Está en la página 1de 3

Will Malson Agent CPs Good/Bad Page 1 of 3

Agent CPs Good (1/2)

Offense:

1. Education.
Agent debates are paramount policy questions because certain agents are better suited for particular
policies and the process is often more relevant than the substance in real politics

2. Limits
Agent CPs provide a natural limiting function on the topic size by weeding out insignificant cases – this
is especially important on a non-list topic

3. CP Ground
Agent CPs constitute a substantial portion of negative counterplan ground, excluding agent CPs
functionally erodes the CP as a negative option devastating side balance and fairness.

4. Tests the affirmative plan. 90% of policy is implementation. Elmore 80


Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980
The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery
by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if
the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What
percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic
alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent,
leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

5. Is best for education


We learn the most about how actions go through the government – this is perfect training for when we
become policy makers.
Will Malson Agent CPs Good/Bad Page 2 of 3

Agent CPs Good (2/2)

Defense

1. Predictable
The affirmative choice of agent provides a predictable set of agent debates and ground for both sides.

2. Not Abusive
A predictable, balanced, and large debate exists over the process of agent questions

3. Not Trivial
Our net benefits prove substance, congress versus the executive is far from trivial, and debate turns on
small but important distinctions

4. Doesn’t destroy aff ground


It actually gives the affirmative ground – they can run any DA’s they have to our agent

5. Lit checks abuse


There aren’t many agencies that someone will advocate should do the plan. The literature exists for both
sides of the issue

6. It reciprocates
Aff could have chosen any part of the USFG in their speech, like the EPA, but they didn’t.
Will Malson Agent CPs Good/Bad Page 3 of 3

Agent CPs Bad (1/1)

Offense

1. Eliminates Focus on Substantive Issues


Instead of topic specific education, we’re debating policies and implementation.

2. Trivializes Debate
Their net benefits rely on minute distinctions in process rather than the heart of policy substance, which
forms the basis for different topics

3. Bad for education


Kills critical thinking, and we argue courts v. congress or executive agencies instead of the resolution.

4. Explodes aff research ground


There are 140 agencies just under the USFG they can choose – that means an additional 140 agencies we
would have to research.