1nc vs Baylor

Notes from risha

What is a geosocial formation?
Restriction-spec

1nc (PRE-Risha)

1
1. Violation The aff should specify its agent within the USfg.
Government power is divided into 3 branches
Rotunda, professor of law at the University of Illinois, 2001 [Richard, 18 Const.
Commentary 319, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE,
AND MORRISON, l/n, (m7,06)]
No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. Its state/federal division of authority
protects liberty - both by restricting the burdens that government can impose from a distance and by
facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer to home. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the
majority, agreed. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that the people's rights would
be secured by the division of power." n9 The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested
"federal majority" would consistently seek to impose more federal control over the people and the states.
n10 Hence, they created a federal structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal
power. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua

The Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central

government of enumerated powers. They divided power between the state and
federal governments, and they further divided power within the federal
government by splitting it among the three branches of government, and they
states." n11

further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared)
by splitting it between two Houses of Congress. n12

2. Voters
A)SolvencyDeficit:90%ofsolvencyisdependentonimplementation
Elmore,ProfessorofpublicaffairsatUWashington,1980[Politicalsciencequarterly,pg.605,(m7,06)]

Analysis of policychoicesmattersverylittleif the mechanismforimplementingthosechoicesis poorly

understood. Inansweringthequestion,What percentage oftheworkofachievingadesiredgovernmentalactionis
done when thepreferredanalyticalternative has been identified?Allisonestimatedthatinthenormalcase,itwas
about10 percent, leavingtheremaining90 percent intherealmofimplementation.
B)Ground:WecantrunourspecificDAstoUSAIDorcongress,orhavecompetitiveagentCPs.
C)Realworld.Policydoesnthappenwithoutanactor.
D)Education.Keytolearnaboutgovernmentactionandimplementation.

Next, the defense:

3. Cant clarify.
4. Theyre a moving target. This skews predictability and ground because
they could clarify to get out of any 1nc arg.
5. Not resolved
American Heritage 2k [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html, 2000
by Houghton Mifflin Company, accessed 6-30-07]
Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about

6. Cross-x doesnt check

7. Pre round prep. They dont have to answer questions before the round.
This kills clash because we cant prepare.
8. Not binding. The judge doesnt flow it.
9. Aff burden to specify in plan. We should get cross-x to get links and talk
about evidence, not clarify plans.
10. Regressive. Affs could read the res as plan and we would have to spend
3 min of cross-x to find out what they do.
11. Aff bias
12. Structural. First and last speech, infinite prep, and 60% win skew
13. Broad Topic.

2 PIC (DA)
Insert resolution and minus cap and trade
DA vs cap and trade PIC is competive the 1ac decides to co

3 T geophysical order
Interpation and violation : geophysical order is not anypart of
the topic
Their Interpation explodes the topic because it justifies all
affirmatives to be extra-topical where they garner offense
through their

4K
Either general colonial futures and how our link be
predicated

Case -Solvency
Their use of normative terms like ought or should is best
explained as purely non-truth apt expressions of emotion.
Statements like the plan lack the conceptual possibility of
being true or even having factual meaning.
Ayer 36
Ayer, AJ (Wykeham Professor of Logic at New College; Oxford). Language, Truth, and Logic. 1936. JDN.
https://archive.org/stream/AlfredAyer/LanguageTruthAndLogic_djvu.txt

We begin by admitting that the fundamental ethical concepts are unanalysable,

inasmuch as there is no criterion by which one can test the validity of the
judgments in which they occur. so far we are in agreement with the absolutists. But, unlike the
absolutists, we are able to give an explanation of this fact about ethical concepts. We say that the reason why
they are unanalysable, is that they are mere pseudo-concepts. The presence of an
ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to
someone, 'You acted wrongly in stealing I am not stating anything more than if I had
simply said, 'You stole that money.' In adding that this action is wrong I am not
making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of
it. It is as if I had said, 'You stole that money,' in a particular tone of horror, or written
it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. The tone, or the
exclamation marks, adds nothing to the literal meaning of the sentence. It merely serves to
show that the expression of it is attended by certain feelings in the speaker. If now I generalize my
previous statement and say, 'Stealing money is wrong.' I produce a sentence
which has no factual meaning - that is, expresses no proposition which can be
either true or false. It is as if I had written 'Stealing money!!' - where the shape and thickness
of the exclamation marks show, by a suitable convention, that a special sort of moral disapproval is the feeling

It is clear that there is nothing said here which can be true or

false. Another man [One] may disagree with me about the wrongness of stealing , in the
which is being expressed.

sense that he may not have the same feelings about stealing as I have, and he may quarrel with me on account of
my moral sentiments. But he cannot, strictly speaking, contradict me. For in saying that a certain
type of action is right or wrong, I am not making any factual statement, not even a statement about my own state
of mind. I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments. And the man who is ostensibly contradicting me is
merely expressing his moral sentiments. So that

there is plainly no sense in asking which of us is

in the right. For neither of us is asserting a genuine proposition. What we have just been saying about the
symbol 'wrong' applies to all normative ethical symbols. Sometimes they occur in sentences which record ordinary
empirical facts besides expressing ethical feeling about those facts; sometimes they occur in sentences which
simply express ethical feeling about a certain type of action, or situation, without making any statement of fact. But

in every case in which one would commonly be said to be making an ethical

judgment, the function of the relevant ethical word is purely 'emotive.' It is used to
express feelings about certain objects, but not to make any assertion about them. It
is worth mentioning that ethical terms do not serve only to express feeling. They are calculated also
to arouse feeling , and so to stimulate action. Indeed some of them are used in
such a way as to give the sentences in which they occur the effect of commands.
Thus the sentence 'It is your duty to tell the truth' may be regarded both as the

expression of a certain sort of ethical feeling about truthfulness and as the

expression of the command 'Tell the truth.' The sentence 'You ought to tell the truth'
also involves the command 'Tell the truth,' but here the tone of the command is less
emphatic. In the sentence 'It is good to tell the truth' the command has become little more than a suggestion.
And thus the 'meaning' of the word 'good,' in its ethical usage, is differentiated from that of the word 'duty' of the
word 'ought.' In fact, we may define the meaning of the various ethical words in terms both of the different feelings
they are ordinarily taken to express and also the different responses which they are calculated to provoke.

We

can now see why it is impossible to find a criterion for determining the
validity of ethical judgments. It is not because they have an 'absolute' validity which is mysteriously
independent of ordinary sense-experience, but because they have no objective validity whatsoever. If a sentence
makes no statement at all, there is obviously no sense in asking whether what it says is true or false. And we have

sentences which simply express moral judgments do not say anything. They
are pure expressions of feeling and as such do not come under the category of truth
and falsehood. They are unverifiable for the same reason as a cry of pain or a word of command is
seen that

unverifiable - because they do not express genuine propositions

Case- Advantage