Ddi Ss Topicality Violations
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Ddi Ss Topicality Violations as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 6,761
- Pages: 25
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 1 of 25
T File! T File!...................................................................................................................................................................1 T File!......................................................................................................................................................................1 1NC Directly Affect..............................................................................................................................................3 1NC Directly Affect................................................................................................................................................3 2NC Directly Affects Overview ..........................................................................................................................4 2NC Directly Affects Overview ............................................................................................................................4 2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate...............................................................................................................5 2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate...............................................................................................................5 1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6 1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6 2NC Barriers Overview ......................................................................................................................................7 2NC Barriers Overview .......................................................................................................................................7 2NC Barriers Standards Debate............................................................................................................................8 2NC Barriers Standards Debate...........................................................................................................................8 1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ...........................................................................................................................9 1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ............................................................................................................................9 2NC AE=Naturally Renewable .........................................................................................................................10 2NC AE=Naturally Renewable ..........................................................................................................................10 1NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................11 1NC Exclude Nukes .............................................................................................................................................11 2NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................12 2NC Exclude Nukes ............................................................................................................................................12 1NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................13 1NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................13 2NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................14 2NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................14 1NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................15 1NC Incentives=Positive......................................................................................................................................15 2NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................16 1 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 2 of 25
2NC Incentives=Positive......................................................................................................................................16 1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ...............................................................................................................................17 1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ................................................................................................................................17 2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing..............................................................................................................................18 2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing...............................................................................................................................18 1NC I-Spec.........................................................................................................................................................19 1NC I-Spec............................................................................................................................................................19 2NC I-Spec Overview........................................................................................................................................20 2NC I-Spec Overview..........................................................................................................................................20 1NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................21 1NC In=Throughout............................................................................................................................................21 2NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................22 2NC In=Throughout............................................................................................................................................22 1NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................23 1NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................23 2NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................24 2NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................24 A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps.................................................................................................................25 A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps.................................................................................................................25 A2 Potential Abuse ............................................................................................................................................25 A2 Potential Abuse ..............................................................................................................................................25
2 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 3 of 25
1NC Directly Affect A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive Geoff Thale is the associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 1998 (ch 7 Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)
The Nature of Incentives It is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of incentives that are being offered and the context in
an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if the recipient engages in some specified behavior. Another more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers a which they are offered. In its simplest form,
good directly related to the desired outcome—when, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient design and implement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire, the ‘‘good’’ being offered, but may engage in the desired behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will greatly influence the strength of the recipient’s commitment to carry out the desired behavior when the inevitable problems and complications occur.
B. Violation: Plan does not directly act on alternative energy but rather on ____________ to potentially result in an increase of alt energy C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could potentially result in an increase of alternative energy—Iran strikes or war with Saudi Arabia would be topical because we would have less access to Middle East oil—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on alternative energy exchanges—we lose our links based on perception of alternative energy increase like politics, trade or bizcon, and CPs that don’t act on alt energy like efficiency 3. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
3 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 4 of 25
2NC Directly Affects Overview Our interpretation is that incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive. The affirmative exchange does not involve alternative energy; they merely have an offer and response involving_____________. If we win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.
4 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 5 of 25
2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate Limits Standards First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepare—literally any action motivating development of alternative energy becomes topical. Iran strikes or war with Saudi Arabia, changing interest rates, taxing gas, creating efficiency standards and anything else making alternative energy a comparatively better option becomes an affirmative under their interpretation. Second, our interpretation is not overlimiting—plenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchange involving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military, paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit or subsidy affirmative. And, they double the research burden by making negative incentives topical Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. Ground Standards First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchange—we lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics. Second, their aff should be Counterplan ground—indirectly acting on alternative energy, like the efficiency Counterplan, is a core neg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms and alternative energies. We provide an equitable and clear division of aff and neg ground—if it acts directly on AE, it’s topical. Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for a meaningful and educational topic discussion Effects Standards Their plan is effectually topical—it is not the direct plan action that makes alternative energy more desirable. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in one step, but rather that plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.
5 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 6 of 25
1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a reward—this is distinct from coercion because you must gain something new for behavior John DeLaHunt, Assistant Director for Environmental Health & Safety Services in Colorado College's Facilities Services department , July-August 2006 ( Journal of Chemical Health and Safety Volume 13, Issue 4, , Page 42 sciencedirect)
Incentives work on a quid pro quo basis – this for that. If you change your behavior, I’ll give you a reward. One could say that coercion is an incentive program – do as I say and I’ll let you live. However, I define an incentive as getting something you didn’t have before in exchange for new behavior, so that pretty much puts coercion in its own box, one separate from incentives. But fundamental problems plague the incentive approach. Like coercion, incentives are poor motivators in the long run, for at least two reasons – unintended consequences and perverse incentives. B. Violation: Plan merely removes a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward for its development C. Standards 1. Limits—their interp allows removing literally any barrier to motivate alternative energy development—changing tax policy or interest rates could make renewables economically viable and thus would be topical—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on alternative energy exchanges—we lose our links based on perception of alternative energy increase like trade, bizcon, or politics, and CPs that don’t act on alt energy like efficiency 3. Direct plan action is not what provides the benefit to those producing alternative energy. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
6 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 7 of 25
2NC Barriers Overview Our interpretation is that incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a reward. Our DeLaHunt evidence specifically indicates that you must gain something new from your behavior, as opposed to the example of “do as I say and I’ll let you live”. Their affirmative merely removes a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward for its development. If we win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.
7 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 8 of 25
2NC Barriers Standards Debate Limits Standards First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepare—literally any functional barrier to alternative energy development becomes topical. Changing tax policy, changing interest rates, making oil prices cheaper, changing policy with major oil exporters and anything else that would make renewables economically viable is an affirmative under their interpretation. Second, our interpretation is not overlimiting—plenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchange involving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military, paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit or subsidy affirmative. And, they double the research burden by allowing to affs that remove negative incentives Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. Ground Standards First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchange—we lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics. Second, their aff should be Counterplan ground—indirectly acting on alternative energy, like gas taxes, is a core neg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms and alternative energies. We provide an equitable and clear division of aff and neg ground—if it acts directly on AE, it’s topical. Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for a meaningful and educational topic discussion Effects Standards Their plan is effectually topical—it is not the direct plan action that provides the benefit to those producing alternative energy. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in one step, but rather that plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.
8 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 9 of 25
1NC AE=Naturally Renewable A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable. SOE ‘1 (Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)
The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute. B. Violation: Plan does not increase naturally renewable alt energy C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo—our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP 3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interp more predictable than just using the term “alt energy” in context D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
9 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 10 of 25
2NC AE=Naturally Renewable Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewable—our SOE 1 evidence is exclusive and indicates that sources that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits debate Their interpretation opens the floodgates—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo— our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they introduce non-renewables—renewables like wind and solar link to totally different arguments than nonrenewables like nuke power. It’s not just one more aff—a whole host of nuclear technologies and mechanisms are included and their interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel. Ground We provide an equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables like perception links and efficiency Counterplan. Preferable interp debate Our evidence is just better—it has intent to define the term “alternative energy,” and explains what alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to just using the term in context.
10 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 11 of 25
1NC Exclude Nukes A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable. SOE ‘1 (Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)
The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute. B. Violation: Nuclear power isn’t “alternative energy” Christopher A. Simon, Prof PoliSci @ UNevada, 2007 (Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility) The federal defition of alternative energy is best summarized by Title 26, chapter 79, 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: “the term ‘alternative energy facility’ means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.” The primary purpose of this definition relates to the issuance of tax credits to “alternative energy facility[ies],” which meet certain standards as defined in Title 26, chapter 1, 48 “Energy Credit.” Tax credits are one method by which the federal government encouges the private sector to make certain economic choices; in the case of energy policy, this definition of alternative energy will heve a definitive impact on how alternative energy will be defined by those individual\s and corporate bodies seeking federal recognition (and benefit) by adopting a particular definition of alternatie energy. Many state definitions of alternative energy closely follow federal definitions. Case law confirms that federal guidelines supercede state-level guidelines. Federal standards also impact the state and local rec\eipt of alternative energy grants, subsidies, and tax exemptions. It is reas\zonable, therefore that state and local definitions would be consistent with federal policy. Consistency between federal and state definitions does not mean there are not a few variations. In many ways, variation at the state level illustrates the dynamic and evolving alternative energy paradigm, which is by no means unique to the U.S. policy process.
C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo—our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP 3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interpretations more predictable than just using the term “alt energy” in context 4. The federal definition of alternative energy is the most predictable D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
11 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 12 of 25
2NC Exclude Nukes Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewable—our SOE 1 evidence is exclusive and indicates that so urces that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. Plan is not alternative energy—our Simon 07 evidence references the federal definition of alternative energy indicating the U.S code specifically excludes nuclear power from its definition of alternative energy. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits debate Their interpretation opens the floodgates—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo— our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they introduce nukes—renewables link wind and solar link to totally different arguments than nuke power. It’s not just one more aff—a whole host of nuclear technologies and mechanisms are included and their interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel. Ground We provide an equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables like perception links and efficiency Counterplan. Preferable interp debate Our evidence is just better—it has intent to define the term “alternative energy,” and explains what alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to just using the term in context. Additionally, it is the federal definition, which is the most predictable interpretation—there are many conflicting sources so prefer the U.S. code.
12 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 13 of 25
1NC Substantial=60% A. Interpretation: A substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%. Edie News ‘4 (“Government must fund more renewables, says business group,” http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2004/04/14/government-must-fund-more-renewables-says-businessgroup) NEW YORK, N.Y. -- A coalition
of U.S. business and energy policy organizations have united in attacking official sponsoring of renewable energies in the U.S. as "lukewarm" and have called for a 60% increase in funding of this sector. The Sustainable Energy Coalition has addressed a letter to the Energy and Water Subcommittees of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Appropriations requesting a substantial increase in federal support for the cross-section of renewable energy technologies. The group, made up of 25 businesses, has asked that the Department of Energy's renewable energy programme budget be increased to $598.5 million for the fiscal year of 2005 -- that is 60% above the White House's proposal and two thirds greater than the amount actually allocated in 2004.
B. Violation—plan is less than 60% C. Standards 1. Limits—there are infinite tiny cases that don’t substantially affect anything and are impossible to predict—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—links off tiny increases are impossible to get—a substantial increase is key to politics, economy, and relations DAs D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
13 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 14 of 25
2NC Substantial=60% Our interpretation is that a substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%--our Edie News 4 evidence specifically indicates that calling for a 60% increase was necessary to qualify for a substantial increase. Plan does not increase incentives by 60% and is not substantial. . If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits Debate There are infinite tiny cases that don’t substantially affect anything and are impossible to predict—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden—we can’t predict or research the use of solar panels in one city Ground Links off tiny increases are impossible to get—a substantial increase is key to politics, economy, and relations DAs. We need to overcome uniqueness problems of the status quo—only a substantial increase will be enough to make a difference considering that there are many incentives now. A/T “Substantially cannot be quantified” 1. Maybe not, but it’s in the resolution for a reason—we need to draw the line somewhere and will defend that a world of debate in which a 60% increase is required is more educational and fair 2. The impact to their argument is predictability—we argue that in a world of our interp it is easier to predict and prepare for debates a. Ground—affs need to have a big enough increase to get perception links and overcome uniqueness’ issues—this is the basis for core neg generics which are the most predictable arguments b. Lit—the best literature defends a sizable increase like 60% or more meaning they should have no trouble finding such affirmatives 3. Our definition is in the context of alternative energy, making it quantifiable—the world substantially means nothing alone but in context it does have a meaning
14 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 15 of 25
1NC Incentives=Positive A. Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. B. Violation—plan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentive to maintaining the status quo C. Standards 1. Limits—this literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff into two—the topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative energies—this makes it nearly impossible to go neg 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if they choose to do that research D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
15 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 16 of 25
2NC Incentives=Positive Our interpretation is that incentives are positive only – our Harris 89 evidence specifically distinguishes them from Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. B. Violation—plan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentive to maintaining the status quo C. Standards 1. Limits—this literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff into two—the topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative energies—this makes it nearly impossible to go neg 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if they choose to do that research D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
16 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 17 of 25
1NC Increase=Pre-Existing A. Interpretation: the incentive increased must be pre-existing Ripple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile Insurance Association, and Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816, 9/24, lexis) Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the risk is increased by any means
"increase" connotes change. To show change, appellees would have been required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued. See 5 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence was presented, this court cannot determine, on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased. Indeed, the answer within the knowledge or control of the insured. However, the term
to this question may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated insuring the risk which incurred the loss.
B. C.
Violation: Affirmative provides new incentives – isn’t an increase of pre-existing incentives Standards 1. Limits: requiring the use of pre-existing incentives is key to reduce the massive size of the topic and limit to predictable solvency mechanisms—without increase to modify, literally anything is topical Incentive means ANY factor that motivates a course of action Answers.com, no date given, http://www.answers.com/topic/incentive In economics, an incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that provides a motive for a particular course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the alternatives. Since human beings are purposeful creatures, the study of incentive structures is central to the study of all economic activity (both in terms of individual decision-making and in terms of co-operation and competition within a larger institutional structure). Economic analysis, then, of the differences between societies (and between different organizations within a society) largely amounts to characterizing the differences in incentive structures faced by individuals involved in these collective efforts.
Lit base—the core of literature discusses effectiveness of incentives that have been used in the past—predictable ground depends on access to this literature. We still allow for things like tax credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started 2.
17 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 18 of 25
2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing Our interpretation is that the incentive increased must already exist in the status quo. Our Ripple 87 Evidence indicates that increase means change, and thus to increase something you must be changing something that already exists. The plan creates a new incentive—that isn’t an increase. Limits Debate They massively unlimit the topic—literally any incentive becomes topical if they can create new incentives. Our Answers.com evidence indicates that ANY factor motivating action is an incentive, meaning that it would be topical for them to change interest rates or ban fossil fuels since that could make renewables more economically viable. Increase is key to check the research burden. Literature Base Our interpretation is the best way to access the core literature base that discusses the effectiveness of existing incentives that have been used before—this is crucial for predictable ground. We provide plenty of good aff ground as well—tax credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives are all topical.
18 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 19 of 25
1NC I-Spec A. Interpretation and violation – the aff has to specify the type of incentive – they don’t B. Standards 1. Ground—putting incentives in the 1AC is key to a stable basis for ground that won’t be susceptible to 2AC clarifications or spike outs—we need DA links and case arguments off incentives and competition for incentives CPs 2. Cross-x doesn’t check – not binding, no textual competition and prevents pre-round prep 3. Avoids the fundamental topic question of which incentives are effective and shifts the focus to the desirability of alternative energy—this unfairly allows the aff to avoid defending solvency and puts the neg on the wrong side of a side biased debate C. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started D. No solvency – enforcement and implementation will fail without a clear definition of what the incentive is
19 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 20 of 25
2NC I-Spec Overview Our interpretation is the aff must specify their incentive in the plan text, they didn’t do that and they should lose the debate. You must evaluate the plan in a vacuum because it’s the only steady thing we can hold them to. Look at this debate through an offense-defense paradigm, it’s simple, non arbitrary and prevents judge intervention. If we win overall specifying the 1ac is better for debate you vote neg to set precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this debate started. And, they don’t solve—enforcement and implementation is impossible when it is no clear what the incentive is. Solvency cannot be determined when implementation is unclear Thompson 00 (Anne, FAO, Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches at the Policy Level Paper prepared for FAO e-conference, March, http://www.livelihoods.org/pip/pip/tho2-fao.doc) (emphasis in original) Policy itself can be analysed conceptually at a number of different levels. In its broadest sense, the term policy can be used to include projects, programmes, strategies, plans and their implementation, in fact every element of public or collective decision-making. Although it is a rather artificial simplification, policy can be divided into content and the process of policy formulation, in other words the way in which that content is arrived at. The way in which policy is implemented can change the effective content of policy, either because policy interactions have not been fully understood, or because the policy is subverted by those responsible for implementing it.
We have lost critical, predictable links based off incentives Some arguments include: • politics • Trade DAs—EU, China, and others • Relations DAs • Bizcon • Spending • Budget tradeoff DAs • Mandatory Counterplan • Reg Neg CP • Subsidies CP • Coercion K links Not specifying shifts the question of the resolution away from “which incentives are effective?” to “is alternative energy desirable?”—this functionally allows them to fiat solvency and forces the neg to defend the wrong side of a biased debate. Instead of debating about the effectiveness of incentives, we must argue that alternative energy is bad. Clarification doesn’t solve abuse a) The damage is already done: the 1nc has been read and we didn’t have links to important arguments b) Aff conditionality: they don’t specify in the plan, so any specification later on makes them a moving target c) Textual competition, pre-round prep, and the binding nature of plan text specification have been lost
20 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 21 of 25
1NC In=Throughout A. Interpretation: the affirmative must provide incentives available throughout the United States
B. Violation: The affirmative provides incentives to ______________ as opposed to throughout the 50 States C. Standards 1. Limits—allowing them to give incentives to a specific company, state, or region literally allows infinite plans like solar panels at Westminster High School with the school newspaper as a solvency advocate 2. Ground—core perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a strong, widespread increase in incentives, and defending throughout the US is key to negative PIC ground. Status quo incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
21 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 22 of 25
2NC In=Throughout Our interpretation is they must provide incentives throughout the United States which is defined as the 50 states—plan only provides them to the air force—this violations the word “in” which words and phrases indicates means throughout. Limits Debate Their interpretation explodes limits—any company, organization, region, district or even school could receive incentives meaning we would have to research local newspapers as solvency advocates. It’s impossible to prepare against these affs. Our interpretation does not over-limit—you don’t have to provide incentives to everyone but simply make them geographically available throughout the U.S—RPS, cap and trade and feed in tariffs are a few examples.
Ground debate Their interpretation robs of us of core perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a strong, widespread increase in incentives. Defending throughout the US is also key to negative PIC ground. Finally, Status quo incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs —there are already incentives now, meaning a little change does nothing. Their interpretation does not provide us with PREDICTABE ground even if it increases it, because we can’t predict every organization or region they could give to.
22 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 23 of 25
1NC Exclude Government Programs A. Interpretation: Incentive is an optional offer that provides an extra benefit—this is distinct from a fixed payment or salary Incentive is an optional extra benefit Careerride.com 2008, Human Resources Interview questions, http://www.careerride.com/InterviewQuestions-HR-General.aspx Question - What is the difference between salary and incentive? Answer: Salary can be termed as the fixed remuneration you are offered for your services while incentive means some extra benefits that you are offered based on your performance. Incentive can be in cash or kind. B. Violation: Plan is a governmental program that funds development of alternative energy—this provides a salary rather than an optional incentive C. Standards 1. Limits—there are millions of programs they can just fund people to participate in—any program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topical—this opens the floodgates and makes research impossible 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on optional market based incentives —we lose a core lit base of case args and DA links based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
23 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 24 of 25
2NC Exclude Government Programs Our interpretation is that incentive means an optional offer that provides an extra benefit—our evidence specifically distinguishes this from a fixed payment or salary. Plan is a governmental program that funds development of alternative energy—this provides a salary rather than an optional incentive. Limits debate Their interpretation allows for millions of programs that they can just fund people to participate in. ANY program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topical There are literally thousands of government programs and agencies Michelle Burton, 2006, Lawyer-Guide, http://www.lawyer-guide.org/Government-Agencies-and-Programs.asp, There are nearly 1,300 government agencies working at both state and national levels, and literally thousands of government programs working at the federal, state, and local levels. Existing Government Agencies and Programs Government agencies are divided into two groups: United States Federal Executive Departments Independent Agencies A government agency is a department of a local or national government responsible for the management and administration of a specific function. Examples of government agencies include the Defense Logistics Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Energy, Missile Defense Agency, and Women’s Bureau. A government program is a plan of action created by the government to address specific functions and specific problems. These programs are managed by the appropriate government agency. For example, the Department of Agriculture oversees the Animal Welfare Program, the Food Stamp Program, and the Soil Survey Program. Other government programs exist in the areas of Business and Commerce, Education, Foreign Affairs, Science and Space, Training and Employment, Veterans Benefits, Health and Well Being, and Education.
Our interpretation still allows for plenty of market based incentives that allow for the option of developing AE—we don’t overlimit. Ground Debate Our interpretation allows for the predictable literature base that discusses optional market based incentives — when salaries to governmental programs are allowed, we lose core case args and DA links based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon.
24 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 25 of 25
A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps 1. They are not reasonable—they have not given you a warrant as to why they are and all of our standards arguments explain why their interpretation is not 2. This justifies judge intervention—reasonable means different things to everybody—even if intervention is inevitable to an extend, competing interpretations minimizes it 3. Competing interpretations leads to a race to the top to best define the resolution, making debate better 4. Topically debates are good because academics and communities must study words before they can discuss substantive policy implications 5. More limiting topics allow for more clash and in depth, responsive debates
A2 Potential Abuse 1. This standard discourages research—if we have researched answers to an aff, we lose the debate 2. There is in round abuse—they have done_____ 3. We started out the round behind—this is not “potential” abuse, it is actual abuse, because we had a worse and more limited set of arguments to run 4. Topicality sets a precedent because teams will change their aff if they repeatedly lose on T
25 TopiCOOLity!
Page 1 of 25
T File! T File!...................................................................................................................................................................1 T File!......................................................................................................................................................................1 1NC Directly Affect..............................................................................................................................................3 1NC Directly Affect................................................................................................................................................3 2NC Directly Affects Overview ..........................................................................................................................4 2NC Directly Affects Overview ............................................................................................................................4 2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate...............................................................................................................5 2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate...............................................................................................................5 1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6 1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6 2NC Barriers Overview ......................................................................................................................................7 2NC Barriers Overview .......................................................................................................................................7 2NC Barriers Standards Debate............................................................................................................................8 2NC Barriers Standards Debate...........................................................................................................................8 1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ...........................................................................................................................9 1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ............................................................................................................................9 2NC AE=Naturally Renewable .........................................................................................................................10 2NC AE=Naturally Renewable ..........................................................................................................................10 1NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................11 1NC Exclude Nukes .............................................................................................................................................11 2NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................12 2NC Exclude Nukes ............................................................................................................................................12 1NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................13 1NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................13 2NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................14 2NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................14 1NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................15 1NC Incentives=Positive......................................................................................................................................15 2NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................16 1 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 2 of 25
2NC Incentives=Positive......................................................................................................................................16 1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ...............................................................................................................................17 1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ................................................................................................................................17 2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing..............................................................................................................................18 2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing...............................................................................................................................18 1NC I-Spec.........................................................................................................................................................19 1NC I-Spec............................................................................................................................................................19 2NC I-Spec Overview........................................................................................................................................20 2NC I-Spec Overview..........................................................................................................................................20 1NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................21 1NC In=Throughout............................................................................................................................................21 2NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................22 2NC In=Throughout............................................................................................................................................22 1NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................23 1NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................23 2NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................24 2NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................24 A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps.................................................................................................................25 A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps.................................................................................................................25 A2 Potential Abuse ............................................................................................................................................25 A2 Potential Abuse ..............................................................................................................................................25
2 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 3 of 25
1NC Directly Affect A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive Geoff Thale is the associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 1998 (ch 7 Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)
The Nature of Incentives It is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of incentives that are being offered and the context in
an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if the recipient engages in some specified behavior. Another more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers a which they are offered. In its simplest form,
good directly related to the desired outcome—when, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient design and implement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire, the ‘‘good’’ being offered, but may engage in the desired behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will greatly influence the strength of the recipient’s commitment to carry out the desired behavior when the inevitable problems and complications occur.
B. Violation: Plan does not directly act on alternative energy but rather on ____________ to potentially result in an increase of alt energy C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could potentially result in an increase of alternative energy—Iran strikes or war with Saudi Arabia would be topical because we would have less access to Middle East oil—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on alternative energy exchanges—we lose our links based on perception of alternative energy increase like politics, trade or bizcon, and CPs that don’t act on alt energy like efficiency 3. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
3 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 4 of 25
2NC Directly Affects Overview Our interpretation is that incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive. The affirmative exchange does not involve alternative energy; they merely have an offer and response involving_____________. If we win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.
4 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 5 of 25
2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate Limits Standards First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepare—literally any action motivating development of alternative energy becomes topical. Iran strikes or war with Saudi Arabia, changing interest rates, taxing gas, creating efficiency standards and anything else making alternative energy a comparatively better option becomes an affirmative under their interpretation. Second, our interpretation is not overlimiting—plenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchange involving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military, paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit or subsidy affirmative. And, they double the research burden by making negative incentives topical Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. Ground Standards First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchange—we lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics. Second, their aff should be Counterplan ground—indirectly acting on alternative energy, like the efficiency Counterplan, is a core neg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms and alternative energies. We provide an equitable and clear division of aff and neg ground—if it acts directly on AE, it’s topical. Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for a meaningful and educational topic discussion Effects Standards Their plan is effectually topical—it is not the direct plan action that makes alternative energy more desirable. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in one step, but rather that plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.
5 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 6 of 25
1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a reward—this is distinct from coercion because you must gain something new for behavior John DeLaHunt, Assistant Director for Environmental Health & Safety Services in Colorado College's Facilities Services department , July-August 2006 ( Journal of Chemical Health and Safety Volume 13, Issue 4, , Page 42 sciencedirect)
Incentives work on a quid pro quo basis – this for that. If you change your behavior, I’ll give you a reward. One could say that coercion is an incentive program – do as I say and I’ll let you live. However, I define an incentive as getting something you didn’t have before in exchange for new behavior, so that pretty much puts coercion in its own box, one separate from incentives. But fundamental problems plague the incentive approach. Like coercion, incentives are poor motivators in the long run, for at least two reasons – unintended consequences and perverse incentives. B. Violation: Plan merely removes a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward for its development C. Standards 1. Limits—their interp allows removing literally any barrier to motivate alternative energy development—changing tax policy or interest rates could make renewables economically viable and thus would be topical—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on alternative energy exchanges—we lose our links based on perception of alternative energy increase like trade, bizcon, or politics, and CPs that don’t act on alt energy like efficiency 3. Direct plan action is not what provides the benefit to those producing alternative energy. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
6 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 7 of 25
2NC Barriers Overview Our interpretation is that incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a reward. Our DeLaHunt evidence specifically indicates that you must gain something new from your behavior, as opposed to the example of “do as I say and I’ll let you live”. Their affirmative merely removes a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward for its development. If we win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.
7 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 8 of 25
2NC Barriers Standards Debate Limits Standards First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepare—literally any functional barrier to alternative energy development becomes topical. Changing tax policy, changing interest rates, making oil prices cheaper, changing policy with major oil exporters and anything else that would make renewables economically viable is an affirmative under their interpretation. Second, our interpretation is not overlimiting—plenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchange involving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military, paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit or subsidy affirmative. And, they double the research burden by allowing to affs that remove negative incentives Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. Ground Standards First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchange—we lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics. Second, their aff should be Counterplan ground—indirectly acting on alternative energy, like gas taxes, is a core neg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms and alternative energies. We provide an equitable and clear division of aff and neg ground—if it acts directly on AE, it’s topical. Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for a meaningful and educational topic discussion Effects Standards Their plan is effectually topical—it is not the direct plan action that provides the benefit to those producing alternative energy. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim advantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in one step, but rather that plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.
8 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 9 of 25
1NC AE=Naturally Renewable A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable. SOE ‘1 (Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)
The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute. B. Violation: Plan does not increase naturally renewable alt energy C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo—our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP 3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interp more predictable than just using the term “alt energy” in context D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
9 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 10 of 25
2NC AE=Naturally Renewable Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewable—our SOE 1 evidence is exclusive and indicates that sources that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits debate Their interpretation opens the floodgates—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo— our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they introduce non-renewables—renewables like wind and solar link to totally different arguments than nonrenewables like nuke power. It’s not just one more aff—a whole host of nuclear technologies and mechanisms are included and their interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel. Ground We provide an equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables like perception links and efficiency Counterplan. Preferable interp debate Our evidence is just better—it has intent to define the term “alternative energy,” and explains what alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to just using the term in context.
10 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 11 of 25
1NC Exclude Nukes A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable. SOE ‘1 (Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)
The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute. B. Violation: Nuclear power isn’t “alternative energy” Christopher A. Simon, Prof PoliSci @ UNevada, 2007 (Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility) The federal defition of alternative energy is best summarized by Title 26, chapter 79, 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: “the term ‘alternative energy facility’ means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.” The primary purpose of this definition relates to the issuance of tax credits to “alternative energy facility[ies],” which meet certain standards as defined in Title 26, chapter 1, 48 “Energy Credit.” Tax credits are one method by which the federal government encouges the private sector to make certain economic choices; in the case of energy policy, this definition of alternative energy will heve a definitive impact on how alternative energy will be defined by those individual\s and corporate bodies seeking federal recognition (and benefit) by adopting a particular definition of alternatie energy. Many state definitions of alternative energy closely follow federal definitions. Case law confirms that federal guidelines supercede state-level guidelines. Federal standards also impact the state and local rec\eipt of alternative energy grants, subsidies, and tax exemptions. It is reas\zonable, therefore that state and local definitions would be consistent with federal policy. Consistency between federal and state definitions does not mean there are not a few variations. In many ways, variation at the state level illustrates the dynamic and evolving alternative energy paradigm, which is by no means unique to the U.S. policy process.
C. Standards 1. Limits—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo—our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP 3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interpretations more predictable than just using the term “alt energy” in context 4. The federal definition of alternative energy is the most predictable D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
11 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 12 of 25
2NC Exclude Nukes Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewable—our SOE 1 evidence is exclusive and indicates that so urces that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. Plan is not alternative energy—our Simon 07 evidence references the federal definition of alternative energy indicating the U.S code specifically excludes nuclear power from its definition of alternative energy. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits debate Their interpretation opens the floodgates—literally anything could be an alternative to the status quo— our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they introduce nukes—renewables link wind and solar link to totally different arguments than nuke power. It’s not just one more aff—a whole host of nuclear technologies and mechanisms are included and their interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel. Ground We provide an equitable division of ground—our interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables like perception links and efficiency Counterplan. Preferable interp debate Our evidence is just better—it has intent to define the term “alternative energy,” and explains what alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to just using the term in context. Additionally, it is the federal definition, which is the most predictable interpretation—there are many conflicting sources so prefer the U.S. code.
12 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 13 of 25
1NC Substantial=60% A. Interpretation: A substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%. Edie News ‘4 (“Government must fund more renewables, says business group,” http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2004/04/14/government-must-fund-more-renewables-says-businessgroup) NEW YORK, N.Y. -- A coalition
of U.S. business and energy policy organizations have united in attacking official sponsoring of renewable energies in the U.S. as "lukewarm" and have called for a 60% increase in funding of this sector. The Sustainable Energy Coalition has addressed a letter to the Energy and Water Subcommittees of the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Appropriations requesting a substantial increase in federal support for the cross-section of renewable energy technologies. The group, made up of 25 businesses, has asked that the Department of Energy's renewable energy programme budget be increased to $598.5 million for the fiscal year of 2005 -- that is 60% above the White House's proposal and two thirds greater than the amount actually allocated in 2004.
B. Violation—plan is less than 60% C. Standards 1. Limits—there are infinite tiny cases that don’t substantially affect anything and are impossible to predict—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden 2. Ground—links off tiny increases are impossible to get—a substantial increase is key to politics, economy, and relations DAs D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
13 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 14 of 25
2NC Substantial=60% Our interpretation is that a substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%--our Edie News 4 evidence specifically indicates that calling for a 60% increase was necessary to qualify for a substantial increase. Plan does not increase incentives by 60% and is not substantial. . If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started. Limits Debate There are infinite tiny cases that don’t substantially affect anything and are impossible to predict—this opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden—we can’t predict or research the use of solar panels in one city Ground Links off tiny increases are impossible to get—a substantial increase is key to politics, economy, and relations DAs. We need to overcome uniqueness problems of the status quo—only a substantial increase will be enough to make a difference considering that there are many incentives now. A/T “Substantially cannot be quantified” 1. Maybe not, but it’s in the resolution for a reason—we need to draw the line somewhere and will defend that a world of debate in which a 60% increase is required is more educational and fair 2. The impact to their argument is predictability—we argue that in a world of our interp it is easier to predict and prepare for debates a. Ground—affs need to have a big enough increase to get perception links and overcome uniqueness’ issues—this is the basis for core neg generics which are the most predictable arguments b. Lit—the best literature defends a sizable increase like 60% or more meaning they should have no trouble finding such affirmatives 3. Our definition is in the context of alternative energy, making it quantifiable—the world substantially means nothing alone but in context it does have a meaning
14 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 15 of 25
1NC Incentives=Positive A. Incentives are positive only – “negative incentives” are disincentives. Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. B. Violation—plan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentive to maintaining the status quo C. Standards 1. Limits—this literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff into two—the topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative energies—this makes it nearly impossible to go neg 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if they choose to do that research D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
15 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 16 of 25
2NC Incentives=Positive Our interpretation is that incentives are positive only – our Harris 89 evidence specifically distinguishes them from Harris ‘89 (Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, “Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants,” Lexis-Nexis) 53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means
those devices that induce one into doing something because of the and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader view prospect of reward
of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these
latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification. B. Violation—plan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentive to maintaining the status quo C. Standards 1. Limits—this literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff into two—the topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative energies—this makes it nearly impossible to go neg 2. Equitable division of ground—our interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if they choose to do that research D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
16 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 17 of 25
1NC Increase=Pre-Existing A. Interpretation: the incentive increased must be pre-existing Ripple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile Insurance Association, and Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816, 9/24, lexis) Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the risk is increased by any means
"increase" connotes change. To show change, appellees would have been required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued. See 5 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence was presented, this court cannot determine, on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased. Indeed, the answer within the knowledge or control of the insured. However, the term
to this question may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated insuring the risk which incurred the loss.
B. C.
Violation: Affirmative provides new incentives – isn’t an increase of pre-existing incentives Standards 1. Limits: requiring the use of pre-existing incentives is key to reduce the massive size of the topic and limit to predictable solvency mechanisms—without increase to modify, literally anything is topical Incentive means ANY factor that motivates a course of action Answers.com, no date given, http://www.answers.com/topic/incentive In economics, an incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that provides a motive for a particular course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the alternatives. Since human beings are purposeful creatures, the study of incentive structures is central to the study of all economic activity (both in terms of individual decision-making and in terms of co-operation and competition within a larger institutional structure). Economic analysis, then, of the differences between societies (and between different organizations within a society) largely amounts to characterizing the differences in incentive structures faced by individuals involved in these collective efforts.
Lit base—the core of literature discusses effectiveness of incentives that have been used in the past—predictable ground depends on access to this literature. We still allow for things like tax credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started 2.
17 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 18 of 25
2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing Our interpretation is that the incentive increased must already exist in the status quo. Our Ripple 87 Evidence indicates that increase means change, and thus to increase something you must be changing something that already exists. The plan creates a new incentive—that isn’t an increase. Limits Debate They massively unlimit the topic—literally any incentive becomes topical if they can create new incentives. Our Answers.com evidence indicates that ANY factor motivating action is an incentive, meaning that it would be topical for them to change interest rates or ban fossil fuels since that could make renewables more economically viable. Increase is key to check the research burden. Literature Base Our interpretation is the best way to access the core literature base that discusses the effectiveness of existing incentives that have been used before—this is crucial for predictable ground. We provide plenty of good aff ground as well—tax credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives are all topical.
18 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 19 of 25
1NC I-Spec A. Interpretation and violation – the aff has to specify the type of incentive – they don’t B. Standards 1. Ground—putting incentives in the 1AC is key to a stable basis for ground that won’t be susceptible to 2AC clarifications or spike outs—we need DA links and case arguments off incentives and competition for incentives CPs 2. Cross-x doesn’t check – not binding, no textual competition and prevents pre-round prep 3. Avoids the fundamental topic question of which incentives are effective and shifts the focus to the desirability of alternative energy—this unfairly allows the aff to avoid defending solvency and puts the neg on the wrong side of a side biased debate C. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started D. No solvency – enforcement and implementation will fail without a clear definition of what the incentive is
19 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 20 of 25
2NC I-Spec Overview Our interpretation is the aff must specify their incentive in the plan text, they didn’t do that and they should lose the debate. You must evaluate the plan in a vacuum because it’s the only steady thing we can hold them to. Look at this debate through an offense-defense paradigm, it’s simple, non arbitrary and prevents judge intervention. If we win overall specifying the 1ac is better for debate you vote neg to set precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this debate started. And, they don’t solve—enforcement and implementation is impossible when it is no clear what the incentive is. Solvency cannot be determined when implementation is unclear Thompson 00 (Anne, FAO, Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches at the Policy Level Paper prepared for FAO e-conference, March, http://www.livelihoods.org/pip/pip/tho2-fao.doc) (emphasis in original) Policy itself can be analysed conceptually at a number of different levels. In its broadest sense, the term policy can be used to include projects, programmes, strategies, plans and their implementation, in fact every element of public or collective decision-making. Although it is a rather artificial simplification, policy can be divided into content and the process of policy formulation, in other words the way in which that content is arrived at. The way in which policy is implemented can change the effective content of policy, either because policy interactions have not been fully understood, or because the policy is subverted by those responsible for implementing it.
We have lost critical, predictable links based off incentives Some arguments include: • politics • Trade DAs—EU, China, and others • Relations DAs • Bizcon • Spending • Budget tradeoff DAs • Mandatory Counterplan • Reg Neg CP • Subsidies CP • Coercion K links Not specifying shifts the question of the resolution away from “which incentives are effective?” to “is alternative energy desirable?”—this functionally allows them to fiat solvency and forces the neg to defend the wrong side of a biased debate. Instead of debating about the effectiveness of incentives, we must argue that alternative energy is bad. Clarification doesn’t solve abuse a) The damage is already done: the 1nc has been read and we didn’t have links to important arguments b) Aff conditionality: they don’t specify in the plan, so any specification later on makes them a moving target c) Textual competition, pre-round prep, and the binding nature of plan text specification have been lost
20 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 21 of 25
1NC In=Throughout A. Interpretation: the affirmative must provide incentives available throughout the United States
B. Violation: The affirmative provides incentives to ______________ as opposed to throughout the 50 States C. Standards 1. Limits—allowing them to give incentives to a specific company, state, or region literally allows infinite plans like solar panels at Westminster High School with the school newspaper as a solvency advocate 2. Ground—core perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a strong, widespread increase in incentives, and defending throughout the US is key to negative PIC ground. Status quo incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
21 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 22 of 25
2NC In=Throughout Our interpretation is they must provide incentives throughout the United States which is defined as the 50 states—plan only provides them to the air force—this violations the word “in” which words and phrases indicates means throughout. Limits Debate Their interpretation explodes limits—any company, organization, region, district or even school could receive incentives meaning we would have to research local newspapers as solvency advocates. It’s impossible to prepare against these affs. Our interpretation does not over-limit—you don’t have to provide incentives to everyone but simply make them geographically available throughout the U.S—RPS, cap and trade and feed in tariffs are a few examples.
Ground debate Their interpretation robs of us of core perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a strong, widespread increase in incentives. Defending throughout the US is also key to negative PIC ground. Finally, Status quo incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs —there are already incentives now, meaning a little change does nothing. Their interpretation does not provide us with PREDICTABE ground even if it increases it, because we can’t predict every organization or region they could give to.
22 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 23 of 25
1NC Exclude Government Programs A. Interpretation: Incentive is an optional offer that provides an extra benefit—this is distinct from a fixed payment or salary Incentive is an optional extra benefit Careerride.com 2008, Human Resources Interview questions, http://www.careerride.com/InterviewQuestions-HR-General.aspx Question - What is the difference between salary and incentive? Answer: Salary can be termed as the fixed remuneration you are offered for your services while incentive means some extra benefits that you are offered based on your performance. Incentive can be in cash or kind. B. Violation: Plan is a governmental program that funds development of alternative energy—this provides a salary rather than an optional incentive C. Standards 1. Limits—there are millions of programs they can just fund people to participate in—any program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topical—this opens the floodgates and makes research impossible 2. Ground—predictable ground is based on optional market based incentives —we lose a core lit base of case args and DA links based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started
23 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 24 of 25
2NC Exclude Government Programs Our interpretation is that incentive means an optional offer that provides an extra benefit—our evidence specifically distinguishes this from a fixed payment or salary. Plan is a governmental program that funds development of alternative energy—this provides a salary rather than an optional incentive. Limits debate Their interpretation allows for millions of programs that they can just fund people to participate in. ANY program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topical There are literally thousands of government programs and agencies Michelle Burton, 2006, Lawyer-Guide, http://www.lawyer-guide.org/Government-Agencies-and-Programs.asp, There are nearly 1,300 government agencies working at both state and national levels, and literally thousands of government programs working at the federal, state, and local levels. Existing Government Agencies and Programs Government agencies are divided into two groups: United States Federal Executive Departments Independent Agencies A government agency is a department of a local or national government responsible for the management and administration of a specific function. Examples of government agencies include the Defense Logistics Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Energy, Missile Defense Agency, and Women’s Bureau. A government program is a plan of action created by the government to address specific functions and specific problems. These programs are managed by the appropriate government agency. For example, the Department of Agriculture oversees the Animal Welfare Program, the Food Stamp Program, and the Soil Survey Program. Other government programs exist in the areas of Business and Commerce, Education, Foreign Affairs, Science and Space, Training and Employment, Veterans Benefits, Health and Well Being, and Education.
Our interpretation still allows for plenty of market based incentives that allow for the option of developing AE—we don’t overlimit. Ground Debate Our interpretation allows for the predictable literature base that discusses optional market based incentives — when salaries to governmental programs are allowed, we lose core case args and DA links based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon.
24 TopiCOOLity!
Topicality Violations! DDI 2008 SS Jillian!
Page 25 of 25
A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps 1. They are not reasonable—they have not given you a warrant as to why they are and all of our standards arguments explain why their interpretation is not 2. This justifies judge intervention—reasonable means different things to everybody—even if intervention is inevitable to an extend, competing interpretations minimizes it 3. Competing interpretations leads to a race to the top to best define the resolution, making debate better 4. Topically debates are good because academics and communities must study words before they can discuss substantive policy implications 5. More limiting topics allow for more clash and in depth, responsive debates
A2 Potential Abuse 1. This standard discourages research—if we have researched answers to an aff, we lose the debate 2. There is in round abuse—they have done_____ 3. We started out the round behind—this is not “potential” abuse, it is actual abuse, because we had a worse and more limited set of arguments to run 4. Topicality sets a precedent because teams will change their aff if they repeatedly lose on T
25 TopiCOOLity!
Related Documents
Ddi Ss Topicality Violations
December 2019 8
Ddi Ss Topicality Nuclear Cards
December 2019 11
Ddi Ss Topicality Supplement One
December 2019 13
Ddi Cm Topicality File
December 2019 8
Topicality
December 2019 23