[eDebate] actor/agent counterplans

[Travis Neal]

I am so sorry to have wasted your bandwidth with our uninformed  
thinking, please do continue with the history lesson as I am too  
stupid to know to be quiet when someone calls me stupid.

I will attempt to dig through all the ad hominems about our stupidity  
and naivety.  If we assume that the critic can only decide between a  
plan and counterplan that use the same actor then it seems the  
"Congress do it instead counterplan" is still a possibility since the  
agent specified by resolutions is the USFG and not Congress/Bush/USSC  
etc.  Now it may be possible that this resolution will not be a USFG  
agent, but given the years past this assumption seems to be at least  
reasonable as a structuring assumption of this discussion.  But that  
would clearly be too obvious for the esteemed and well thought out  
Korcok, so......

Let us play with your example of purchasing the Toyota Hybrid.  If  
the reasons for consideration of purchasing the hybrid involve a  
larger gain than your personal satisfaction then it seems there is a  
claim to be made as to why it would be more preferable for your 4  
neighbors to purchase it.  Of course there is a competition problem  
here, but that is substantially different from your jurisdictional  
claim that the two cannot compete because the agent is bound by some  
history lesson you told us about 30 years ago.

Damn, I love it when people tell me, "I told you so."  Here is where  
your post turns funny (not ha-ha funny, which I think you do a great  
job at, "semi-frank-shils" made me giggle):

Korcok says:

To argue that the negative would have ground on plenary power  
resolutions because the negative could just counterplan that Congress  
or Bush change their own bad behavior is no more logical than arguing  
that the negative would have ground on "we should discourage violent  
criminality" because the negative could just counterplan that those  
committing criminal violence turn to happy happy thought-sharing  
projects instead.

This is the argument for the plenary power resolutions, but you are  
so quick to call us stupid you missed this entirely.  A brief  
review:  Some think the Congress reform CP is too powerful against  
USSC action, so Lindsay (I think) offers the plenary power  
affirmative because as you say, "[a] counterplan that Congress or  
Bush change their own bad behavior is ... [il]logical."  She  
concludes like you, this is a bad counterplan.  Lindsay's attempt is  
not to secure negative ground but to actually limit devastating  
negative ground.  Good job coach.

I will agree with you that I do not like the plenary power  
resolutions.  I think there are so many more interesting things to  
discuss, but I am concerned that plenary power seems to be the best  
refuge from this hole we dug for ourselves where the negative  
possibly has too much ground.  Your theory objection seems to provide  
some solace for the affirmative, but this argument would need to be  
resuscitated as it is not our guiding theory these days, which seems  
to be our main point of departure, aside from you trying to be the  
rude asshole in the playground.

Travis Neal
Pace U.