[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

need helpRe: solvency and nss

Hey Stacey!

thanks for joining the discussion!  i want to address your question about 
ideas for the epa as actor.  however, zack, this should not frighten anyone 
away from the environment topic:)  

> Yes, I agree, we don't seem to be debating the real world political 
>process.

yes, i agree. i heard some of the most laughable descriptions of how congress 
enacts legislation at nationals.  one debater said that the president can 
introduce legislation onto the floor of the house (apparently he didn't 
really know about the whole committee system:). maybe i'm just assuming we 
should know things like this because i have a political job, but if we are 
policymaking and running agent and other political arguments, than we better 
get a grasp of how our own government works.  sheesh!

i thought a bunch of debaters were poly sci people.  maybe debate coaches 
need to hand out "how a bill becomes a law" flyers or something.:)  the house 
provides them for free.  just call the staff of your representative:)

> I'll just cross apply Becky's answer here.  What about the EPA, or
> some other actor?  I like that idea, but I am sure that there are
> potential actor problems there as well.  Anyone have ideas on EPA actor
> problems?  Can't think of any off the top of my head.

first, again, maybe i am a purist or a real world junkie or something, but i 
have yet to hear a valid construction of an agent couterplan against a case 
that has the agency as the actor.  surprise, no other government agent.  
guess you'll have to use solvency mechanism counterplans or, hey zack, you 
could just exclude every affirmative and debate movements, bizcon or 
economy:)

the biggest problem i see (in terms of the agent - not a statement about the 
availability of negative ground) with the epa/doi acting to increase 
regulations (for a limited set of highly visible issue, not all affirmatives 
will have this problem) in the way we have suggested is the reaction from 
congress.  they (under the scenario where we have a dem president and repub 
congress ONLY) might roll back the legislation that grants rulemaking 
authority or that sets up the statutory foundation for the rule.  now, the 
dem president will of course veto this action even if they could get it 
through both houses and conference, so there is no real impact, but, for 
issues like esa, the congress says it's proposals are a reaction to doi 
enforcement.  well, maybe there is an impact if this is an interbranch 
conflict link...don't know...

> I am really tired of blatant fiat abuses, like everyone in the world will
> become a vegetarian.  Yeah, whatever.  Finally, I hope that this solvency
> thread will help Josh learn how to spell "solvency" with an e and not
> with an a. :)

while i do not want to defend these fiat a transformation arguments, i do 
want to caution the statement "like everyone in the world will do x."  why 
doesn't this standard apply to advantages and disadvantages?  i'm not saying 
we should limit impacts to the real world.  however, we should not assail one 
type of argument for failing to be real world and then vote on the risk that 
increasing waste water regulations will cause a nuclear war.

becky galentine
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page