Jump to content
KarlLikeMarx

Novice Affs on the Oceans Topic

Recommended Posts

So this summer I need to help some people who won't be able to go to camp. I know I could just wait for all the camp files to come out, but I don't want to lose any valuable time this summer. Does anyone have any ideas for a decently solid novice aff that could be used to help novices get better this summer before all the camp files are released and more interesting affs are uploaded to the wiki? Any help would be greatly appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore drilling really is the obvious traditional policy case.

 

Other plausible candidates might include sustainable fishing regulations, aquaculture, and artificial reefs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore drilling really is the obvious traditional policy case.

 

Other plausible candidates might include sustainable fishing regulations, aquaculture, and artificial reefs.

How is that even remotely topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore drilling really is the obvious traditional policy case.

 

Other plausible candidates might include sustainable fishing regulations, aquaculture, and artificial reefs.

 

See, I looked into artificial reef literature, and everything I'm finding says that they're not the best things in the world to replace coral reefs, there's not enough sound science to prove they have any net benefit and that they actually could hurt the environment more (Osborne Reef). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I looked into artificial reef literature, and everything I'm finding says that they're not the best things in the world to replace coral reefs, there's not enough sound science to prove they have any net benefit and that they actually could hurt the environment more (Osborne Reef). 

 

You don't usually place artificial reefs where there are coral reefs.  The subway cars sunk off Manhattan, for example.  But yes, there's going to be case neg for all of these...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that not development?

Is the AFF to just pass regulations?  Because if that's what it is you aren't really doing anything with the oceans just limiting how civilians can interact with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the AFF to just pass regulations?  Because if that's what it is you aren't really doing anything with the oceans just limiting how civilians can interact with them.

 

You're letting fish populations recover, which is developing the oceans and restoring fishing yields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're letting fish populations recover, which is developing the oceans and restoring fishing yields.

How is letting fish populations recover development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is letting fish populations recover development?

 

... you're trolling, right?

 

Development from World Dictionary (via www.dictionary.com)

1. the act or process of growing, progressing, or developing 2. the product or result of developing 3. a fact, event, or happening, esp one that changes a situation

...

 

Develop from Random House (via www.dictionary.com)

1.
to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2.
to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... you're trolling, right?

 

Development from World Dictionary (via www.dictionary.com)

1. the act or process of growing, progressing, or developing 2. the product or result of developing 3. a fact, event, or happening, esp one that changes a situation

...

 

Develop from Random House (via www.dictionary.com)

1.
to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2.
to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.

...

 

Would fishing regulations be FXT? Because it seems like the effects of the plan are topical, but not the action taken by the plan to achieve the advantages. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would fishing regulations be FXT? Because it seems like the effects of the plan are topical, but not the action taken by the plan to achieve the advantages. 

Ya I think it usually would be but the way development is defined it isn't.  Especially with #1 from random house, the way development is defined as something that can cause change, so FX is still development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would fishing regulations be FXT? Because it seems like the effects of the plan are topical, but not the action taken by the plan to achieve the advantages. 

 

There's always some FX involved in any plan, because plan just decides a court case or signs a bill (or etc...).  The actual bill provisions are effects of that.  The direct intention of such regulations is specifically to improve fish stocks, that should be good enough.  If that violates FX T, every plan violates FX T, because every plan is just regulations on face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its effects. It would be topical under those definitions if the plan was building a habitat or similar but plan in a vacuum proves that the mandated action is solely passing new regulations; which is not topical under reasonable definitions of development. As mentioned previously, building a habitat is a more topical way to achieve the same thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its effects. It would be topical under those definitions if the plan was building a habitat or similar but plan in a vacuum proves that the mandated action is solely passing new regulations; which is not topical under reasonable definitions of development. As mentioned previously, building a habitat is a more topical way to achieve the same thing.

 

Plan: 'Build a habitat' is actually 'Congress passes a law funding the building of a habitat'.  That's the plan in a vacuum.  We fiat government process, not the actual building.  That the habitat gets built (ie, enforcement) is a matter of solvency - a solvency attack 'habitat will use substandard materials and collapse' is totally legit.  So the actual building of the habitat is an effect of plan.

 

Similarly, plan: 'Pass sustainable fishing regulations' is also just congressional action.  That regulations lead to reduced fishing pressure and recovery of fish populations is a matter of solvency (enforcement of regulations), which can be challenged.  (Coast guard understaffed, fishermen will ignore the regulations, etc...).

 

The topical effect is directly connected to the plan in a vacuum.  It is the immediate and obvious intention of the congressional legislation, but ACTUAL DOING is not what can be fiated, and therefore not what plan immediately does.  Both plans above have 'ocean development' as the immediate and obvious intention.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan: 'Build a habitat' is actually 'Congress passes a law funding the building of a habitat'.  That's the plan in a vacuum.  We fiat government process, not the actual building.  That the habitat gets built (ie, enforcement) is a matter of solvency - a solvency attack 'habitat will use substandard materials and collapse' is totally legit.  So the actual building of the habitat is an effect of plan.

 

Similarly, plan: 'Pass sustainable fishing regulations' is also just congressional action.  That regulations lead to reduced fishing pressure and recovery of fish populations is a matter of solvency (enforcement of regulations), which can be challenged.  (Coast guard understaffed, fishermen will ignore the regulations, etc...).

 

The topical effect is directly connected to the plan in a vacuum.  It is the immediate and obvious intention of the congressional legislation, but ACTUAL DOING is not what can be fiated, and therefore not what plan immediately does.  Both plans above have 'ocean development' as the immediate and obvious intention.

 

Edited for clarity.

The thing is by roleplaying as Congress we are authorizing an act of development. The end all be all is in itself the development as far as what is being mandated. What is being mandated in the situation described above is a change in regulations and not an actual act of development. Something to keep in mind is also that development usually implies and entails creation, whether of roads or fish habitats. The regulation calls for the opposite; the lack of say infrastructure development to protect marine life. It stifles conventional (and more than likely topical) development to increase the number of fish or whatever in an area.

 

Edit: To clarify, we as Congress authorize an act of development by passing the fish habitat plan.

On the other hand, when we as Congress authorize a change in regulations, that plan is not development--it/we are not authorizing an act of development.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard some one mention the idea of exploring the Mariana trench also *cough SPACE ELEVATORS 2014 cough*, but honestly I also heard or iron fertilization of the ocean. You could write Seasteading as well. I don't see the difference between a novice aff and a varsity aff besides size so...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is by roleplaying as Congress we are authorizing an act of development. The end all be all is in itself the development as far as what is being mandated. What is being mandated in the situation described above is a change in regulations and not an actual act of development. Something to keep in mind is also that development usually implies and entails creation, whether of roads or fish habitats. The regulation calls for the opposite; the lack of say infrastructure development to protect marine life. It stifles conventional (and more than likely topical) development to increase the number of fish or whatever in an area.

 

Edit: To clarify, we as Congress authorize an act of development by passing the fish habitat plan.

On the other hand, when we as Congress authorize a change in regulations, that plan is not development--it/we are not authorizing an act of development.

 

Everything is a change in regulations.  At the level policy debate operates, there's nothing but regulations.  How do they get someone to build a fish habitat?  Create regulations which specify how to choose a constractor, how to fund it, where to build it, and so on.  It's still all regulations that instruct other parts of government on how to act.

 

Sustainable fishing does mandate an act of development.  It mandates developing fish populations.  Yes, they increase naturally if we stop overfishing, its still development.

 

Similarly, much (local) development legislation removes legal barriers to construction - ie, changing zoning laws and the like.  The government doesn't mandate the construction of industry or anything, but it does make it possible. (And this is considered development).

 

Also, sustainable fishing regulations straight up meets the definition I supplied before: "to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent."

 

Meets on-face.  Sustainable fishing brings out the capabilities (and possibilities) of the environment.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress doesn't 'create a regulation to hire a contractor'. Regulation as argued above is a restriction so what you describe is a false equivalency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress doesn't 'create a regulation to hire a contractor'. Regulation as argued above is a restriction so what you describe is a false equivalency.

 

Congress directs the appropriate federal agency to hire personnel or contractors governed by limits (regulations) stipulated in the bill.  Not a false equivalency at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different things:

"Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations that bind many parties"

Wikipedia

 

Cambridge defines government regulations as

a law that controls the way that a business can operate

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/government-regulation

 

While you could twist that to mean what I described as topical, it's not within the intent of the definition at all.

 

The kind if regulations that you defend as topical are simply separate from the kinds of actions that I proposed. One involves a contractual obligation to carry out an action and the other is a new law being put into place to prevent the possibility of an action from occurring.

 

What you describe is the process of making the mandate come true, not what that mandate actually is. The government is mandating an act of development regardless of how its carried out. On the other hand, fishing regulations involve mandating a change in the rules regardless of the specific process of how that is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...