Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Senater Tuba

Energy Research DA

Recommended Posts

Hey im working on writing a t/o da heres what its looking like now.

 

UN- global oil production increasing

 

L- alternative energy research/ investment t/o with production

 

i/l- oil key to econ

 

mpx- not sure yet

 

ps: if anyone wants to help that be great and i'm willing to share it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mead, 1998

 

Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign

Relations, The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998

Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that

started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in

Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing "The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

goodluck finding any useful link evidence.

 

alternative energy incentives dont trade off with oil production.

 

if anything, it would ease the demand for oil, making oil more accessible for economic purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mead seriously im looking for something more original in the mpx scenario scene.

 

does anyone have any ideas?

 

or any info on link possibilities or actual cards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking of random ideas during gym class and trying to find literature to support your idea is the wrong way to go about cutting a disad. Read the literature about energy, and cut disadvantages based upon what you find in the topic literature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you should consider reading my econ threads that are stickied in the disads & counterplans forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Do you not understand the concept of "lit on a subject"? You can find oil key to econ, and meade 98, along with "using oil now". I am impressed... (/sarcasm). The whole point of finding lit is to read some books and articles about the topic, and find potential da's in there- about how Caps on emissions, for example, would constrain the US economy, kill the dollar as we lose companies, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no evidence saying oil is key the economy in a world where alternative energy is king. at least nothing credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no evidence saying oil is key the economy in a world where alternative energy is king. at least nothing credible.

 

well, i would assume the argument being made by the negative would be something along the lines of -ahem- 'timeframe: even if they are right, the immediate effects of oil will be seen as the market crashes (extend I/L link ev here). This checks back all their advantage area's because war from economic meltdown causes [insert external impact] which kills technology and doesn't allow research [make analytical or extend evidence]. the long-run doesn't matter if we can't get there.

 

That guts and turns affirmative solvency. game over. come back next weekend'

 

but, that's just a guestimate on what they might say. i'm probably wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats nonsense.

 

if people switch to alternative energy as per plan, then less people use oil. if less people use oil, demand goes down, supply goes up, it forestalls the impending oil problem, frees up more oil for industrial purposes, allows for more growth in industry now that oil isnt a limiting factor.

 

the idea that oil companies are key to the economy is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the oil and gas journal has an article about it i cant remember it verbatim but it pertains to our rhetoric of gettin off oil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that this could fly, simply because if the plan is just energy research and there isn't anything concrete that is being implemented then I could really see a monetary tradeoff. It seems that everyone is assuming that the tech would be widespread and we would just turn into a alternative energy economy. But that is only if we get the tech due to the research. But who knows how long that will take. Fusion is a perfect example.

 

With that said the ev I think would be hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

care to post the cite at least? i cant help you make it better unless i know what your link is.

 

yes, i am skeptical, but i petroeconomics *IS* my personal favorite. ill help you if i can but i need to see what the link/internal link is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goodluck finding any useful link evidence.

 

alternative energy incentives dont trade off with oil production.

 

if anything, it would ease the demand for oil, making oil more accessible for economic purposes.

 

It may not be generic, but much of the oil dependency theory focuses on this. You simply show that something like ethanol will drastically reduce our need for oil. "X" country depnds on selling oil to the United States. A reduction in oil sales will collapse the economy of "X". That collapse allows increased terrorism/ leads to an global collapse/ collapse leads to a regional war and hence glabal war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

believe me, i know the disad very well. i have read/written/reviewed many many versions of it. its just 100% untrue bullshit story.

 

hence why i want to read this evidence for myself. because if it is anything like past evidence, its total crap. i can save the kid time by telling him/her so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about something like this:

 

Alternative energy would cut Russia's export income by 80%. Gallagher in '07:

Alternative energy: It's not for everybody

By Michael G Gallagher, English instructor in the general education department, Namseoul University. He has a bachelor of arts degree in history from Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, and master's and PhD degrees in the field of international studies from the University of Miami Asia Times Online, Aug 28, 2007 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IH28Dj02.html

 

Russia is another major oil-producing country that could find its finances stressed with the widespread introduction of new energy technologies. With a GDP of nearly $800 billion, Russia is in the middle of an oil-driven economic boom. Eighty percent of Russia's export money comes from oil.

 

Export income loss forces Russia to sell military hardware. Gallagher in '07:

 

Russia, without the massive cash flow provided by its oil and natural-gas reserves, would be forced to rely for its continued economic existence on the far skinnier profits generated by other raw-material exports and its none-too-competitive factories. Sliding incomes could drive the Russians to peddle their military hardware at fire-sale prices in trouble spots around the world.

 

Also:

 

Turn. Alternative energy would cause terrorism. Gallagher in '07:

 

Doing the big switch to alternative energy is often described in the West as one of the best ways to pull the teeth of Islamic radicals. "Starve the beast" is the phrase often used when talking about using new energy technology to counter the jihadis' ready access to Middle Eastern oil money.

 

But mortally wounded predators don't die easily, and any large-scale switch to renewable fuels may cause a violent backlash from the jihadis as they see Islam's only real claim to importance in world affairs relegated to dusty exhibits in a science museum. The jihadis see themselves as the only true defenders of Islam. They aren't going to sit back and do nothing as the culture they've sworn to defend with their lives is transformed into a vast theme park frequented largely by infidels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see. Where to begin (aside from the fact that the article is woefully low on warrants):

 

1) The author needs to do some research instead of making up numbers

About half of russian exports are oil AND gas (and russia is the largest producer of natural gas btw), not 80% oil. Simple math from the export volume of petroleum and sales tells you that based on the numbers of the article, the author's math is incorrect. Russian GDP (by several sources) is much larger than $800 billion too (by about 50%). Score zero on ethos for Mr Gallagher.

 

 

2) Russian arms sales are piddly little numbers when compared to other exports

Facts: Russian arms sales have been growing year-over-year since Putin took office. Impacts? None. The average annual sales of weapons to other countries was approximately $6 billion dollars. Thats 2% of the annual sales of oil exports, aka a weeks' production of oil. The logic of resorting to arms sales to make up for oil is just stupid. A 1000% growth in arms sales (which btw would be more than the total Russian military budget) still wouldnt come close to replacing oil sales. The logic is silly.

 

3) Oil & terrorism

The idea that renewable energy (and the reduced importance of middle east oil) would sponsor more terrorism is laughable. Jihadists have been attacking pipelines, refineries and other petroleum industry-related infrastructure for decades now. This indicates that jihadists care more to disrupt Western nations, not preserve their petrosociety as a means of asserting political position in global affairs. I mean really now, whats the jihadists motivation to bomb a pipeline? To stop the Middle East from selling oil and *gasp* prevent running out of oil to sell? Jihadists are attacking the very means of their own economic survival. There is NO correlation between the two. Yes, you could see more terrorism, but that would be a product of a healthier Western economy, not worse Middle Eastern socioeconopolitical standing.

 

 

Russia is also one of the worlds biggest producers of timber and iron ore. In fact, I think Russia has something like 20% of the world's deposits of iron ore. They are also rich in diamonds and other minerals and metals. Their raw other products are also growing in short supply at a global scale giving them plenty of opportunity to extract value from their existing alternative resources.

 

 

And thats just off the top of my head. Nevermind that the author goes on to suggest a 15 year timeframe is adequate for transition... and that the Bush plan is a 18 year plan. Or that Russian and Middle Eastern countries are heavily investing in alternate industries (read: Dubai, Russian nano tech in the article itself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur,

 

The original poster is looking for ideas. Why don't we give him some ideas, as a springboard for research?

 

I get the fact that you think you're smarter than everyone else on this site (which is impossible, because I'm smarter than everyone else on this site. :) ) I get the fact that you fancy yourself an economist. But you realize, don't you, that a lot of the arguments you advocate simply aren't good debate arguments? They might be true, but they are too time-consuming for many rounds. I mean, really, are you going to read a card about Russia's petroleum export volumes, and then start doing math on the board? Are you going to read a card saying Russian arms sales don't hurt anyone? (Even though what you'd really need is a card saying increased Russian arms sales won't hurt anyone). And all your arguments are defensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If quality of evidence used to construct arguments is irrelevant in the face of truth, why bother reading evidence in the first place? Why not just make things up? Why not allow devastating internal cuts? There really isnt much of a difference because quality of the warrant is secondary to the claim in such a world.

 

This whole concept of 'offense' is patently offensive to the entire IDEA of argument. I dont believe in it, and quite frankly, as a case debater, I never had any problems winning with 'defense'. I didnt debate so long ago that defense was more palatable back then. Every judge I had told me I needed to run disads (some even gave me poltics files!) but I still won my rounds with sound argumentation. Its a myth that defense cant win rounds. Its reality that so few teams bother to try to win with legitimate analysis that the myth gets perpetuated.

 

If the warrants for the opponent's arguments is indicted as incorrect or insufficient to justify the conclusions, then there is no reason to evaluate it in the round. Judge who do evaluate it are doing a disservice to not only the educational development of students, but to the activity of debate.

 

I wont apologize for my having high ethical standards on arguments.

 

There are better arguments to be had than this crap. If he wants ideas, he can surely ask me for some ideas on what I think are better arguments which are supported by reality instead of delusional fantasy. And I will offer my ideas. But if I think an idea is terrible, I will point it out as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see if you can find THIS evidence:

 

-US funds Alternative Energy programs, scientists create a breakthrough

-Alt Energy use goes up, oil demand goes down

-Oil prices drop, Oil Producing nations like Iran loose revenue

-Iran goes into a depression, radical leaders convince population is it US's fault, US gets nuked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...