Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
crypticace

T Questions Regarding NRG rez

Recommended Posts

Okay, considering the resolution for this year:

 

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

two considerations that come to my mind are:

1) Should the incentives be aimed at the creation of alternative energy resources, or should the incentives me aimed at individuals to use those resources? Is either option viable, or is there an intended focus on companies/communities?

 

2) What is the general opinion of the debate community with regards to the area the plan must affect? Certainly the issue of individual states/all the states will arise...Which is the legitimate interpretation?

 

I'd just like to know what everyone is thinking.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your first question, I don't think there's any clear indication for either. I'd say the latter seems more reasonable but I think you could get away with a solid interp for either, although creating new alternative energies would probably be less predictable. On this note, I think there's a strong case to be made that negative incentives (like a gas tax) are just as topical as positive incentives (like subsidizing wind power or something).

 

 

For your second question, I'm pretty sure you technically have to affect all fifty states, but for an aff like wind power that's not viable everywhere due to geographical limitations, you probably won't be in trouble. I don't think we're going to see single-state affs this year like we saw single-country affs last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Should the incentives be aimed at the creation of alternative energy resources, or should the incentives me aimed at individuals to use those resources? Is either option viable, or is there an intended focus on companies/communities?

 

My opinion? Both. Either option here will be topical. Without the resolution specifying beyond "alternative energy incentives", it will be up to the Negative to come up with a solid reason why excluding one of these would be desirable.

 

Although, to be honest, this could very well change from region to region, tournement to tournement, and from the start of the year to the end.

 

Your best bet here is to prepare for both, and see which direction camps take it. I think it will be both.

 

With all that said, it all comes down to what the Aff can win on. If the Aff wins that "incentive to produce" is topical, then it's topical. If the Aff wins that "incentive to use" is topical, then it's topical.

 

Not a very convincing T argument for the Neg to make when it comes to the standards debate. I see no reason why either interp is better/worse than the other.

 

What is the general opinion of the debate community with regards to the area the plan must affect? Certainly the issue of individual states/all the states will arise...Which is the legitimate interpretation?

 

I'd just like to know what everyone is thinking.

 

There's that oh so wonderful "in means throughout" definition that forces the Aff to defend incentives to the entire United States. Expect to see this run against Aff's that specify a subset of the United States, such as the Tribes Aff (only on Indian Reservations).

 

I'm always a fan of limiting out plans that are location-specific. Forcing the Aff to defend the entire United States just seems more fair to me.

 

See this thread for additional information. http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=984492

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's going to be more of a T-issue is CAC versus market-based plans, because it is the mechanism through which virtually ever plan functions.

 

Also, quid pro quo (which is a BS argument) is also possible, regarding the sequence of the plan.

 

 

2) What is the general opinion of the debate community with regards to the area the plan must affect? Certainly the issue of individual states/all the states will arise...Which is the legitimate interpretation?

 

In all 10 or 12 camp rounds/practice rounds I've been in so far, the states matter hasn't been disputed much (except under the context of States CP solvency). There probably is no "right" interp for this one - it will have to be debated.

 

1) Should the incentives be aimed at the creation of alternative energy resources, or should the incentives me aimed at individuals to use those resources? Is either option viable, or is there an intended focus on companies/communities?

 

I think either interp is viable - it can be aimed at transportation means (which is aimed at individuals), or pollution/carbon-emission-reducing alternative sources of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...