(Many people use the analogy of congress, however, that's not completely accurate because the actor in most resolutions is the US federal government as a whole not just the legislative branch.)
Not entirely true.
We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.
Yes and no, Andrew is correct in saying the actor is the USFG as a whole, but no that does not mean we need to worry about will the plan pass through the real world Legaslative, Executive, and Judicial Branches or whether it will be failed. The passing of the plan (according to traditional debate theory) is done by the judge. They have fiat power bc they are acting as the entire USFG. There is the "Can I get enough to pass my bill" and it is made up of getting the majority of the judges in the room whether there is 1, or 3, or 5 etc.
In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.
Yes, no dur saying "there is a slight chance something better might happen" is terrible refutation. If someone runs inferred counterplans like that send them my way so I can put some sense into there head. An inferred counter-plan refutes the AFF plan by saying hold up your own evidence says there is a better plan OR all of our DAs could be avoided with a slight change to the plan. So the judge now has 2 option either they pass a plan that can be easily changed for the better, brought up in a future round, and passed. Or they vote NEG knowing the AFF plan was not worth passing bc there is clearly a superior way of solving the problems presented.