Jump to content
Jareth

first thread

Recommended Posts

I numbered the one's just so answering them would be clearer.

 

1. Umm... great way to give the aff ground. Seeming that under your interpretation, no case becomes topical since the resolution explicitly says "Alternative energy incentives"

 

 

2. Turn-- middle east reliance tanks the economy, tanks heg, and oh! We only drain more and more oil, so that when the oil does run out, our econ will be in a shittier state than possible now. So, yeah that impact scenario might not be strategic in my opinion.

 

For 1. I meant the T would be the type of energy that the aff incentives isn't alternative.

 

2. IDK it would depend on phrasing of cards and if the neg could find something saying that it is important in order to start the growth of those economies during X amount of years and after that point it is no longer useful. Which I am sure are out there ( I have read stuff like that), switching to alternative energy NOW would tank those developing economies... (IE it would be like growth this year... Uniqueness: Middle east economies growing based on oil Link: Plan kills oil selling Impact: Developing economies are destroyed leading to a number of bad things.) The specifics would be what would drive that sort of DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. IDK it would depend on phrasing of cards and if the neg could find something saying that it is important in order to start the growth of those economies during X amount of years and after that point it is no longer useful. Which I am sure are out there ( I have read stuff like that), switching to alternative energy NOW would tank those developing economies... (IE it would be like growth this year... Uniqueness: Middle east economies growing based on oil Link: Plan kills oil selling Impact: Developing economies are destroyed leading to a number of bad things.) The specifics would be what would drive that sort of DA.

 

All I know is, I think it's gonna be hard to win oil key to US economy, or answer the heg turn.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it would be tough to win that but it doesn't have to be won. You would just have to come up with a convincing link-impact scenario out of the middle east. IE middle east economy crashes governments use nuclear weapons. Or the economy crashes and it leads to terrorists using nuclear weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I know is, I think it's gonna be hard to win oil key to US economy

 

Is that a joke? Oil is the complete and total key to the US economy. Greenspan himself said that the gold standard has been replaced with an oil standard. Oil is the most valuable commodity to the United States government, by the vast.

 

or answer the heg turn.

 

you can say since we're in charge of the WTO, we have hegemony the over the world because we control the world's economy, and therefore just because we need the exports of a particular nation, we can still be the world's heg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that a joke? Oil is the complete and total key to the US economy. Greenspan himself said that the gold standard has been replaced with an oil standard. Oil is the most valuable commodity to the United States government, by the vast.

 

 

 

you can say since we're in charge of the WTO, we have hegemony the over the world because we control the world's economy, and therefore just because we need the exports of a particular nation, we can still be the world's heg

 

Your answer to my first argument doesn't assume the generic plan. In the world where the US decreases oil dependence, and increases its own energy efficiency, the plan would decrease the need for that middle eastern oil in the first place, making the DA's link irrelevant. Actually, now that I think about it, the plan would solve for this terminal impact.

 

 

Then, the presence in the middle east internal link to heg outweighs the economy link because in the status quo, we have the world's largest economy, but our hegemony is decreasing due to Iraq/Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No reason for the CP, as the perm would still solve. But yes, everyone will have to have a full warming file in their tub. The warming good argument is much weaker today than it was a decade ago, but it will still be run.
I was actually considering it as an ironic strategy. Essentially, the idea is to kritik the resolution. So many people have the strong belief that alternative energies are needed, neg is at a disadvantage with the resolution, hence a neg might as well be entertaining and shift the ground as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, no more foreign topics please..

 

Foreign Policy is like "watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a doorknob".

 

I love that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamsters, and lots of them. I guarantee you, we can power the world!

 

HAHA, that's epic, we should contain them underground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamsters, and lots of them. I guarantee you, we can power the world!

 

Well, for debate's sake it should be squirrels. They can probably run faster anyways!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're probably going to see more private actor CPs. Large corporations create incentives for private development... you can even have a cap good economy advantage from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for debate's sake it should be squirrels. They can probably run faster anyways!

squirrels aren't really that fast but they are agile and might escape and take over the world with the energy they store

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squirrels aren't really that fast but they are agile and might escape and take over the world with the energy they store

 

Yeah, squirrels really shouldn't be trusted with that kind of power. I say stick with hamsters.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought i'd mention that the USFG does not classify Hybrid cars as "Alternative Energy Vehicles" because they still require some gas.

 

On electricity, its all or nothing.

 

(can't remember source on that, but its noted on the wikipedia article on alternative energy i believe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
negative incentives?

 

the usfg will shit on you if you dont buy an electric car

 

hahaha, "T:/ and No S - Extend our 1NC R-Kelly evidence, It proves that american's enjoy being shat on!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...