SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
1
Dandridge Blocks
State Courts 2AC Args ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1AR AT: New Mariner ’86 Cards ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1AR Theory Extensions (2AC 2 and 3) ............................................................................................................................. 4
Recusal CP 2AC Args ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1AR Perm Do Both .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1AR Perm Do The CP ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
AT CP ≠ In Poverty .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2AC “Extra T” .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
2AC Sotomayor Politics DA ................................................................................................................................................ 10
OSPEC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
2
State Courts 2AC Args
1. Counterplan solves none of the aff –
A. 1NC Mariner 86 evidence is specific to health care – the warrant why state courts have jurisdiction is that
state courts describe health care as a necessity of life that requires special sensitivity – there is no evidence
that other social services fall under this category
B. 1NC Gabrieldis ‘6 evidence says that state courts can use international human rights law to interpret the
state’s own constitution – NOT the constitution of the US – there is zero evidence that IHRL can be applied to
supreme court precedent by state courts – that claim is a counter-intuitive lie
C. Second Gabrielidis card isn’t offense – federal courts have no choice but to model the plan because
supreme court sets binding precedent for all lower courts. Proves the case solves better – their solvency is an
improbable prediction that attorneys will win suits in other federal courts later – our solvency is a
jurisdictional mandate on federal courts
D. There’s zero evidence in the 1NC that state courts can overturn supreme court precedent. Proves no risk of
solvency – post-counterplan social services will still be denied by federal courts and state authorities because
overriding supreme court precedent offers an easy way to justify denying social services – only the
counterplan solves problems of vertical stare decisis
2. State court overturn of supreme court precedent is unconstitutional – they have no evidence justifying this
– unconstitutional fiat is a voting issue for predictability – serious policy literature does not advocate
unconstitutional actions – constitution sets a frame for policy solutions – devastates aff ability to research the
counterplan and resolve desirability of advocacies, which is a key skill of debate
3. Counterplan has no solvency advocate for the specific ruling in question – our interpretation is that
counterplans must have solvency advocates comparable to the aff solvency advocate, in this case the
lofreddo evidence. Lack of a solvency advocate is a voting issue – it proves the counterplan is a contrived,
unrealistic invention of debaters rather than literature – devastates topic specific education in debate by
privileging creative shenanigans over research
4. Lofreddo proves only supreme court precedent creates inclusion at the highest levels of society – supreme
court’s symbolic authority is key to acknowledge the importance of the poor in federal politics rather than just
state level – counterplan doesn’t solve any of our exclusion claims
5. Perm do both
6. Perm do the plan justified by international human rights norms – solves the rights net benefit – not intrinsic,
the justification claim was in the 1NC
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
3
1AR AT: New Mariner ’86 Cards
This evidence gets them absolutely nothing – it’s the same article as the 1NC and only defends protections for
health-related claims and equal protection for sick people – this fails to address any of the warrants to our
solvency or theory claims
(AND/OR if they read the ‘education example’ card)
The education evidence proves the counterplan doesn’t solve – it says education was distinguished from
quote ordinary social welfare benefits – the plan deals with the latter the counterplan could only solve the
former
(AND/OR if they read the really really long card)
The long Mariner card is all the other Mariner cards stuck together – the fact that you produced the same card
multiple times proves the embarrassing lack of literature or advocacy for this counterplan – this evidence is
answered above
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
4
1AR Theory Extensions (2AC 2 and 3)
Extend 2AC 2 – counterplan is unconstitutional – the burden of proof is on the neg to read evidence that state
courts can overturn supreme court precedent – this evidence doesn’t exist – limiting counterplans to
constitutional actions ensures they exist in literature as serious policy advocacies – this predictability key to
focused argument resolution in debates; resolving questions of non-advocated non-constitutional
impossibilities is not productive education. Argument resolution is a core skill of debate – it teaches debaters
to make good decisions and rationally weigh cost/benefit analysis – counterplans like this make debate an
anti-educational and socially unproductive activity – you should vote affirmative to set a precedent against
contrived counterplans
2AC 3 – counterplans without solvency advocates are illegitimate – the standard for a solvency advocate is
one comparative to the aff – this solves all their offense because contrived counterplans can only be run
against contrived affs – however lofreddo advocates social changes including the poor at the federal level.
There is no comparable solvency advocate for the counterplan – Mariner is talking about equal protection for
sick people, not poor people, it has nothing to do with the counterplan text. Voting issue – contrived
counterplans kill topic specific education key to debate activism and making topic research meaningful and
productive outside debate – vote aff to force the negative to research more educational arguments
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
5
Recusal CP 2AC Args
1. Perm do both – the 1NC Foertsch evidence proves that recusal for justices is normal means when they did
not participate in the original decision – concede their argument Roberts wasn’t part of the original Dandridge
decision – Roberts recuses himself when we do the plan
2. Perm the counterplan – the counterplan is not textually competitive – it includes the entire 1AC plan text
and adds the words “except chief justice john Roberts” and the last sentence about written recusal. Our
interpretation is that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive – counterplans that fail this
test should be considered plan plus. This interpretation of competition is best – it’s key to limit out arbitrary
process counterplans like sunsets and consult while also limiting textually bad counterplans like period and
grammar pics. These counterplans destroy the educational value of debate by substituting topic specific
education with contrived and unpredictable shenanigans.
3. Counterplan flaw – the text says “persons living the united states,” omitting the word in – mandate of the
counterplan is incoherent and meaningless – passage solves zero percent of the aff
4. No solvency advocate –
(Insert Aff Ans. Cards from varsity lab’s Tournament Supplement file)
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
6
1AR Perm Do Both
Extend 2AC 1 – perm do both – perm do both operates the same as the counterplan; the plan is functionally
the same. The 1NC Foertsch evidence proves – supreme court justices recuse themselves dozens of times a
year when deciding cases in which they did not participate; and we conceded their arguments Roberts didn’t
participate in the original Dandridge decision. This proves Roberts would recuse himself from the aff plan. Fiat
is the smallest possible means to accomplish something – we don’t have to defend all justices – five justices
would rule without Roberts.
The 2NC normal means evidence is terrible – the first foertsch card says that supreme court policy lets justice
decide whether to recuse themselves or not in cases dealing with spouses or close relatives – completely
irrelevant to the aff – the 1NC foertsch evidence is much more specific regarding how the aff would be
implemented
The Riffle evidence says recusal is a justices decision in all circumstances – it doesn’t say what decision
Roberts would make – the 1NC Foertsch evidence does
The Basset evidence is says justices have a reluctance to recuse in most situations but the Foertsch evidence
proves that in cases regarding absence in prior decisions they still recuse dozens of times a year – also the
Foertsch evidence postdates by a year so it assumes recent changes in supreme court recusal policy which is
updated by the justices
There is no risk that Roberts would not recuse himself in the normal decision – perm do both solves all the net
benefits
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
7
1AR Perm Do The CP
Extend 2AC 2 – Perm do the CP – counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive the
counterplan adds text about recusing Roberts, it fails the textual competition test. This proves the counterplan
is plan plus, so perm do the counterplan is neither severence or intrinsic – it’s all of the 1AC plus the
additional text they added
A. Defense – all reasons why textuality is bad are solved by this interpretation – including a functional
competition mandate prevents absurd counterplans out of grammar, punctuation, etc.
B. Offense – functionality only leads to counterplans like sunsets, delay, and consultation. These
counterplans are terrible for debate – making debate about interpretations of normal means rather than the
plan prevents all topic specific education, since generic consult or sunsets counterplans get reused year after
year. Topic education is key to make debate meaningful – it enables activism and social change as a result of
our discussions – fair, limited discussions that don’t allow topic ground are socially unproductive. Also, these
counterplans kill argument resolution – shift debate from the aff to unpredictable net benefits – stable
argument resolution is a core critical thinking skill of debate, gives the activity its pedagogical value –
counterplans like this train a generation of debaters who are terrible at making decisions
C. Even if they win this interpretation is extremely limiting to counterplan ground, those limits are awesome –
it leaves the neg ground like case-specific PICs out of parts of the plan, which are educational and extremely
tactically effective – our interpretation raises the research burden for the neg, but their strategic options are
devastating proves we preserve competitive equity. Their limits claims amount to intellectual laziness – it’s
good to have to do plan-specific research before debates, key to topic education
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
8
AT CP ≠ In Poverty
This only proves the counterplan is artificially textually competitive – there’s no reason for omission of this
phrase aside from creation of competition. Artificial competition should be rejected – justifies counterplans
like “don’t do the plan and feed Africa,” makes debate a stupid contest of noncompetitive advocacy
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
9
2AC “Extra T”
1. We meet – plan text doesn’t say “overturn Dandridge v. Williams,” it says to rule that social services can’t
be denied based on the rationality review – the Lofreddo evidence proves the immediate effect of this is to
increase social services given to persons in poverty. This entire argument assumes we overturn the
Dandridge ruling, which is not the plan text – we should not be held accountable for their failure to understand
the plan text
2. Argument test – this T violation is incoherent – the violation is that we quote can virtually claim to solve for
any group or anything – there’s not an internal link to this argument that makes a modicum of sense
3. Counterinterpretation only the plan text has to be topical
4. All their standards are whines that sanction intellectual laziness – the internal link to all predictability and
abuse claims is that our advantages aren’t topical – debate 101, advantages never have to be topical, the
resolution exists to define acceptable plan texts. This argument amounts to “we don’t want to research good
strategies against your aff cause your plan text is so good it has so many advantages so we will run a whiny
theory claim instead.” Grow up.
5. Education and ground from our aff is good –
A. Barriers questions like the Dandridge ruling are the heart of the topic – it’s impossible to understand a
question about increasing social services without understanding the denial of those services and why the
need exists in the status quo
B. Awesome negative ground – we defend an increase in all social services, feel free to read your topic disads,
C. Advocacy around things like the exclusion of the poor is core aff topic ground – the resolution asks a
question about government interaction with persons in poverty – key to maintain research burdens and
argument resolution
(only read if you are an ethics team)
6. The poorly articulated framework portions of this argument do not have an impact responsive to our role of
the ballot claims – force them to have a coherent interpretation of debate or default to our ethics argument
(only read if you’re not)
6. we defend passage of the plan and claim advantages off of it – solves all their critical affs and advocacy bad
arguments
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
10
2AC Sotomayor Politics DA
1. Uniqueness swamps the link – Davis evidence says Sotomayor has solid support from 60 senate
democratics which is enough for confirmation – the three republicans are extra votes on top of her guaranteed
confirmation, not necessary. Also, confirmation is simple majority – the brink is as large as 10 democrats and
they have no evidence at all that there’s a risk of defecting. ALSO, this evidence in the un-underlined portion
says that top republicans are determined to prevent a filibuster and avoid battles on Sotomayor – proves this
issue can’t explode
2. No risk of a link – Friedman evidence is describing the Federalist party’s conflict with the judiciary in the
1800s – it’s the negatives burden to read evidence that the plan would be contentious in the current congress
3. Link turn – Friedman doesn’t say anything about progressive decisions, he says that prevailing political
attitudes shape reactions to judicial decisions – the prevailing political attitude right now is progressive,
Obama is president and democrats have a majority in the senate and the house – proves the majority reacts
favorably to the plan
4. No internal link – political battles doesn’t mean Sotomayor’s confirmation gets derailed
5. No warrant why Sotomayor key to solving the case – fiat means the plan passes and is enforced – this
evidence says Sotomayor makes progressive decisions more likely, but fiat solves that
6. Plan solves reasons why Sotomayor is key – it increases legal civic engagement, progressive attitudes, and
reverses discriminatory attitudes – that’s the Lofreddo evidence
7. The disad is not intrinsic - it's within the agential capability of the federal government to do the plan and
confirm sotomayor
Intrinsicness is a good framework for debate –
a. better decision model - trains us to separate avoidable and unavoidable costs - key to informed
decisionmaking and logical agency skills
b. reciprocity - counterplans test non-intrinsic advantages - reciprocity best to divide disad and advantage
ground - splits research and discussion burden fairly
c. not a plan amendment or a permutation - it's a decisional constraint on disads
x
SCFI 08-09
Dandridge Blocks
Shkolerz
11
OSPEC
1. We meet – DoD is an agent of the federal government
2. Counterinterpretation – ‘the’ means we can specify an actor
Chambers Dictionary 98 (p 1718)
the: demonstrative adjective – used to refer to a unique person or thing
.
3. Specification is better
a. key to solvency debates – agents take actions, not monolithic government – specific solvency claims key to
inform productive activism and education on Africa policy
b. their interpretation incentivizes agent PICs – uniquely bad for debate – create artificial ground outside the
resolution – inculcates political docility by refusing to engage the merits of a policy question
4. Substantive links off of plan action solve the impact – we have to defend an increase in public health
assistance – agent just generates better solvency debates
5. We meet - Individual agency actions are still considered “federal government” actions
Words and Phrases 04
(Cummulative Supplementary Pamphlet, v. 16A, p. 42)
N.D.Ga. 1986. Action against the Postal Service, although an independent establishment of the executive branch of the federal
government, is an action against the “Federal Government” for purposes of rule that plaintiff in action against government has right to
jury trial only where right is one of terms of government’s consent to be sued; declining to follow Algernon Blair Industrial Contractors, Inc. v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 552 F.Supp. 972 (M.D.Ala.). 39 U.S.C.A. 201; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 7.—Griffin v. U.S. Postal Service, 635
F.Supp. 190.—Jury 12(1.2).
x