Jump to content
Synergy

BEST fed-key aff on the topic

What aff is the best vs the States CP?  

162 members have voted

  1. 1. What aff is the best vs the States CP?

    • OTHER -- I will post to secify
    • climate generic
      0
    • co2 tax or permits
    • enviro justice
    • ethanol tarrifs
    • fuel efficiency
    • hydrogen economy
    • hemp
    • military or airforce fuel efficiency
    • nano
    • natives
    • net metering
    • nuclear power
    • generic oil/transport
    • otec
    • ptc
    • rps
    • space or solar satellites
    • wind
      0
    • waste dumping or landfills
      0


Recommended Posts

  1. military or airforce fuel efficiency 39
  2. space or solar satellites 18
  3. nuclear power 14
  4. ethanol tarrifs 8
  5. natives 6
  6. co2 tax or permits 4
  7. hemp 4
  8. rps 4
  9. other 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the state CP is not meant to be the a+ strat against most cases save when you find that brand spanking new article 5 minutes before the round that kills permutation and no-solvency answers.

 

the state CP is MEANT to defeat stupidly small cases that are topical but depend on absurd/random laws/regulations that normally come from the states themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The states CP can solve most major affs. The solvency deficits aren't that significant when you consider the applicability of the states CP. Sure, specific CPs are better, but states solves a bunch for all of them. Especially for affs that rely on the incentive for advantage solvency. Even the military affs, since the states can at least try to fund the military. The military might not accept, or the Feds might cut the equal amount of funding, but finding ev for that is a bit difficult.

 

 

The first question everyone should ask before writing an aff is "why don't the states solve." In fact, for every advantage. Every internal link. DOn't cut it if there isn't a reason. Technically, it could answer agency CPs, or international CPs, but yeah... whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States counterplans will be as prevalent as on any domestic topic. However, since most affs this year will solve for essentially the same thing - increasing alternative energy production - the neg will usually have better generic counterplans that merely solve and avoid disads. Rather than choosing a different agent, the neg could choose a different energy technology to target, or better yet offer a different incentive for developing it. There is at least as much literature on these as on the states/USFG debate in the context of energy, and it is probably applicable to more cases on the topic.

 

Anyway, to answer the question of the thread, I vote for:

1. Military cases (which comes with T and K problems)

2. Patent cases (which is still rather hypothetical - nobody has shown me literature yet)

3. Some nuclear power cases like Price-Anderson, Yucca, and others that require more than just funding (all of which have Caldicott problems)

4. DC cases (which has solvency problems)

 

Anyway, I don't think states is a big enough threat this year to justify writing a genuine "fed key" aff. You're going to get much better solvency at the federal level this year, and federalism and spending are badly non-unique these days. Politics will likely be the most difficult position to answer, and if that scares you, you have bigger problems to worry about. Just answer the disads, run your own disad against California, and perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rps can only be done by fed (at least unless you do the Lopez CP) bc of the Dormant Commerce Clause, it is unconstitutional for states to do anything with interstate trade which would be necessary for rps to be effective. also, sovacool and cooper write a lot about how the current states programs are inefficient and the only efficient way is a federal rps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The states CP can solve most major affs.

 

How? Considering MOST alternative energy concers are from DC how do the states solve for these issues? They might be able to find ways to solve the impacts (which, btw, someone inform me how Kansas is going to solve global warming).

 

The solvency deficits aren't that significant when you consider the applicability of the states CP. Sure, specific CPs are better, but states solves a bunch for all of them.

 

claim.claim.claim.lack warrant.lack warrant.lack warrant.

 

Solvency deficits are ALWAYS problems (95% of the time they are the reason why teams lose the CP debate).

 

Especially for affs that rely on the incentive for advantage solvency.

 

Good affirmatives won't.

 

Even the military affs, since the states can at least try to fund the military. The military might not accept, or the Feds might cut the equal amount of funding, but finding ev for that is a bit difficult.

 

mistake 1: Lopez/State CP's wont ever solve military affs. I am pretty sure ALL the affirmatives evidence will be specific to military perception not generic perception.

 

mistake 2: not accepting funding is a good way to lose a CP debate.

 

The first question everyone should ask before writing an aff is "why don't the states solve." In fact, for every advantage. Every internal link. DOn't cut it if there isn't a reason. Technically, it could answer agency CPs, or international CPs, but yeah... whatever..

 

wrong! the first questions any debater should ask before writting/running an affirmative is: would other incentives solve this back and if so, does the affirmative have built in offense against other incentives.

 

Affirmatives don't have to defend the alternative energy out of the 1AC, only the incentive.

Edited by T Ferguson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore tom's posts, he has no idea what he is talking about. he hasn't done much research on the topic nor has he debated in a while but still feels like arguing online with high-schoolers just to show everyone how right he is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then fix my mistakes. I beg to differ. I've done a lot of research of this topic.

 

 

people will run states cps on every domestic topic (ive debated 4 of them). but on this topic most states cps won't solve outside of the impact level (Read: they won't get to the internal links).

 

I've yet come across any evidence that indicates: states can solve for Commerce Clause issues (which means hemp is still federal) nor how state reserves would solve for military issues.

 

Steven hits the nail on the head on this one: one of the big CPs on the topic to be ran will be energy tech or diff. incentive all together. you will need to do this research anyways for your states cp to be sorta competitive (the aff is nuke power and says the federal government should give subsidies, the neg is likely to say lopez and give a option between hydro, wind solar and ethanol). Means the affirmative has to read specific turns to all three.

 

The lack between solvency between states and federal will kill most negs on the state CP debate not to mention new fism dis-ads (war on terror anyone? federal regulation on nuclear power is what is key to detering terrorist attacks..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States and politics can easily win a large amount of debates where the aff hasn't thought about it thoroughly.

 

The resolution mandates one must increase incentives. Doing anything else is extratopical. The states can always create the same incentives - yes, always. Other than a handful of cases, that repeal federal laws, i.e. the ones that are maybe-topical or extra topical, or where a united federal government stance is absolutely crucial, the states will solve. Why? Well why not? Money is fungible, and therefore if the state governments give 200 million dollars to private companies to research and create wind farms, it wouldn't be that different from the federal government doing so. The same applies to giving money to NASA or the DoD. Questions of jurisdiction and accepting the funds might be debatable, as are questions of whether federal agencies would use the funds for alternative energy, but they can still provide an incentive.

 

The examples you are thinking of are of course the exception, rather than the rule. Furthermore, trying to avoid the states CP makes you more susceptible to the incentive and energy CPs.

 

wrong! the first questions any debater should ask before writting/running an affirmative is: would other incentives solve this back and if so, does the affirmative have built in offense against other incentives.

 

Affirmatives don't have to defend the alternative energy out of the 1AC, only the incentive.

Partially true. It depends on the case, as the negative could CP to incentivize another energy. Advantages like competitiveness would most likely be solved.

 

mistake 1: Lopez/State CP's wont ever solve military affs. I am pretty sure ALL the affirmatives evidence will be specific to military perception not generic perception.

you're going to have to explain what you mean by "perception."

 

I guess I'll have to concede this - the focus might not be states, but if your aff isn't solved by states, it's solved by one of the other CPs, i.e. energy CPs and incentive CPs. States catalyzes this shift. More potential aff cases are limited by states than by the other two, and a bulk of the literature is mooted by states as well.

 

We can talk about specific affs if you want... that'll probably be more productive.

Give me easy fed key warrants for hydrogen, solar space, solar military, and another military case.

 

The other thing to realize is the vast number of cases people won't read because of space - i.e. OTEC, wind, solar, etc. It makes it hard to defend your incentive and energy, because you have to defend that the fed is key to your incentive & energy too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
States and politics can easily win a large amount of debates where the aff hasn't thought about it thoroughly.

 

no argument.

The resolution mandates one must increase incentives. Doing anything else is extratopical.

 

no argument.

 

The states can always create the same incentives - yes, always. Other than a handful of cases, that repeal federal laws, i.e. the ones that are maybe-topical or extra topical, or where a united federal government stance is absolutely crucial, the states will solve. Why? Well why not? Money is fungible, and therefore if the state governments give 200 million dollars to private companies to research and create wind farms, it wouldn't be that different from the federal government doing so. The same applies to giving money to NASA or the DoD. Questions of jurisdiction and accepting the funds might be debatable, as are questions of whether federal agencies would use the funds for alternative energy, but they can still provide an incentive.

 

there is a liste of issues with this:

 

A) not every incentive is money

B) not every monetary incentive can be given by the states (because Montana has 1.5 billion that they can give out).

C) Federal Perception versus State Perception: this will be the internal on advantages (at least it SHOULD be)

D) the military not accepting money is *gasp* a reason to prefer plan over the cp.

E) Most military cases will be about technology not about money issues.

F) Rainy Day dis-ad anyone? School trade-offs? Maybe..bridge trade-offs? Go on and ask Minnesota if they have enough money to fund a prize grant for whoever can create X.

 

The examples you are thinking of are of course the exception, rather than the rule. Furthermore, trying to avoid the states CP makes you more susceptible to the incentive and energy CPs.

 

You shouldn't build an affirmative that makes you avoid the CP, just an affirmative that gives you excellent offense. That would also mean you would find good evidence on why alt. energy or incentive CPs would be bad (by default of the research base).

 

 

Partially true. It depends on the case, as the negative could CP to incentivize another energy. Advantages like competitiveness would most likely be solved.

 

i agree.

 

you're going to have to explain what you mean by "perception."

 

 

Perception adv - your bread and butter for domestic topics.

 

Military perception would indicate that only policy coming from the DoD would be key because that would give the perception for change. I've never had to explain this specifically, i am sure ankur or steven could do better, but i feel a little lazy on this subject, sorry.

 

 

I guess I'll have to concede this - the focus might not be states, but if your aff isn't solved by states, it's solved by one of the other CPs, i.e. energy CPs and incentive CPs. States catalyzes this shift. More potential aff cases are limited by states than by the other two, and a bulk of the literature is mooted by states as well.

 

this would be perception so ignore above - states would be key to movements. However, i don't find that compelling nor true. Most reasons that energy incentives aren't given out in the squo is from federal policy (once again, best aff on this topic will be ones that will say "removing x law promotes alt. energy").

 

Once again, state CPs will be effective against small cases that don't rely on federal statue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A) not every incentive is money

true, but what would be an incentive states couldn't give out?

 

B) not every monetary incentive can be given by the states (because Montana has 1.5 billion that they can give out).

well collectively, the states can give probably as much as the federal government could.

as a secondary argument, the aff won't specify how much they spend, so we might be able to frame this argument as a 2AC clarification...

 

C) Federal Perception versus State Perception: this will be the internal on advantages (at least it SHOULD be)

 

 

D) the military not accepting money is *gasp* a reason to prefer plan over the cp.

yes, but evidence on this question...?

i don't think it exists, and then a majority of the aff's case be debated over analytic arguments about why they would or wouldn't accept it.

 

E) Most military cases will be about technology not about money issues.

well the internal link is still the incentive, so funding, research, buying equipment, etc. will still be the main isuse.

 

F) Rainy Day dis-ad anyone? School trade-offs? Maybe..bridge trade-offs? Go on and ask Minnesota if they have enough money to fund a prize grant for whoever can create X.

given the block and a fast 1NC, disads could create a strong time trade-off for the neg

also, the disads don't tend to be great to begin with. the literature tends to be small and predictable, compared to federal disads.

 

You shouldn't build an affirmative that makes you avoid the CP, just an affirmative that gives you excellent offense. That would also mean you would find good evidence on why alt. energy or incentive CPs would be bad (by default of the research base).

well there's lots of affs with great offense, but the states can solve perfectly. you shouldn't write an aff if states solve it, i mean. and the warrants for federal government key tend to be very different from the ones about why the incentive or energy is key.

Once again, state CPs will be effective against small cases that don't rely on federal statue.

i haven't seen many cases being restricted by federal statue. Nuclear, ethanol tariff, maybe natives affs, some versions of military/NASA/federal agency affs, but otherwise...

 

this would be perception so ignore above - states would be key to movements. However, i don't find that compelling nor true. Most reasons that energy incentives aren't given out in the squo is from federal policy (once again, best aff on this topic will be ones that will say "removing x law promotes alt. energy").

well i meant that the states CP is what makes incentive/energy CPs very common this year - people will write affs to debate those rather than states. but a lot of "core" advantages rely on the US not acting, i.e. not creating nuclear energy, and in the grand scheme, all the states acting would be the same as the fed doing it for those advantages - such as if a prolif adv for a nuclear energy aff was based on the US having nuclear tech so it can share it, and so it has leadership in terms of tech.

a lot of people will also make the argument that all the states acting simultaneously would be perceived by other nations and organizations in the same way the federal government would be perceived.

 

Military perception would indicate that only policy coming from the DoD would be key because that would give the perception for change. I've never had to explain this specifically, i am sure ankur or steven could do better, but i feel a little lazy on this subject, sorry.

Why would military perception be key to the advantages. These advantages would have to not be based on replacing fuels, etc. in the military, or else the states could provide private companies or the military incentives to create the tech. and why is the military or federal government controlling that incentive key?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...