Theory

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INDEX Index...............................................................1 CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels 1NC...........3 CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels 2NC/1NR..4 AT: Literature Checks Abuse..........................4 AT: Clash Checks Abuse.................................5 AT: No IR Abuse/No Potential Abuse.............6 AT: Fairness Outweighs..................................6 AT: Education Outweighs...............................6 CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels more definitions ........................................................................7 Speaking in Canberra yesterday, Ferguson said he would push for more deregulation of global energy markets but also support local projects to deliver low-emission fossil fuels, including coal-to-liquids, and renewable energy............7 T FLex-fuel incentive ≠ Mandate 2nc/1nr......8 PICS Bad.........................................................9 PICS Good....................................................10 Dispositionality Bad .....................................11 Dispositionality Good .................................12 Conditionality Good......................................13 Conditionality Bad........................................14 Agent Counterplans Bad ..............................15 Agent Counterplans Good.............................16 Floating PICs Bad.........................................17 Floating PICs Good.......................................18 Severance Perms Bad ...................................19 Severance Perms Good ................................20 Intrinsic Perms Bad ......................................21 Intrinsic Perms Good ...................................22 International actors good...............................23 International actors bad.................................24 Multi- Actor Good.........................................25 Multi – Actor Bad........................................26 Utopian Fiat Bad...........................................27 Utopian Fiat Good.........................................28 50 STATES CP THEORY Bad......................29 50 States Fiat Good.......................................30 Intrinsic Perms to CP Bad: 2NC...................31 Intrinsic Perms to CP Bad: 2NR...................32 AT: Intrinsic Perms to D/As ........................33 OVERVIEWS...............................................34 UNIQUENESS ext........................................35 LINK ext.......................................................36 AT: IMPACT TURNS...................................38 IRAN ext (AT: strikes good).........................38 LOST ext (AT: crushes economy, heg, power projection, etc.).....................................................40 LOST ext (AT: leads to prolif, terrorism, etc.)41

-1-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

LOST ext (AT: arctic, oil, etc.).....................42 Global Warming link turn answers...............42

-2-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 1NC A. Interpretation: Alternative energy is all energy that is derived from any other source but fossil fuels. US Dept. of Interior 2008 – (http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy /Definitions.htm) Fuel sources that are other than those derived from fossil fuels. Typically used interchangeably for renewable energy. Examples include: wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal energy. B. Violation: The affirmative mandates the use of coal, a fossil fuel, as the source for their energy. C. Standards: 1.) Limits – Our interpretation provides the best limits, allowing for equal ground for aff and neg and allows for more on and off case args that are specific rather than generic. This increases education. 2.) Predictability – Our interpretation forces the affirmative team to debate about incentives for alternative energy sources, which makes their cases more predictable, this is key to fairness. 3.) Bright Line – Our interpretation makes clear what is and isn’t topical. 4.) Context – Our interpretation comes from the federal government and captures the heart of the topic. 5.) Competing Interpretations – Our interpretation is even slightly more true to the resolution you must vote neg. This is key to clearly defining the resolution. 6.) Bi-Directionality – The aff should only be able to increase one way towards alternative fuels and not fossil fuels. This is key to ensuring predictable negative ground. 7.) Breadth vs. Depth – Only our definition allows for an in-depth argument on core topic issues. One learns more reading a book than standing in front of a shelf in a library. Depth is uniquely key to education. D. Topicality is a voting issue 1.) Jurisdiction: It’s not within the jurisdiction of the judge to vote for an untopical case. 2.) Education: A topical case is key to education. 3.) Fairness: An untopical case means the neg can’t win. 4.) Potential Abuse: Voting for an untopical case promotes even worse abuse in future rounds.

-3-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 2NC/1NR OV: Our interpretation is that alternative energy is energy that is not derived from fossil fuels. Their plan violates our interpretation and exploits the core of the resolution. Our interpretation ensures the best, most educational debates by keeping competitive equity. Line-by-Line: 1.) They don’t meet: b/c coal to liquid is still derived from the source of coal, a fossil fuel which violates our interpretation. 2.) CI: Their CI is abusive and true to the resolution for many reasons. A. Ground: They destroy any neg. ground by assuming all energy is alternative energy except crude oil. Negation theory would restrict the neg to only defend one option, which is crude oil. B. Overwhelms neg – Under their interpretation any energy sources besides oil are alternative energy. This completely underlimits and explodes the neg’s research burden. C. Predictability: Their interpretation gives aff an infinite number of cases. D. Their CI definition comes from three different authors. It should be rejected because it is an opinionated card from three separate, unqualified, biased authors, while ours comes from the federal government. 3.) Congress-Their IHT ‘7 evidence says Congress supports coal as an alternative fuel, not an alternative energy, which is specified in the resolution. 4.) Encyclopedia-Your always going to prefer our evidence, over their generic encyclopedia, because it comes directly from experts working for the federal government, which is key to all policymaking. Plus Encyclopedia Brittanica but rather never actually says that coal to liquid is an alternative energy, but rather, the search for alternative energy has spurred new technologies for fossil fuels, such as CTL. 5.) Their ground args assume that oil based D/As are the only ones the neg could run. They still don’t link to specific alternative energy D/As that would link to wind or algae. Specific arguments are better than generics for education. 6.) Their interpretation doesn’t give fair limits and gives extreme overflexibility for the aff and destroy any possible neg ground. 7.) Extensions: [EXPLAIN] - Limits - Predictability - Competing interpretations - Context 8.) Insert additional arguments. [Analytics, Reason., ect.] 9.) Extend voters for education, fairness, potential abuse and jurisdiction.

AT: LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE 1. Literature is inevitable – generic topic links and extra research means we will always have something to say in terms of off-case positions, and advantage counterplans and advantage-specific negs mean we will probably have case arguments too; this doesn’t mean we have adequate literature on their case.

-4-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

2. Any risk that there is any literature specific to their affirmative that we can’t access based on topic research means this arg doesn’t apply. 3. This argument is irrelevant – as long as we win our competing interpretations standard this argument doesn’t apply because it no longer is a question of what actually happens or can happen in round but which interpretation can provide the most fair and predictable literature base.

AT: CLASH CHECKS ABUSE 1. This is probably the worst debate argument ever made and you know it. 2. Clash is inevitable – we are never going to read T and sit down without at least reading generics against their case; proves clash is inevitable even when not on casespecific issues. 3. Clash is arbitrary – there is no brightline between how much “clash” is enough or even a way to determine how much clash is truly in a round because clash happens on an individual argument basis. 4. This argument is irrelevant – as long as we win our competing interpretations standard this argument doesn’t apply because it no longer is a question of what actually happens or can happen in round but which interpretation can provide the most fair and predictable literature base.

-5-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

AT: NO IR ABUSE/NO POTENTIAL ABUSE 1. Abuse doesn’t have to be a flagrant offense on a flow – if there is even a single argument that we have lost as a result of them not meeting our interpretation then there is abuse in the round which by their argument is enough to vote neg. 2. Their arg justifies 2NC T violations – if proving abuse is the prerequisite to voting on topicality then we are justified either waiting until the 2NC or reading a second or morphed T violation in the block in a response to abusive arguments in the 2AC. 3. This argument is irrelevant – as long as we win our competing interpretations standard this argument doesn’t apply because it no longer is a question of what actually happens or can happen in round but which interpretation can provide the most fair and predictable literature base.

AT: FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS 1. Education is a prerequisite to fairness - the more equal the division of knowledge and topical education to both sides the more fair the debate will be because each side will have learned intuitive arguments and research bases that are necessary for indepth and fair debate. 2. Education outweighs – debate is an activity whose core purpose is to foster policymaking education; fairness is an important byproduct of good debate but should never be held above education as long as the core purpose remains so.

AT: EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS 1. Fairness is prerequisite to education – the only way we can learn from debate, or at least to a degree that matters, is through a fair and equal division of ground to both sides in order to foster more in-depth argumentation and thus more in-depth policy analysis. 2. Fairness outweighs – fairness is the primary element that keeps debate fun and keeps people in the activity; a world of no fairness means a world of no debate, which short circuits all of their offense.

-6-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS MORE DEFINITIONS ( ) Coal to liquid is a fossil fuel THE WASHINGTON TIMES, June 25, 2008 (Energy talk, but little action-Lexis Nexis)

As federal lawmakers are set to leave for the July 4th recess at week's end, Republicans and Democrats are fighting over a fifth energy bill in as many years. The fight now is about including subsidies for fossil-fuel alternatives, such as coal-to-liquid fuel (something Barack Obama has supported), oil shale and tar sands with those in place for wind, solar and ethanol. ( ) Coal to liquid qualifies as a fossil fuels UPI Energy 08 UPI Energy, June 6, 2008, Lexis Nexis Speaking in Canberra yesterday, Ferguson said he would push for more deregulation of global energy markets but also support local projects to deliver low-emission fossil fuels, including coal-to-liquids, and renewable energy

-7-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

T FLEX-FUEL INCENTIVE ≠ MANDATE 2NC/1NR 1. They don’t meet, a mandate is not an incentive, that’s what our definition is and their plan says “Mandate” in it. 2. Extend our interpretation that Incentives are not mandates, this definition is the best a) limits the topic reasonably- Otherwise it is aff biased, they can run almost any aff, our interp limits the debate reasonably b) fairly splits Aff and Neg ground- We still give them all the ground the resolutional provides 3. Their definition is bad a) explodes the topic, twice as many Affs are topical under their Interp. b) Unpredictable, under their interpretation sending anyone to jail who drives a car is topical, or threatening to nuke the united states in 2010 if they don’t switch to alternative energy is topical. c) Resolutional basis, at the point when you allow their definition, the topic is no different than the college resolution in 04 or the high school resolution in 97 which did not have the word “Incentives” in them. d) Ground, this destroys Neg ground, an example of such is a Counterplan that mandates things as opposed to incentivizing them also their Interp can spike out of all our links talking about incentives and not mandates. 4. Extend our voter from the 1NC, Topicality is a voter a) Lit does not check abuse, if we are prepared vote us up for that, not down b) Clash does not check abuse, same reason as lit

-8-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

PICS BAD Infinitely regressive - Neg can PIC out of absolutely anything - They can change the smallest of details and claim net benefits Unpredictable - Aff cant predict what the neg will pic out of - Neg can run virtually anything Steals aff ground - Neg uses all of the plan except for any section that links to a neg argument - Makes the aff debate against its self which destroys the purpose of debate Focuses debate on trivial issues - Only focuses on the part the PICed out of - Doesn’t focus on real world issues, just one aspect of the plan Education - Aff doesn’t learn about the opposing issues - Not depth over breath because it’s unpredictable since the neg can PIC out of anything Neg can test parts of plan without using all of it - The neg can still read DAs, non-topical CPs, mutually exclusive CPs etc. to test the plan. Voters - Theory is an independent voter for the reasons above and competitive equity

-9-

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

PICS GOOD Flexibility - Neg should be able to test aff plan in any way possible

- Forces aff to defend their plan Education - Learn depth over breadth more about a specific area instead of under-covering arguments Fairness: - Checks back aff side bias because aff gets the first and last speeches Best policy option - Allows us to find the most real world solution Small Focus Good - Large impacts prove importance - Encourages better plan writing and more specificity

More real world - The only other types of cps are utopian

- Policies are constantly amended in politics No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 10 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

DISPOSITIONALITY BAD Not reciprocal - Forces Aff to straight turn the CP or else Neg can drop it whenever Time skew - The Aff must defend the plan throughout the entire debate, while the Neg can kick their CP at any time - Neg could kick the argument if aff spent a lot of time on it, wasting aff time Reduces Aff ground - The Aff only has the choice of straight turning or perming the CP - Neg has too many options of arguments against case Education - Aff has to straight turn or perm the CP or else they can drop it so reading cards against it is pointless. Aff loses perms and theory arg.’s, which are the most strategic 2AC args. Neg can read artificial net benefits to other planks Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 11 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD Ground - Aff can develop any plan in the resolution Critical thinking - Tests the plan Predictability - Aff can choose what arg.’s to go for since they are able to straight turn the CP

- Aff can stick the neg with the CP Straight turning the CP saves a lot of time in Aff speeches - If you straight turn the CP, whatever links to the CP, they don’t have to answer it. Time skews and strat. skews are inevitable - Neg can choose which arg.’s to go for and Aff can choose which case advantages to go for Best Policy Option - Most real world option is best Education - The Neg doesn’t have to defend the plan, their job is to prove that the Aff just doesn’t solve No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 12 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

CONDITIONALITY GOOD Neg flex - Neg should not be able to choose to go for the arg that competes most with the plan Best policy option - Allows for most educated decision in the real world Negation theory - Neg can test plan in as many ways as possible to find problems Critical thinking - Forces aff to make best args in 2AC which increases education Most real world - Policymakers can always opt for status quo Turn checks abuse - Aff can always straight turn condot. CP and make neg defend it, even without going for it - All other Neg args can be kicked, CP should be the same way Time/strat skew inevitable - Different speed and neg block prove Always err neg on theory since aff has advantage though first and last speeches and infinite prep time No Voters - At worst only reject CP, but never the team

- 13 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

CONDITIONALITY BAD Multiple worlds bad - Leads to unstable advocacy - Not real world because people don’t advocate contradictory arguments Strat skew - Aff cannot stick neg with CP so neg can capitalize on whatever the aff spends less time on Not reciprocal - Aff can only advocate one action, giving neg multiple advocacies makes in impossible for aff to win Depth vs Breadth - Allowing neg to have too many CPs makes shallow debate Critical thinking - Only unconditional CPs force the neg to really evaluate strength of CPs before reading them Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above C/I-neg gets one dispositional CP

- 14 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD Education - It discourages topic specific research because all you research is the outcome, not how the United States passes plan Research Burden - There are numerous branches to the United States governmental, the negative can chose any of them, and then do it as the plan. Limits - There are an infinite number of different agents Neg could choose from, forcing the Aff to argue against any trivial organization Aff Ground - The negative can simply change the process by which the plan is done to avoid DA links and still access the advantages Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 15 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD Negative Flex - The affirmative gives the first and last and speech, going negative is hard, we need all the ground we can get, and testing the agent of the plan is a legitimate test of the plan. Best Policy Option - Testing and changing the agent of a plan is key to finding the best policy option. - Happens in the real world

Education - Talking about different agents and not just congress is key to increasing topic education because we learn about others ways to enact legislation Critical thinking - It makes the aff. defend all of their plan and not just parts of it No Voters - At worst only reject CP, but never the team

- 16 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

FLOATING PICS BAD They spike out of any offense you could read by creating a moving target - Aff can’t answer arguments sufficiently if Neg doesn’t have a stable advocacy They force the aff. to argue against themselves. - Ruins the idea of debate

Unpredictable – There’s no way for the aff to predict what miniscule thing the aff. will PIC out of. Education - Aff doesn’t learn about the opposing issues - Not depth over breath because it’s unpredictable since the neg can PIC out of anything Steals AFF ground - Neg uses all of the plan except for the section that links to a neg argument Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 17 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

FLOATING PICS GOOD Best policy option - Allows for most educated decision in the real world Critical thinking - Makes the Aff defend all aspects of their plan

Education - Learn depth over breadth, more educated about a specific area Negative Flex - The affirmative gives the first and last and speech and infinite prep time, - Neg needs all the ground we can get No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 18 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

SEVERANCE PERMS BAD Aff conditionality - Aff’s role in the debate is to present a policy option and defend it, when they can kick out of a piece of their plan they aren’t doing this. Kills predictable negative - The whole round is based around the plan. neg loses stable ground when aff can jettison any part they don’t wish to defend Limits - Neg can sever out of any miniscule aspect of the plan, forcing the Aff to argue against themselves Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 19 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD Best policy option - In the real world, policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible. Education - Forces the neg to use critical thinking to figure out how to answer these arguments Ground - Neg must test Aff plan in any way possible for the Aff to defend No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 20 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTRINSIC PERMS BAD Kills neg ground - The whole neg strat is predicated around the plan. When the aff can advocate things outside the plan or CP, the negative loses all their ground, Predictability - Neg can add anything to the plan, which destroys predictability because Aff will have to argue against an infinite number of issues

Limits - Neg should not be able to add anything imaginable to plan or else it forces Aff to debate trivial issues Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 21 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTRINSIC PERMS GOOD Best policy option - Real-world policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible Education - Forces the neg to use critical thinking to figure out how to answer our argumnts and defend their plan No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 22 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTERNATIONAL ACTORS GOOD Increases negative ground - Give the negative an advantage to balance the aff has of unlimited prep and the first and last speech, CP does not have to be topical Education - We learn about more countries and a comparative government which is important - It helps debate because we are arguing a greater variety of topics

Best policy option - Real world policies use the best actor possible

Lit check - Much literature is written on international actors

Reciprocal - If the aff should get to defend one central government, so should the neg

No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 23 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTERNATIONAL ACTORS BAD No bright line - It could include or exclude any number of international actors Abusive - The aff would have to research every possible actor and provides a huge research burden Vagueness - We are not debating a specific topic we are being too broad It decreases topic specific education - We don’t get to debate specifics of the topic we are stuck debating about how the plan should be enacted It is non reciprocal because other countries pass laws in a different way Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 24 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

MULTI- ACTOR GOOD USFG has several actors in it and there’s no difference in using a specific part of the USFG. The standard destroys CPs - Every counter plan is a pic or it’s utopian They have to defend the whole plan Best policy option - Real-world policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible

Encourages better plan writing for the aff No Voters - Vote down the argument, not the team

- 25 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

MULTI – ACTOR BAD Not reciprocal - The aff only gets one actor, neg shouldn’t get two

Steals aff ground - Steal aff plan with different actors It is infinetly regressive - Justifies doing the plan minus one part and having any other country combined with the U.S. or combined with another country do it - Makes aff debate against themselves. Net benefits don’t check abuse. Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 26 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

UTOPIAN FIAT BAD Not real world - No empirical evidence - Cannot fiat people’s mindset. - Internal link turns their impacts Perm - Do alt- in all other instances Destroys aff. ground: - Can fiat out of links Supercharged by vague No Text Alt: destroys Aff ground even more because the aff can’t perm it without the text Voters - Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above

- 27 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

UTOPIAN FIAT GOOD - Increases real world personal education. - Counters rampant pragmatism which is entrenched in policy debate. - Increasing personal education is best because it influences actual personal actions of individuals as opposed to concerning the actions and ideology of the government. - Helps to view the world as a whole as opposed to focusing small issues. - At worst, reject the alternative, not the team. We are still winning a case turn with our criticism.

- 28 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

50 STATES CP THEORY BAD DEFENSE 1. not real world – there’s never been an example of a time when all 50 states have done something together. Puts you in a double bind – either the 50 states won’t all act and you lose solvency or your counterplan is illegitimate because we can never garner evidence against it because it’s never happened before. 2. makes neg a moving target – you could read solvency that pertains to one state and then change the state your talking about 3. fiat abuse– the aff gets to fiat one actor, the neg should only be able to fiat one actor. Changing branches would be legit, but saying every state in addition to the Supreme Court would solve is not. 4. not predictable – articulating a cohesive aff strategy is impossible when your forced to defend on multiple fronts that Texas and California would provide. 5. Ground- They can spike out of arguments against one agent by going for another; it’s impossible for us to win.

VOTERS FOR REASONS OF: education fairness in-round abuse

- 29 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

50 STATES FIAT GOOD 1.Stable target -- We can’t change the state we’re talking about since

we talk about all of them and our solvency is only for one or two of them. 2.No fiat abuse -- We can fiat as many actors as we want, the Aff uses all 3 branches of the USFG, why can’t we use lots of states. 3.Predictable -- Aff strategies are easy to create against more actors, if anything we open ourselves up to more offense. 4.Ground -- More actors mean more ground, we are stuck advocating all of them. 5.Negative Flexibility -- Key to checking back Aff side bias 6.Best Policy Option 7.50 state fiat is not a voter for the reasons above.

- 30 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTRINSIC PERMS TO CP BAD: 2NC Kills Predictability The whole Neg strat is predicated around the plan. If the Aff can bring up new things to add to their plan anytime, it is impossible to predict what they advocate until the 2AR. Destroys Neg Ground When the Aff can advocate things outside of their plan or CP, they Neg loses all their ground. Independent Voting Issue Theory is a voting issue for competitiveness, fairness and education.

- 31 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

INTRINSIC PERMS TO CP BAD: 2NR Kills Predictability The whole Neg strat is predicated around the plan. If the Aff can bring up new things to add to their plan anytime, it is impossible to predict what they advocate until the 2AR. Destroys Neg Ground When the Aff can advocate things outside of their plan or CP, they Neg loses all their ground. Depending on what the Neg says, the Aff can perm out of anything they choose. This takes Neg ground. Independent Voting Issue: 1.1.Competitiveness: If the Aff can add to their plan at any time, it’s impossible for the Neg to know every part of the plan. Intrinsic perms do not guarantee competition on all parts. 1.2.Education: When there is significant loss of competitiveness and fairness it destroys clash and then creates substantially less education. 1.3.Fairness: The Neg is unable to be prepared for an infinite number of cases if the Aff is able to advocate whatever they want. This eliminates fairness.

- 32 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

AT: INTRINSIC PERMS TO D/AS 1. It’s not a test of the link, the perm doesn’t link because they can always structure it in a way that doesn’t link. 2.D/A perms are always intrinsic because we don’t provide any alternative. 3.They allow you to perm to perm out of any argument and creates a huge Aff bias. 4.They justify perming out of solvency arguments which is even more abusive and destructive of education 5.Voting issue for competitive equity.

- 33 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

OVERVIEWS IRAN Obama is going to win the elections in the squo now, but after the plan passes, Bush and McCain will gain popularity because of the alternate energy support from the public. McCain will win and strike Iran, and Syria will retaliate against Israel with smallpox. Probability is greater because a strike on Iran will immediately escalate into full-blown war from the tension and instability. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected, and the magnitude is greater because biological weapons and a nuclear war outweigh environmental impacts. A new strain of smallpox would have no cure and a nuclear war would cause even more environmental destruction. LOST Obama is going to win the elections in the squo now, but after the plan passes, Bush and McCain will gain popularity because of the alternate energy support from the public. McCain will not ratify LOST which is key to leadership, and preventing prolif, terrorism, and economic destruction. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected, and probability is inevitable because LOST is a key issue now. Magnitude outweighs because proliferation, terrorism, destruction of leadership and the economy are much greater than a slim chance of environmental impacts and they would lead to destruction of the earth as well. GAG RULE Obama is going to win the elections in the squo now, but after the plan passes, Bush and McCain will gain popularity because of the alternate energy support from the public. McCain will not repeal the gag rule, unlike Obama, and the gag rule leads to overpopulation and ecological extinction. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected. Probability is inevitable because the gag rule is affecting the world now, and ecological extinction from overpopulation is more probable than environmental impacts. The magnitude outweighs Aff because extinction is much greater than any environmental impact.

- 34 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

UNIQUENESS EXT 1) Extend our Cillizza ’08 Uniqueness card that says Obama will win independents. He has an edge over McCain for independent voters in four states

2) Obama will win because of the economy Faucher 6/28/08 (Augustine, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pa, Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/28economy_bodes_ill_wind_for_mccain/) HISTORICALLY, ECONOMIC conditions have played an enormous role in presidential elections, even as other factors come into play. Economic downturns are bad news for the incumbent, while expansions tend to lead to reelection. Franklin D. Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in the depth of the Great Depression in 1932. Boom times helped reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996. For all the money and time and effort that go into campaigning, the results of presidential elections often seem to track basic economic conditions. My employer, Moody's Economy.com, has developed a model to predict the outcome of the vote in each state, based on economic conditions at the time of the election. The results forecast the Electoral College vote. And as of June, the model is predicting a big victory for the Democrat, Senator Barack Obama.

3) McCain is imploding and Obama will win elections Jenkins 6/30/08 (Paul, staff writer, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-mccainbusheffect-on_b_109881.html) When a Republican spokesperson recently said that "there are no safe Republican seats in this election," she was talking about Congressional races, but she may as well as have been describing the presidential election. It is increasingly clear that the Arizona Senator can rely on very few safe havens (perhaps even including his own state.) At this point, McCain can only count on 56 (!) electoral votes as being solidly in his camp (ie, those where he leads in most recent polling by more than 10 points). By contrast, Obama can count on close to 200 (270 are needed.) It is hard to exaggerate the difficulty of the task ahead for McCain, even this long before the election. He is running 15 to 20% behind Bush in a whole series of red states where independents have not jumped back on his bandwagon, and where many of Bush's core supporters appear to be planning to sit it out (or vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate). McCain will not win by relying on reluctantly loyal GOP support in Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas (barely), Nebraska, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, the only states where he is comfortably ahead. Meanwhile, Obama has basically already closed the deal in the entire Northeast and large swaths of Midwestern and Pacific ex-swing states.

- 35 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

LINK EXT 1) Extend our Young ’08 link card that says alternate energy swings the election. Energy is the top priority for 51% of the voters and people want an alternate energy policy to combat environmental problems. 2) Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular – public wants to reduce dependency Broder and Connelly ’07 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming”, April 26) The poll also found that Americans

want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. The presidential candidates have recognized the desire for swifter action on energy and the environment than the Bush administration has pursued and have offered plans with varying degrees of specificity.

3) Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular with voters – even if it increases energy costs PR Newswire 4/14/08 (“Survey says US consumers are willing to pay premium for Renewable Sourced Products” Proquest) A new survey released today shows

that nearly seven out of 10 U.S. consumers (65 percent) are willing to pay more for products made with renewable resources. The nationally representative survey, sponsored by DuPont and Mohawk Industries, queried 1,001 U.S. homeowners to identify consumers' personal attitudes and behavior toward environmental responsibility. Conducted by MarketTools, the survey also revealed that global warming and helping American farmers were important drivers for consumers.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would consider purchasing renewably sourced products that are more expensive to help deter global warming, while 33 percent of respondents said they would consider doing the same to help American farmers. Renewably sourced products on the market today include carpets, textiles, personal care products and others derived from renewable, farm-grown sources rather than petroleum.

4) Massive public support for alternate energy – new polls prove Purnell 6/11/08 (President, American Institute of Architects, CQ Testimony) The American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that "the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources." In addition, 71 percent of voters agreed that "the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The American public supports conserving our precious resources, and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in our nation's homes would be a major step towards that goal.

5) Extend our Farmer ’08 internal link card that says increasing Bush’s popularity causes McCain to win because McCain is tied to Bush. Since the plan is popular, Bush and McCain’s popularity increases, so McCain will win the election. 6) Obama solves alternate energy – calls for increased incentives Biofuels Digest 4/23

- 36 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

In endorsing cap-and-trade, Clinton is in agreement with Senators Obama and McCain, although implementation details may differ. Senators Clinton and Obama agree on a 10-year, $150 billion fund for alternative energy research. Senator Clinton calls for 55 MPG Cafe standards by 2030, compared to “doubling by 2026″ for Senator Obama. The National Energy Council is unique to the Clinton campaign, but the Obama campaign is more agressive on a global front, calling for a Global Energy Forum including the G-8, China, Mexico, India, Brazil and South Africa. The Obama campaign calls for the increase in the Renewable Fuel Standard to 60 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2030, a mandatory 10 percent reduction in low-carbon petroleum fuels, and increased incentives for local investment in biofuels plants.

- 37 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

AT: IMPACT TURNS IRAN EXT (AT: STRIKES GOOD) 1) Iran will destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan by lashing out Brookes ’06 (Peter,- Senior fellow @ Heritage 1-23 “Iran: Our Military Options” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012306a.cfm) But it's unlikely to be that simple. After an assault, Iran might lash out with a vengeance. We'd have to be fully prepared for some nasty blowback. Tehran and its terrorist toadies can brew up some serious trouble for both America and Israel — or anyone else that supported an attack on the fundamentalist Islamic state. The Iranian regime is already up

to its neck in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could certainly increase its financial/material support to the Sunni insurgents, Shia militants, al Qaeda, and the Taliban to destabilize the new Baghdad and Kabul governments — and kill Coalition forces.

Next, Afghanistan will go nuclear and cause a war between Pakistan, India, China, and the US Kavanagh 07 [Trevor, esteemed Journalist and Political Editor @ the Sun Times, “We need to win hearts and minds at home too,” Jan 22, ln]

The headlines focus on brutality in Baghdad, but the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off than ever before. In Afghanistan, two out of three are building a new life and hope the Taliban will never return. They don't want the burka back. But these fragile improvements are an affront to mullahs, who lose power once

If we allow them to fail, the price will be incalculable. A return to Taliban rule in Afghanistan would almost certainly put the skids under Pakistan's "moderate" President Musharraf.That could set the stage for the first nuclear war -between Pakistan and India dragging in China and the USA. We are at a dangerous crossroads. Western security services people develop a mind of their own.

are under no illusion that fanatics are radicalising young men at an alarming pace. At home and abroad we are competing for the hearts and minds of sensible, decent Muslims who are being bullied and intimidated in the name of extreme Islam. In many ways we are in their hands. Only they can stand in the way of a virulent spread of terror.

2) Strikes fail - Iran already has the required uranium hidden and Iran will prolif after strikes Fitzpatrick ‘07 (Mark,- senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies

“Can Iran’s Nuclear Capability be Kept

Latent?” Survival, March, InformaWorld Online)

At best, air strikes will only delay the programme a few years, and probably not at all, unless the United States or Israel were prepared to extensively widen the bombing campaign and to repeat it in a few short years - in effect, to launch an interminable war against a Middle East foe stronger, larger and more cohesive than Saddam's Iraq. America's disastrous experience in Iraq after Saddam should make such a scenario unacceptable. Iran's nuclear facilities are more dispersed than were Iraq's in 1981, the time of Israel's pre-emptive air strike, popularly credited with having significantly set back an Iraqi nuclear-weapons programme. In any case, as Richard Betts convincingly argues, the Israeli 1981 example is a fallacy: destroying the nuclear reactor at Osirak did not delay Iraq's nuclear programme and probably accelerated it.17 After the bombing, Saddam increased the budget and number of scientists dedicated to the programme twentyfold.18 Without accurate intelligence about Iran's dispersed nuclear facilities and hidden equipment, air strikes that only target the known facilities will not cripple the nuclear programme. An unnamed senior US official said on 7 November 2006: 'We do not have enough information about the Iranian nuclear program to be confident that you could destroy it in a single attack. The worst thing you could do is try and not succeed.'19 The uranium-conversion plant at Esfahan is vulnerable, but Iran may no longer need it for a small weapons programme, having already produced enough UF6 for at least 30 bombs. According to a knowledgeable Western official, the UF6 produced to date is of sufficient purity for Iran's initial purposes and is stored in dispersed locations safe from air strikes.20 Iran could also build smaller uranium-

- 38 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

conversion facilities elsewhere, if it has not already done so. The above-ground pilot enrichment plant at Natanz, with its 360 installed centrifuges, is also vulnerable. Bombing Natanz, however, would not destroy Iran's

other centrifuges and centrifuge components. Iran may already have up to 2,000 centrifuges stockpiled in unknown locations.21 By accelerating to round-the-clock production, Iran could conceivably triple the 70-100 per month centrifuge production rate at which it was known to have operated two years ago, and replace the 360 centrifuges at Natanz within two months. Iran would also have to build a new facility and equip it with replacements for the autoclaves, piping and other equipment in the Natanz plant, but it is prudent to assume that Iran already has a replacement facility being readied. Above all, short of commando operations to target scientists and engineers, bombing would not destroy the knowledge in nuclear and related

sciences and engineering skills that Iran has amassed to date.

- 39 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

LOST EXT (AT: CRUSHES ECONOMY, HEG, POWER PROJECTION, ETC.) US ratification key to preventing conflict Hamilton ’07 (Lee, Director Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center and Former Representative, indystar.com, http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINION/708270327/-1/LOCAL17 The arguments in favor of ratification are overwhelming. First, the treaty is critical to our national security. The U.S. military depends upon freedom of movement on the high seas so that our navy can have right of passage, and so we can transport military forces and equipment. The Convention guarantees that freedom, doing

away with burdensome and varying rules from coastal nations, and ensuring that we need not seek a permission slip to pass through territorial seas. In addition to simplifying operations, this also helps America – and the world – avert conflict. US ratification key to heg Watkins ’07 (James, Former Chief of Naval Operations, San Diego Union Tribune) The Law of the Sea Convention will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United States is a party. If we fail to ratify this treaty, we will continue to place the United States in a position of self-imposed weakness, relinquishing a seat at the table as other nations potentially negotiate amendments to the convention, or, as Russia is doing now in the Arctic, seek excessive claims to areas beyond recognized national boundaries. As we navigate through an unsettled period in global geopolitics, senior military and civilian national security leaders have advised that U.S. accession to the convention would significantly enhance the protection of our national security interests. Support for the convention is shared broadly by leaders in the economic and environmental communities. The stakes are too high, and the cost too great, for the U.S. Senate to remain hamstrung because of the ideological opposition of a handful of senators. We strongly urge the Senate to take action on the convention before the conclusion of this session of Congress.

- 40 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

LOST EXT (AT: LEADS TO PROLIF, TERRORISM, ETC.) 1) LOST is key to war on terror Schultz ’07 (George, Former Sec State, WSJ, http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/10033781.html) Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention assures maximum maritime naval and air mobility, which is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. It provides the stability and framework for our forces, weapons and materials to be deployed without hindrance -- ensuring our ability to navigate past critical choke points throughout the world.

2) US Ratification key to Heg, Global Power Projection and Success of War on Terrorism Clark ‘07

- 41 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

LOST EXT (AT: ARCTIC, OIL, ETC.) 1) US ratification key to arctic claim and oil development Eaton and Newton ’07 (Sam, Marketplace Morning Report Editor, George, Former Head US Arctic Research Commission, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/sea_law/) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a second round of hearings on a U.N. treaty called the Law of the Sea. The U.S. is the only Arctic nation that hasn't yet ratified the 10-year-old treaty. Supporters say that means the U.S. doesn't have a seat at the table when it comes to negotiating

offshore uses of the sea -- and with the Arctic ice cap melting at a record pace, those uses have gained new relevance. GEORGE NEWTON: The basic essence is oil. George Newton is the former head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. The U.S. government estimates that the Arctic seabed could hold about a quarter of the world's untapped oil reserves. But Newton says as long as the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty, it's giving other arctic nations like Russia and Denmark a head start. NEWTON: What countries want, and oil companies want, before they begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean is an element of certainty.

2) No Turns – International Recognition of Our Territorial Claims Crucial to Legal Certainty and Key to Investment Negroponte ‘07

GLOBAL WARMING LINK TURN ANSWERS

- 42 -

SDI 2008 STP

__/__ Supplement

All of there biopact 07 evidence is not credible. The Biopact is a trade organization between Europe and Africa. They are talking about it’s success in Europe. Europe has limited space and don’t have the capacity to produce biofuels. However we have the capability to make it because we have vast amounts of unused land in the desert that we could use. They are also a bit bias because they invest in promoting in biomass. Extend my freedman in 07 card that says that algae biodiesel solves for global warming and can support the entire transportation sector in the U.S. . Also extend my Emerging Markets online 08 evidence that says that government incentives would effectively spur the transition to algae biodiesel.

- 43 -