JV Evidence 5/9/2023

[2AC] Agent Counterplan Theory

Interpretation: Agent Counterplans are a voting issue

Violation: The EU CP is an Agent counterplan, because the only thing it changes about the Aff is the actor.

Which of the below is a reason to prefer this interpretation?

• Aff ground – Agent CPs steal all of aff ground and open up possibility of infinite number of

  unpredictable counterplans

• Infinitely Regressive – There are a wide range of international agents, nation state agents, state

  agents, etc that the affirmative will never be able to predict. Sets a bad model for debate and

  decks fairness/education

• Not reciprocal – Aff can’t deviate from the US increasing security cooperation, neg should not be

  able to as well.

Match the following

(Constructing Topicality)

• Interpretation (or Definition):

• This explains how the affirmative’s plan is outside the scope of the negative’s interpretation. Essentially, the

  affirmative does not comply with a specific word/words from the resolution.

• Voting Issue/Voters:

• Describes why the negative’s interpretation is the best way to understand and debate the resolution. Here are a

  few common reasons to prefer; however, at this point, it’s probably safest to stick with ground and limits.

• Violation:

• This is always presented first. The interpretation is used to explain the negative’s vision of the ideal scope of the

  resolution. Definitions should be carefully chosen as there are multiple definitions floating around.

• Standards (or Reasons to Prefer):

• This explains why the affirmative should lose because they are not topical. This often describes topicality as a

  rule of the game that the affirmative has not followed.

Topicality is the stock issue that does not ensure the Affirmative’s plan falls within the bounds of the topic.

• T

• F

Match the following

(Extending Topicality in the 2NC/1NR)

• Answer Reasonability

• - Say that the affirmative’s interpretation is not reasonable! ⟹ Deter future violations -

  Explain why the judge should vote on topicality, even if it is a minor infraction. For instance, to make sure that other

  teams know not to read affs like this one...

• Being Topical isn’t hard...

• Demonstrate the difference between the negative interpretation and the affirmative interpretation

  by proposing a hypothetical case list for each side. Don’t be afraid to use outlandish examples for possible affirmative

  cases allowed by their interpretation.

• Summarize

• - Clearly explain the negative interpretation and the way in which the affirmative violates the

  interpretation.

• Make a List

• Give an example of how the affirmative could have been topical. Explain that their

  mistake can be explained as either laziness or an attempt to cheat and avoid debating your awesome negative

  positions.

Framing

Vote aff if security cooperation on cybersecurity is a good idea or vote neg if it is not – the aff should

get to weigh plan implementation against a competitive alternative and get offense against the means

used to achieve desecuritization. prefer our interpretation:

Match the following

• Fairness

• - debate has zero value if we never discuss the implications of the topic outside

  of the academy

• Education

• Answers

• Aff

• - neg has a competitive incentive to moot the 1AC post-facto so they can always

  win debate

[1NC] Cybersecurity Topicality

Match the following

• Violation—

• allows the aff to justify any military action and move away from the DOD’s

  interpretation of security cooperation measures

• (Standards) Limits -

• Their plan explicitly focuses on offensive operations.

• (Standards) Ground—

• skirts core neg generic offense that is based on current security cooperation

  defense

The Affirmative doesn’t have to prove they are topical, the Negative has to prove they are NOT topical.

• T

• F

If your case isn’t topical, you lose the debate even if you prove your plan is a good idea.

• T

• F

[2AC] Agent Counterplan Theory

(Interpretation: Agent Counterplans are a voting issue)

Match the following

• Violation:

• There are a wide range of international agents, nation state agents, state

  agents, etc that the affirmative will never be able to predict. Sets a bad model for debate and

  decks fairness/education

• Reason to prefer*: Not reciprocal

• Agent CPs steal all of aff ground and open up possibility of infinite number of

  unpredictable counterplans

• Reason to prefer*: Infinitely Regressive

• The EU CP is an Agent counterplan, because the only thing it changes about the Aff is the

  actor.

• Reason to prefer*: Aff ground

• Aff can’t deviate from the US increasing security cooperation, neg should not be

  able to as well.

(Extending Topicality Responses in the 1AR)

Match the following

• Minimize the violation-

• Explain why even if the judge thinks your plan is off topic, it is too minor of an infraction to

  decide the whole debate on. Remind the judge why your affirmative is good to learn about this year.

• Summarize -

• Say that the affirmative’s interpretation is good! Explain that even if their

  terrible interpretation of the topic was true, you can argue that they have not been negatively impacted by your plan:

  their negative positions could have still been used against your case, and that’s a better debate for the judge to

  evaluate than Topicality.

• Answer Competing Interpretations -

• Demonstrate the difference between the affirmative interpretation and the negative interpretation

  by proposing a hypothetical case list for each side. Try to think of obviously topical cases that their interpretation

  would intentionally exclude.

• Make a List -

• Clearly explain how you meet their interpretation. Explain how even if you do not meet their

  interpretation, the affirmative interpretation is better than the negative’s interpretation, anyway.