Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aff

Questions

Recommended Posts

What does "Fiat" mean and how can you use that in a debate round? What about "Try or Die"?

Whats the best way of answering the spending DA?

It is a good idea to have a global warming impact? and if so how do you answer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "Fiat" mean and how can you use that in a debate round?

Fiat is the concept that says we should focus on the effects of the proposed policy option (counterplans and aff plans) rather than whether or not it COULD be accomplished. This is to avoid negative arguments like 'Obama would never sign that bill in an election year - this means 0 solvency'. It is a derivative of the word 'should' in each years resolution. It doesnt come up very often.

What about "Try or Die"?

Try or die is the argument that says "we have to do the plan even if it might not work, we'll all die without it so we have to atleast TRY. You use this to answer the defense that the other team puts on your case like say "Takes too long - radiation kills astronauts".

Whats the best way of answering the spending DA?

There are a few avenues to get offense on the spending DA

1. Non-Unique + Link Turn (this is the one I use)

Currently spending is through the roof, but the plan would force internal budget tradeoffs that reinforces the fiscal attitude and leads to MORE spending cuts.

 

2. Internal Link Turn - Spending Good (this is the one everyone, except Ron Paul, uses)

This is based off the theory of Keynesian Economics, that additional spending stimulates the economy. As opposed to Austrian economics that says that additional spending contracts the economy. Both have their warrants, this leads to a good economics debate, but you have to know your stuff on these two schools of thought before you engage another team on this issue. Spending probably does indeed create jobs, but spending also reduces investor confidence (like with the moody's downgrade of our credit rating) and accumulates our debt which hurts the buying power of the dollar and our credibility abroad.

 

3. Impact Turn - Dedev

Economic collapse good!

 

4. Combine these with defense on the rest of the DA if you want to, stuff like spending inevitable is probably true, along with economic collapse inevitable, etc.

It is a good idea to have a global warming impact? and if so how do you answer it?

 

It depends how you access the impact, I'm kind of iffy about warming as an impact because there are so many ways to answer it and so many things contribute to carbon emissions and to warming itself. It also has a very long timeframe impact, but it is probable and does have significant magnitude.

Heres my block to warming, it has both defense and offense.

 

 

Negative Feedback

Idso Idso Idso 3

[sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 42] 10/15/03

In light of these observations, plus the fact that Saxe et al. (1998) have determined that a doubling of the air's CO2 content leads to more than a doubling of the biomass production of coniferous species, it logically follows that the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is increasing carbon sequestration rates in the soils upon which conifers grow and, hence, is producing a significant negative feedback phenomenon that slows the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, which would be assumed by many to be reducing the rate of global warming.

 

And, adaptation sovles the impact – empirically proven

 

Michaels ‘7

(Patrick, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental Sciences @ UVA, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Global Warming: No Urgent Danger; No Quick Fixâ€, 8-21, http://cato.org/pub_...php?pub_id=8651)

 

We certainly adapted to 0.8 C temperature change quite well in the 20th century, as life expectancy doubled and some crop yields quintupled. And who knows what new and miraculously efficient power sources will develop in the next hundred years. The stories about the ocean rising 20 feet as massive amounts of ice slide off of Greenland by 2100 are also fiction. For the entire half century from 1915 through 1965, Greenland was significantly warmer than it has been for the last decade. There was no disaster. More important, there's a large body of evidence that for much of the period from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, at least the Eurasian Arctic was 2.5 C to 7 C warmer than now in the summer, when ice melts. Greenland's ice didn't disappear then, either. Then there is the topic of interest this time of year — hurricanes. Will hurricanes become stronger or more frequent because of warming? My own work suggests that late in the 21st century there might be an increase in strong storms, but that it will be very hard to detect because of year-to-year variability. Right now, after accounting for increasing coastal population and property values, there is no increase in damages caused by these killers. The biggest of them all was the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. If it occurred today, it would easily cause twice as much damage as 2005's vaunted Hurricane Katrina. So let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emissions cuts cause massive fast warming spikes and makes warming worse in the long run – SO2

creates a cooling effect that cancels out warming.

Pearce 4 [Fred, New Scientist, Jul 24, “Harbinger of Doom?†Lexis]

As well as pumping gases into the atmosphere, we are also filling it with huge volumes of microscopic particles, mostly from burning forests, crop waste and fossil fuels. Depending on their characteristics, these aerosols can scatter or absorb solar radiation and may influence the formation, colour and reflectivity of clouds. The precise nature of their involvement in global temperature has been hotly disputed for a decade. But most researchers now believe that the dominant effect of these aerosols is to suppress warming by shading the planet. "We are dealing with a coiled spring, with temperatures being held back by aerosols," says Solomon. "If you shut off aerosols, temperatures would increase rapidly, but we don't yet know exactly how coiled the spring is." The best guess until recently was that this "parasol effect" was holding back a quarter of the warming so far, or about 0.2 degreesC. But critics say this calculation is little more than a guess. The first efforts at directly measuring the parasol effect suggest the spring may be much more tightly coiled. In an assessment last year, Nobel prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen argued that aerosols could be disguising between half and three-quarters of present warming . That suggests the coiled spring is already holding back warming of anything up to 2 degreesC. "The two major pollutants have been almost cancelling each other out," says Cox. This is doubly bad news. First because it shows that cleaning up aerosols would release a burst of warming. But secondly, it suggests that the climate system is much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we thought. Crutzen's estimate would put the true warming effect of doubling CO2 at between 7 and 10 degreesC, which Murphy's graph predicts, albeit at a low probability.

 

CO2 reduction always cause SO2 reduction – the effect is a short-term warming spike.

Cowen ’94 [Robert, CSM Staff Writer, Sep 14, “Scientists question global warming theory,†Lexis]

These aerosol particles scatter incoming sunshine, sending some of it right back into space. That's a direct cooling effect. The particles also have an indirect influence through their effect on clouds. Cloud drops form on them. This tends to produce clouds with many more small droplets than they would have naturally. This adds to the clouds' reflectivity, again sending sunshine back into space. Also, it tends to suppress drizzle so the clouds persist. There's more to the effect on clouds than this. Scientists don't fully understand it. Charlson calls it ''a devilish kind of problem'' because it is so complicated and subtle. He notes, for example, that suppressing precipitation could change the atmosphere's water-vapor balance with unknown climatic consequences. All of this adds up to what Charlson calls ''a more sober'' view of what is involved in climate change. It also leaves policymakers with new uncertainties. Measures to curb CO2 pollution may still be justified in terms of energy conservation. But there is little scientific basis for believing that they will prevent undesirable climate change even if they do restrict future greenhouse warming. For example, cutting back on power-plant emissions to control acid rain and CO2 pollution may have an unintended counter-productive effect. Sulfate aerosols don't last long in the atmosphere. Cut back their production and their cooling influence would quickly diminish. If they have been masking greenhouse warming in some areas, ''there's a possibility of getting a warming spurt,'' Dr. Kiehl says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiat essentially means that the aff should get to imagine that their plan passes, and that the neg should be able to imagine that their counterplan passes. It also means that both the plan and arguably the counterplan should be able to ignore real-world barriers to a degree (i.e. lack of funding, political infighting, etc) so the neg doesn't get to just get up there and say "the USfg would never do the plan" and win every round. Aff fiat is definitely good (except in the context of K authors like Kappeler and Baudrillard), neg fiat is probably good (neg fiat bad theory does exist and you can win on it). What exactly the aff/neg get to fiat past is debatable (should the neg be able to fiat past things like "the ESA has no money to do anything"?) but that's what it is.

 

Try-or-die is a stupid catchphrase that doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it for a while. It basically means that there's a high risk of one impact and a low risk of another. It can also be used in conjunction with arguments that the case solves the disad (i.e. BMD solves Russia war, so it's try-or-die because doing the af solves both the disad and case) or vice-versa.

 

Spending DA 2AC block depends on your aff and how courageous you want to be. I'm the type who tends to just read impact defense and dedev, because I'm a boss like that. (Also because few teams on my circuit are prepped for that strategy because nobody expects anyone else to be courageous enough to do it.) If your aff has awesome internals to the economy, though, you could straight turn it. Or if you feel like the other team might really want to go for it, throw out a bunch of answers on each level (non-uq, no link, link turn, no impact) and play it defensive. That strategy would allow you to go for the straight turn in the 1AR if they don't do good enough work on the uniqueness and link levels because that means it's just one less part of the disad the 1AR has to try to cover.

 

Read a global warming impact if the internal links actually make sense. It's easier to defend than you might think, all the warming good authors are definitely paid off/not peer reviewed (lol NIPCC lol) and some of those cards are just bad. Sure, they'll answer with not real and not anthropogenic, but choose either Braganza or Rahmstorf and you'll be fine, they're really good and detailed cards that assume and answer almost every argument on the real and anthropogenic debate that you'll see all season (Braganza is slightly longer but, in my opinion, a lot better.) Diebel 7 is the best impact to warming I've seen all year because it sets you up with internal links to a laundry list of impacts that are hard to impact turn.

 

I answer warming impacts with impact defense and warming good usually, the ice age turn isn't as bad as every other turn I've seen so far. SO2 (SO3?) is also pretty sweet. Usually you see those impacts being read on the aff though, so I just pick a CP that solves it or a DA that turns it.

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...