Jump to content
Tomak

Old energy topics

Recommended Posts

2008 High School Resolution

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

 

Let's start thinking about the new topic by looking back in time. Energy is one of those topics that comes up every ten or twenty years without fail. Let's take a look at what's been debated before.

 

1997 High School Resolution

Resolved: That the Federal Government should establish a policy to substantially increase renewable energy use in the United States

 

1979 High School Resolution

Resolved: That the federal government should establish a comprehensive program to significantly increase the energy Independence of the United States.

 

2004 College Resolution

Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the the consumption in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.

 

1989 College Resolution

Resolved: That the federal government should adopt an energy policy that substantially reduces nonmilitary consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.

 

Notice a pattern? Additionally, energy is a topic that comes up often in other formats - LD, extemp, etc. There have also been many environment/pollution topics interspersed with the energy topics, and these often cover many of the same case and harms areas.

 

Energy is a great topic, actually. It makes for some of the deepest and most educational debates you'll ever see. There will be good case debates, interesting disads that actually link, and tons of counterplan ground. It's a big topic, but not so big that the neg will be running generics every round. Just about right.

 

Unfortunately, 1997 was a year before my time, so I don't have any backfiles to share with you. But I did find an old caselist from the 2004 college topic:

Wichita State Uinversity 2004 Case List

 

That should get some ideas going. Browse through and discuss. And for the slightly older dinosaurs, if you have anything to share about the 1997 topic, please do so.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, why go back to '97 - but if we must..let's see..my team ran Hydrogen that year with an Global Iceage advantage (based on conveyor belt theory). Other cases that year were biomass (hemp being particulary popular), solar, wind, etc. One very creative team ran Rieke (sic) the energy that is created through the study of some form of massage. It was a fun year.

 

I debated the '89 topic in college, we talked about solar, gas taxes, people powered vehicles, tire burning, nuclear power (I think the NDT was won by Harvard that year on their Modular Nuclear Reactors aff), highway speed limit reductions - we talked about a lot. Big advantage areas were warming and ice age, oil dependency/ME war stuff.

 

H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A case I actually made and ran from 97-98 was energy deregulation & fraud prevention. People currently fear fraud so they dont buy renewables (companies were allowed to pump water uphill with coal power and then let it flow downhill to power 'hydroelectric' and charge customers for 'renewable hydroelectric power'). Thus, the USFG rules that utilities must provide energy labels (like nutrition labels) on customer energy bills. This eliminates fraud, creates informed consumer, the statistics and honest disclosure leads to more renewables usage.

 

A rival school ran comprehensive renewble energy for the DoD (the biggest single consumer of energy in the world is our dept of def).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the UCO-HS nuclear power aff from 04. But then again my initial aff choices are never great. What do you guys think of it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Banning fossil fuels aff could be converted into a sweet Heidigger aff for this year with the right cards.

 

any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A case I actually made and ran from 97-98 was energy deregulation & fraud prevention. People currently fear fraud so they dont buy renewables (companies were allowed to pump water uphill with coal power and then let it flow downhill to power 'hydroelectric' and charge customers for 'renewable hydroelectric power'). Thus, the USFG rules that utilities must provide energy labels (like nutrition labels) on customer energy bills. This eliminates fraud, creates informed consumer, the statistics and honest disclosure leads to more renewables usage.

 

Wow ankur, that sounds uber squirrelly! (awesomeness)

Who writes lit on something like that? -Any major solvency advocates?

 

EDIT: "sounding like a fag" isn't a reason to give negative rep. Either way, the aff does sound sweet, sorry if my means of expression didn't fit your high judgmental standards of "masculine."

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i might be able to poke around and find a copy somewhere... but i doubt it.

 

but the first hit in a yahoo search (terms: utilities energy labels nutrition) was this website

 

 

it was pretty squirrely in one sense, but not at all squirrely in another. it was squirrely because it was an obscure argument. it was not squirrely in the sense that i still used all the same monster impacts (and impact scenarios) everyone else did: global warming, pollution, etc with all the same impacts, death, species, oxygen, asthma & healthcare costs, etc etc.

 

it didnt link to most disads because it costs essentially nothing (the cost of what? a line of toner ink on your bill?), it was more the responsibility of government to ensure that the people are not being deceived (thus statism-esque arguments didnt link) and its almost impossible to get politics links out of it outside the generic 'you pass a plan that isnt on clinton's agenda. that saps capital'. the best offense against that case was impact turns. global warming good, pollution good, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i might be able to poke around and find a copy somewhere... but i doubt it.

 

but the first hit in a yahoo search (terms: utilities energy labels nutrition) was this website

 

 

it was pretty squirrely in one sense, but not at all squirrely in another. it was squirrely because it was an obscure argument. it was not squirrely in the sense that i still used all the same monster impacts (and impact scenarios) everyone else did: global warming, pollution, etc with all the same impacts, death, species, oxygen, asthma & healthcare costs, etc etc.

 

That's the best type of squirrelly because all you have to do is answer impact turns and maybe Topicality. at the same time you get access to a lot of governmental responsibility arguments that you can weigh against K's and at least win the "step in the right direction" argument as well as a whole lot of spillover claims (which I guess depends on the strength of the evidence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first year debating, as a sophomore in h. s., many many years ago was 1979. Lots of stuff about solar energy, photovolatic cells. We ran oil shale for a while, using microwave technology to mine it. I remember at camp one team proposed annexing Iran in order to create energy independence -- that could be a REALLY interesting case if this new topic passes. Other cases I vaguely remember were wind power, geothermal power and energy conservation.

 

I find it interesting that we've been discussing ways to "solve" our energy problems (and the associated pollution) for almost 30 years now and we're still stuck in a rut. High school kids were able to find solutions to our oil dependence way back in 1979 and college kids were able to find solutions to it in 1989, but Congress hasn't been able to do much about it by 2008!:) I suppose that is good reason to have debaters rule the world!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry -- a two day tournament and 12 rounds of extemp prep killed a bunch of brain cells.

 

Yes, this is the topic for next year for h.s. I still think reviving the "annex Iran" case could be truly entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry -- a two day tournament and 12 rounds of extemp prep killed a bunch of brain cells.

 

Yes, this is the topic for next year for h.s. I still think reviving the "annex Iran" case could be truly entertaining.

 

I agree, it sounds like an interesting case and I suppose it satisfies the rez, I suppose that's an alternative to what we're doing now.

 

but i'm not exactly sure if that counts as an "alternative energy" - I mean we're still using fossil fuels, we're just taking over (another) country to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to be humorous, not literal. I ws thinking more about the situation in Iran and the humorous implications of even trying to get past Amadinejad. This topic would NOT be a good place for the annex Iran case.

 

Again, I apologize for the loss of brain cells. Obviously, having debated in 1979 + 24 solid hours of running extemp prep = not very funny comments.:D Senility, go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying to be humorous, not literal. I ws thinking more about the situation in Iran and the humorous implications of even trying to get past Amadinejad. This topic would NOT be a good place for the annex Iran case.

 

Again, I apologize for the loss of brain cells. Obviously, having debated in 1979 + 24 solid hours of running extemp prep = not very funny comments.:D Senility, go figure.

 

hahhaha,

 

actually - I think it could work if you ran it as an irony aff. I remember that there was some interesting irony solves cards in the Ban Maff aff from the mental health topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i might be able to poke around and find a copy somewhere... but i doubt it.

 

but the first hit in a yahoo search (terms: utilities energy labels nutrition) was this website

 

 

it was pretty squirrely in one sense, but not at all squirrely in another. it was squirrely because it was an obscure argument. it was not squirrely in the sense that i still used all the same monster impacts (and impact scenarios) everyone else did: global warming, pollution, etc with all the same impacts, death, species, oxygen, asthma & healthcare costs, etc etc.

 

it didnt link to most disads because it costs essentially nothing (the cost of what? a line of toner ink on your bill?), it was more the responsibility of government to ensure that the people are not being deceived (thus statism-esque arguments didnt link) and its almost impossible to get politics links out of it outside the generic 'you pass a plan that isnt on clinton's agenda. that saps capital'. the best offense against that case was impact turns. global warming good, pollution good, etc.

 

that seems like such a sweet aff ankur.

i'm going to start cutting it during my 4 days off between terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, i heard that apparently alternative-energy should be hyphenated. otherwise you have to increase alternatives to current energy incentives. flips the resolution: give money to oil monopolies instead of taxing them

 

 

something like that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh, i heard that apparently alternative-energy should be hyphenated. otherwise you have to increase alternatives to current energy incentives. flips the resolution: give money to oil monopolies instead of taxing them

 

 

something like that.

 

that sounds like a PIC just begging to be run.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that sounds like a PIC just begging to be run.

 

lol that sounds like a T violation begging to be run

 

the ground on this topics pretty big... what exactly is "alternate energy", what kind of energy?, energy for what?... and for that matter what is an incentive... is it incentives for alternate energy or is anything that increases alternate energy untopical, cuz they have to increase an incentive

 

an ive noticed that theres no "policy" in the rez this year

 

i think the resoultion could use some rewording unless people really want to listen to another resolution with almost infinite aff ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would be helpful here is an old backfile I picked up somewhere along the way. It is from the 1998 High School topic. http://www.mediafire.com/?d0d4zlmbt1l

 

Hope this helps some people just found it among a large amount of things while I was skimming through some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would the inherent barrier be for the fraud aff?

 

deregulation of the energy industry was being done with little to no oversight and whatever oversight was done was done somewhere between poorly and atrociously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...