 decisions #ill also affect the application of precedent in the lo#er courts. A doctrine called the Oprediction ruleO has gained acceptance among some courts and commentators. ?nder this rule, a lo#er court need not follo# precedent if it can predict that the 2upreme +ourt itself #ould not follo# that precedent. -o#er courts should not, ho#ever, consider personal ideologies and eCtra$udicial intimations in reaching their decisions, but it #ill be difficult for a lo#er court to predict the demise of a 4-5 2upreme +ourt precedent #ithout improperly considering the personal ideologies of the current >ustices.

19

?nanimous court decisions indicate an adherence to the rule of la# and sheath the s#ords of $udicial activism C=WR %9 M.on/ressional 0uarterly Weekly 1eport & 11S11N "he absence of sharp rhetoric in unanimous decisions lessens the public controversy and the si9e of the headlines. "he unanimity casts this ideologically diverse court in a gentler light as the 13I3-3. term begins. "he cases also serve as a reminder that 2upreme +ourt decisions reflect la#s and precedents and legal reasoning at least as much as ideology. Are8uently the $ustices seem to have simply sheathed their ideological s#ords.

20

?nanimous decisions best for social change (IM>RA 92 M;en & HH +ornell -. 6ev. 1437N

"hus, the single opinion in Bro#n v. Board of =duc., 75H ?.2. 5I7 %1345), incorporated both the ma$ority rule and the internal rule. :ne commentator suggests that OMiNf the +ourt had further split into a ma$ority divided against itself, if the $ustices had spoken as nine individuals rather than as Pthe 2upreme +ourt,P the moral authority of Bro#n #ould perhaps have been too diluted to have led to even the gradual social changes #hich it in fact inspired.O

21

?nanimity key to rule of la# (IM>RA 92 M;en & HH +ornell -. 6ev. 1437N

A plurality decision, by its very nature, represents the most unstable form of case la#. It is the resolution of a OhardO case by a nonunanimous +ourt. At least three opinions, resting upon diverse legal theories, are present in a plurality decision. "he 2upreme +ourtPs failure to articulate a single rule of la# creates confusion in the lo#er courts as ho# to interpret and #eigh that decision.

22

4-5 !ecisions T normal means NPR )-'-01 "he 2upreme +ourt term that concluded last #eek #ill be remembered for one thing in particular, the 4-to-5 decision that picked a president of the ?nited 2tates, the first time for such a ruling. "here #ere other significant court decisions on everything from immigration to search and sei9ure. As in the case of Bush vs. @ore, most of the courtPs high-profile cases #ere decided by a margin of one vote. ,6 legal affairs correspondent ina "otenberg reports.

23

4-5 !ecisions T normal means NPR )-'-01 ":"= B=6@F -ooking for#ard to neCt term0 !onPt eCpect a big change in the 4-to-5 voting pattern #ith 8uestions like affirmative action and the death penalty on the docket. ina "otenberg, ,6 e#s, *ashington. =!*A6!2F "he time is 13 minutes past the hour.

2&

4-5 !ecisions are business as usual for this court NPR )-!-01 M"otenbernTreporter, @oldsteinT2upreme +ourt AdvocateN ":"= B=6@F Indeed, @oldstein points out that if you eliminate from the e8uation the courtPs business cases, most of #hich #ere easily decided #ith little or no dissent... Br. @:-!2"=I F "he number of 4-5 cases goes through the roof. It becomes about t#o-thirds or even three-8uarters of the cases.

2!

>ustices deliberately #rite confusing opinions (IRMAN 9! MIgor & 34 +olum. -. 6ev. ).I7N In order to gain the support of a ma$ority, such opinions are often #ritten, to borro# a phrase from <enry <art, O#ith studied ambiguity ... MQ).33N #ith a #illingness to muddy the #aters.O n3H In ans#ering a criticism of his ambiguous opinion, >ustice 2tone #roteF OI should have preferred to have #ritten your opinion than the one #hich #ill actually appear in the books. <ad I done so, I should have been in a minority of t#o or three, instead of a ma$ority of siC.O n3I 2o long as the ambiguity is not incompatible #ith their vie#s, the >ustices #ill often deliberately cloud their opinion to obtain the fifth vote. n33 "hus, as >oseph @oldstein pointed out about the ambiguity in ational -eague of +ities v. ?sery, it is unclear #hether the ma$ority accepted >ustice BlackmunPs balancing approach or notF O>ustice 6ehn8uist did not unmistakably accept or re$ect balancing. 6ather, he #as #illing to leave his opinion sufficiently ambiguous to get >ustice BlackmunPs vote.O

2'

AT: P"AN DOESN/T INDICATE A SP"IT DECISION


1) ,lan indicates normal means# & our 1nc +ooper evidence indicates that split decisions are business as usual for the +ourt. )) "heir inherency evidence proves & conflicts eCist that prevent grassroots mobili9ation, state reforms, andSor a +ourt decision, #hich means the plan #ould have to be a split decision given status 8uo attitudes 7) +ontroversy over the plan causes a split decisionF A) <insert 2lan is .ontro+ersial ,rom your trusty politics ,ile B) +ontroversial issues ensure split decisions OFFICE OF "E#A" PO"IC$ %% M!eparment of >ustice document, A e# -ook at ,lurality, !" #$%#&'(9 #9)9 p).N ,eople tend to disagree about basic values. "hus, 'MiNf the >ustices hold different premises, and even if these different premises are more general values, it is much more difficult for them to reach a consensus. "he result is an increase in the number of plurality decisions.( !iffering values as a basis of $udicial decisions create irreconcilable differences. 5) "his is a good interpretation of fiatF our interpretation of fiat and normal means allo#s running real #orld congressional backlash !As, politics !As, etc. #hich are the heart of the topic. If the neg can find evidence proving #hat normal means is, or the popular effects of the plan, they should be able to run it. "he aff interpretation punishes hard #ork and research at the eCpense of creativity and neg ground. 4) "hey couldve specified & "hey had infinite prep time to craft the 1A+ and their plan teCt, they couldve avoided this debate by specifying a 3-. decision. "herefore, since they passed on the opportunity, it should be our choice and this should be legitimate +, ground. G) Allo#s for more aff ground. "hey get 4-5, I-1, H-), and G-7. H) Uinsert a sle# of normal means evidenceV

if the plan doesnt say normal means, you should obviously not say this. you should instead say that the 1nc +ooper evidence indicates that split decisions are business as usual #hich means that if the plan doesnt say #hich #ay the decision goes, you should assume its a split.

2)

AT: PERM

DO BOTH

1) "heyre mutually eCclusive & the +ourt cant take ) actions to decide one case t#o different #ays at the same time & violates the la#s of physics and makes no sense. )) Its an intrinsicness perm & in order for the perm to function an additional action that isnt in the advocacy of the plan or the +, & such as a second test case or striking do#n one of the decisions & #ould have to take place. "his is illegitimate and a voting issue because the infinite amount of plan amendments that occur half#ay through the debate make it impossible to be negative and it kills our ground because it makes all counterplans non-competitive and net benefits irrelevant. 7) o net benefit & "hey still enact a split decision, meaning theyll al#ays link to the 6ule of -a# net benefit and risk not solving because of all the reasons split decisions dont solve articulated in the 1 +

5) ,erm links #orse & t#o decisions on the same case going t#o different #ays0 If the lo#er courts and society-at-large #erent going to muddle up the plan, theyre sure going to be unable to handle the perm.

2%

AT: PERM DO THE CO>NTERP"AN


1) Its a severance perm & it severs out of the part of the plan that is a split decision. 2everance perms are a voting issue because plan alterations that make all negative offense irrelevant mid-#ay through the debate make it impossible to be negative. )) "eCtual +ompetition is a bad standard & a) it makes all counterplans non-competitive via stupid #ordplay and grammar magic. A counterplan to ' ot !o "he ,lan( #ould be non-competitive even though its the opposite of the plan, all conditioning and consultation counterplans #ould be noncompetitive even though they are functionally eCtremely different, it makes stupid and non-sensical acronyms and 're-arrange the letters( counterplans legitimate, etc.

b) provides for better debate & functional competitive means you have to make arguments about #hat the plan and the counterplan actually do & #hich is al#ays better for education and in-depth debate c) $ust as arbitrary & grammar and plan #ordings are al#ays imprecise & $udges are smart enough to figure out the debate, #hich means theyre smart enough to resolve #hether or not a counterplan functionally competes

7) Its our idea & they have conceeded that the negative advocacy is better than the aff. 6e#ard us. 5) 2ets a bad precedent & if they can $ustify stealing the negative advocacy in this round, thats a slippery slope to making all counterplans and criti8ue alternatives $ust )A+ plan clarifications, unfairly privileging the affirmative #hich already has first and last speeches, infinite prep time, choice of topic, and #ins most debates. If a contrived theory debate that the aff started is close, you should al#ays err negative due to massive side bias.

29

AT: ATTIT>DE FIAT BAD


1) All fiat is attitude fiat & inherency al#ays means opposition to the plan eCists in the status 8uo, #hich means that in order for anything to pass the attitudes of la#makers have to temporarily change. "his is inevitable #ith all instances of fiat in debate. )) o inround abuse & "heir #orst case scenario are counterplans that #ish a#ay violence or racism or other things at the grassroots level & #e can agree that attitude fiat of 'the #orld( or individual citi9ens is bad #hile limiting ourselves to fiating #hat the government does & that ensures a good debate over process and ho# politics happens in the real #orld rather than $ust fiating a#ay the harms.

7) +ompetition checks abuse & #e still have to #in #ere competitive & '*orld ,eace( counterplans can never do that 5) 2olvency evidence checks abuse & #e still have to #in a substantive debate over ho# the decisions are perceived & #e are reading cards about ho# 3-. decisions are perceived #hich means a fair debate is possible 4) =rr neg on theory & aff gets first and last speech, choice of topic, #ins most of the time, and has infinite prep time & give us lee#ay on contrived theory ob$ections G) ,unishment doesnt fit the crime & at #orst you $ust re$ect the counterplan not the team.

30

9-0 C*5r989+5t9o1 91 t:2 4*51 t23t 9s E3tr5-to49+5*


A? VIO"ATION plan goes beyond the boundaries of the resolution and fiats that the vote count of the +ourt is a 3-. B? THIS IS A VOTIN# ISS>E 1- ground & they prevent us from running specific backlash !As and political process !As by performing unpredictable god-like manipulation of their agent in a #ay that is inconsistent #ith the literature base )- infinite regression & they use attitudinal fiat #hich can sno#ball into fiating a#ay racism or homophobia or any terminal impact to their affirmative 7- education & they shift the focus off of the real #orld effects of the plan by using eCtra fiat to spike out of substantive offense 5- de$ustifies the resolution by illustrating that it is insufficient by itself to solve the harms

31

You might also like