ADI 06 G-SPEC

Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

G-SPEC NEG

G Spec 1nc...........................................................................................................................2
AT: CX CHECKS................................................................................................................3
AT: INFINITLY REGRESSIVE.........................................................................................4
AT: NORMAL MEANS......................................................................................................5
AT: REASONABILITY......................................................................................................6
AT: ALT GROUND CP’S BAD.........................................................................................7

1
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

G Spec 1nc

A. Interpretation- The grounds of a decision is as important as

the decision itself. The affirmative must specify it in the plan
text Frank H. Wu, 2002, a law professor at Howard
University Criminal Justice Magazine, “Profiling in the Wake of September 11:
The Precedent of the Japanese American Internment” Pg.
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/cjmag/17-2/japanese.html

In that context, the conclusion that the internment was wrong is not enough. The
reasons it was wrong must be articulated again. As lawyers well know, the rationale
may be as important as the result by itself in comprehending the meaning of legal
authority. What is constitutional is not necessarily advisable. Technically, for all the
contempt directed at the Supreme Court’s internment cases, it is worth noting that
the decisions have never been repudiated and actually have been followed
consistently. Indeed, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist penned a book a few years
ago intimating that if a similar matter were to come before the Court again he would
not expect it do otherwise. (William H. Rehnquist, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties
in Wartime (Knopf 1998).) Imagining the counterfactual hypothetical of a Supreme
Court that struck down the internment, then, also entails supplying an intellectual
foundation. There are multiple possibilities. They lead to different outcomes in
today’s circumstances. If the internment was wrong because racial classifications are
to be regarded as immoral or unconstitutional as an absolute rule, then there is no
distinction to be made between Japanese Americans on the one hand and Arab
Americans or Muslim Americans on the other hand. The form of the argument does
not vary by specific groups. If the internment was wrong because the particular racial
generalization was in the aggregate false, then it may well be possible and
appropriate to distinguish between the Japanese Americans and Arab Americans or
Muslim Americans. The premise is that the conduct of Japanese Americans on the
whole does not predict the conduct of Arab Americans or Muslim Americans on the
whole. There are more possibilities. If the internment was wrong because of the lack
of any semblance of due process, then even the German Americans and Italian
Americans in isolated cases had their rights violated. Individual Arabs and Muslims
who are aliens may be entitled to more due process than equal protection.

It’s a voting issue for fairness

1. Failure to specify destroys alternate grounds

counterplans and disad links, they can switch their
advocacy in the 2ac making the plan conditional

2. Understanding the grounds of the decision is the basis

of all topic specific education

2
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

AT: CX CHECKS

1. The resolution demands it.

a. Resolved means to decide firmly on a course of action.

AHD 2k “To make a firm decision about”

b. Mooting words from the resolution is bad – justifies mooting

anything, destroying resolutional integrity.

2. Textual competition – lack of specification prevents our alternate grounds

cp’s from being textually competitive. This is good because it increases plan
and CP text writing skills, and decreases judge intervention on competition
issues. Our argument isn’t that textual competition alone is good but that
counteprlans should be textually and functionally competitive.

3. Sets a bad precedent – it allows them to just write the whole resolution in
their plan text. Our argument is key to increase preciseness and specificity,
preventing us from wasting all of our time figuring out what their plan does
in CX.

4. Hind-site is 20-20 – we could have asked in CX but it doesn’t mean they

would have specified. They only do now because we didn’t run an alternate
grounds CP.

3
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

AT: INFINITLY REGRESSIVE

1. Its not infinitely regressive- we have a piece of evidence that indicates the
grounds of a decision is just as important as the decision itself to determine
legal authority. Both J-spec and vote count spec fail to meet this burden.

2. This begs the question of the legitimacy of the counterplan ground we get – if
we win alternate grounds counterplans are key neg ground then g-spec
should be considered legitimate and other forms of specification shouldn’t.

4
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

AT: NORMAL MEANS

1. Normal means is bad for debate. There is no mechanism in the literature that
is considered normal and one that isn’t, ESPECIALLY since it would not be
normal means for any of the cases in the resolution to be overturned by this
court. Overruling any affirmative precedent on this topic necessitates
abnormal means and allows affirmative 2ac clarifications allowing them to
spike out of our disads and counterplans.

2. Bad for negative ground – it makes it two times as hard to win an argument
because we have to win what the plan does and then we have to win our disad
or CP.

3. Violates resolved: (insert from CX checks)

5
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

AT: REASONABILITY

THIS ISN’T NAM – THIS IS DEBATE, THERE ARE RULES

1. Its not what you do tis what you justify – competing interpretations is the
only non arbitrary standard of evaluating abuse.

2. Reasonability allows every case to be topical because every case links to

generic arguments like nato malthus and spark.

3. It’s a jurisdictional voting issue – its not within your jurisdiction to vote for a
non topical affirmative.

4. Applied to any other argument in debate reasonability is silly – you wouldn’t

say – “well we don’t quite outweigh your disad but we’re reaallllly close”

5. No impact to substance crowd out – topicality debates are good because they
increase critical thinking to determine what kind of topic the aff justifies, and
are key to small schools being able to compete.

6
ADI 06 G-SPEC
Achten, Wallace, Jennings PG__OF__

AT: ALT GROUND CP’S BAD

1. Alternate grounds CP’s are key to topic specific education – the grounds is
just as important as the decision itself when analyzing legal precedent.

2. Not infinitely regressive – there are only a finite number of alternate grounds
that are in the literature and have a solvency advocate.

3. Complexity is best for policymaking – forces the affirmative to defend their

plan versus the maxiumum variety of criticisms offered in the literature –
this increases education and causes best policy option.

4. Err neg on theory – aff speaks fist, last, has inherent author biases and
infinite prep time, err negative to balance competitive fairness.

5. Key to limit the topic down to affirmative’s that have a defense of their
grounds. It forces affirmatives to chose their plan strategically.