Jump to content
KarlLikeMarx

Novice Affs on the Oceans Topic

Recommended Posts

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.

 

As much fun as it might be to continue this debate, I'll only point out that you've pretty much conceded its the same number of steps either way, and thus there's no FX issue.  (Your objection to regulations which limit activity rather than mandate activity is a wholly separate objection, and I'm not sure it has a basis in any topicality violation.  Certainly not what FX T is meant to address).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than resolving Squirreloid's debate, I'd point out that the two biggest "real" T fights next year will probably be the one above (do environmental regulations count as "development?") and T-Its excluding laws to facilitate private development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much fun as it might be to continue this debate, I'll only point out that you've pretty much conceded its the same number of steps either way, and thus there's no FX issue.  (Your objection to regulations which limit activity rather than mandate activity is a wholly separate objection, and I'm not sure it has a basis in any topicality violation.  Certainly not what FX T is meant to address).

Going through the same steps or the same number of steps is not going to make the aff topical. I do conceede they both go through congress and deal with the appropriation of funds or the like to carry out enforcement. What I argue is that the mandate on its face is what determines the topicality of a plan. I've already enumerated what the differences in mandated action is so let me demonstrate how its not the process but the mandated action by switching topics for a second.

 

On the LA resolution let's take two separate plans:

Sign a free trade agreement with Mexico

 

And

 

Cut off all trade with mexico

 

Both of these plans would go through roughly the same process but the process they go through is not the measuring stick. Instead, we evaluate the action being mandated.

 

Again, there is a difference between mandating a regulation which then leads to the development of a fish population and some other action such as an act of water based infrastructure development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through the same steps or the same number of steps is not going to make the aff topical. I do conceede they both go through congress and deal with the appropriation of funds or the like to carry out enforcement. What I argue is that the mandate on its face is what determines the topicality of a plan. I've already enumerated what the differences in mandated action is so let me demonstrate how its not the process but the mandated action by switching topics for a second.

 

On the LA resolution let's take two separate plans:

Sign a free trade agreement with Mexico

 

And

 

Cut off all trade with mexico

 

Both of these plans would go through roughly the same process but the process they go through is not the measuring stick. Instead, we evaluate the action being mandated.

 

Again, there is a difference between mandating a regulation which then leads to the development of a fish population and some other action such as an act of water based infrastructure development.

You initially said that it was an FX T violation.  The above is not FX T!  FX T is all about number of steps between topical action and plan.  Some FX is inevitable, because we fiat laws not solvency, but its once you get beyond those minimal number of steps that plans become FX violations.  (Or rather, I'd argue there's an intentionality brightline too, which the sustainable fishing regs plan also meets).

 

Anyway, for FX T, process is entirely the measuring stick.

 

We excluded 'cut all trade with Mexico' because it violated 'increase'.  But its not because its a negative mandate rather than a positive mandate, its because cutting trade is, by definition, the opposite of EE.

 

So if 'sustainable fishing regulations' are development (which the definitions i've supplied suggests is a reasonable interpretation), then there's no corresponding violation of increase, and its a bad analogy.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You initially said that it was an FX T violation.  The above is not FX T!  FX T is all about number of steps between topical action and plan.  Some FX is inevitable, because we fiat laws not solvency, but its once you get beyond those minimal number of steps that plans become FX violations.  (Or rather, I'd argue its there's an intentionality brightline too, which the sustainable fishing regs plan also meets).

 

Anyway, for FX T, process is entirely the measuring stick.

 

We excluded 'cut all trade with Mexico' because it violated 'increase'.  But its not because its a negative mandate rather than a positive mandate, its because cutting trade is, by definition, the opposite of EE.

 

So if 'sustainable fishing regulations' are development (which the definitions i've supplied suggests is a reasonable interpretation), then there's no corresponding violation of increase, and its a bad analogy.

Okay:

Do you agree that FX T is when the plan itself is not topical but it leads to a topical effect?

 

It's not about the process insofar as it's "well, they both are Congress legislating something..."

It's also not: okay, there are 4 steps instead of 5, it's FX T.

 

I'll reword it again. Let's look at what the world would look like "after" fiat*

With fishing regulations we see this: There is a new regulation in place preventing X. This leads to an increase in the fish population. Notice how the action itself, the mandate of the plan, is the regulation itself. 

 

As opposed to some other plan. Either a habitat being build, or maybe a water highway to Atlantis. It really doesn't matter.

Now what this world sees is: There is now a(n) X being built, aka development of the ocean (in this case infrastructure). They both go through congress, but the plan text, the mandates of the plan and therefore what we must judge T on are completely different.

 

There is a clear difference.

 

*Yeah, pre/post fiat etc. are widely regarded as not a thing. It's for phrasing purposes, deal with it.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation/mandate: sustainable fishing laws.

Consequence: More fish = development

 

Regulation/mandate: agency K will hire a contractor to build X

Consequence: development

 

Both are equally connected to the resolution.  I mean, the first could easily be reworded as 'establish a sustainable fishing policy'.  Oh look, we're creating something now - a sustainable fishing policy!  The verbal semantic debate is pointless - the obvious intention and immediate effect of plan is an increase in development.

 

That the regulation works is a matter of solvency.  Does the sustainable fishing laws actually lead to an increase in fish? Matter of solvency.  Does instructing part of the government to hire a contractor to build whatever actually result in X being built?  Matter of solvency.  Just as connected to plan fiat/mandate.

 

FX T is supposed to handle cases where the topical effect of plan is not the primary and obvious intention, but an afterthought.  That's clearly not the case in sustainable fishing laws, where 'development' is the immediate concern.

 

(And while we've only focused on the technical aspects of this debate, I will note that there's no way you're winning the ground, limits, or predictability arguments on sustainable fishing.  The plan idea is mentioned by name on at least one state debate program webpage (http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/Debate/DebateTopic.cfm),  and overfishing is mentioned explicitly in the topic paper).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Its got pretty solid internal links into warming, which for novices is more intuitive than nuclear war causing extinction. There's also some decent literature on its potential for desalination, which could set up a water shortages advantage

 

Hydrothermal Vent Mining - similar concept; Oceanic iron fertilization; and oil/gas exploration are common cases

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation/mandate: sustainable fishing laws.

Consequence: More fish = development

 

Regulation/mandate: agency K will hire a contractor to build X

Incorrect. That is how the mandate of "build x" is carried out, not what the plan text is concerned with.

Consequence: development

 

FX T is supposed to handle cases where the topical effect of plan is not the primary and obvious intention, but an afterthought.  That's clearly not the case in sustainable fishing laws, where 'development' is the immediate concern.

Sure.

 

(And while we've only focused on the technical aspects of this debate, I will note that there's no way you're winning the ground, limits, or predictability arguments on sustainable fishing.  The plan idea is mentioned by name on at least one state debate program webpage (http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/Debate/DebateTopic.cfm),  and overfishing is mentioned explicitly in the topic paper).

Sure.

I don't care about the second two aspects, I'm not going to debating this topic. All I'm out to argue is the extent of what constitutes FX T as far as direct or indirect action; how it is defined procedurally. In which case, it still seems apparent that regulations is indirect and thus still FX T, whether or not that's a voting issue for the judge on the grounds of in round abuse.

 

You're conflating the question of "what?" with the question of "how?" to suit your purposes. In the case I've been defending the "what" is an act of inf. dev. The how could be considered an act of regulation, although a different form since it's a contractual thing. In the case of fishing regulations, the "what" is the regulation itself, not the increase in fish populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the second two aspects, I'm not going to debating this topic. All I'm out to argue is the extent of what constitutes FX T as far as direct or indirect action; how it is defined procedurally. In which case, it still seems apparent that regulations is indirect and thus still FX T, whether or not that's a voting issue for the judge on the grounds of in round abuse.

 

You're conflating the question of "what?" with the question of "how?" to suit your purposes. In the case I've been defending the "what" is an act of inf. dev. The how could be considered an act of regulation, although a different form since it's a contractual thing. In the case of fishing regulations, the "what" is the regulation itself, not the increase in fish populations.

 

And the what in the 'Build X' is also the regulation itself.  Congress doesn't build anything.  They instruct other people on what should be built and how it should be built.  The what that gets passed is regulations which specify what should and should not be built with the funds allocated, and how it should or should not be done.

 

So when you say: "Incorrect. That is how the mandate of "build x" is carried out, not what the plan text is concerned with.", that's wholly inaccurate.  The Act of Congress is what Plan is concerned about.  When we roleplay as Congress, we roleplay at passing laws.  Someone else is going to (hypothetically) do the building, we only get to specify how.  How is the entire purpose of the Plan text, and legislation in general.  That's even what the word "Plan" literally means.  Plan Text is not and should not be a goal, it should be a specific way to achieve a goal.

 

To put it another way, Plan: Build a habitat is equivalent to Plan: Increase fish populations.  It seriously is.  Congress does neither of those directly.  It passes legislation intended to cause those things to happen.  The fact that one involves human agency at every step and the other doesn't is totally irrelevant to the question of FX T.

 

The immediate intended effect of proposed acts of Congress (Plans) is what we need to look at to assess FX T.  And the immediate intended effect of sustainable fishing regulations is increased fish populations.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trollanator, how many K affs are topical nowadays ;P? I mean, of all the problems with sustainable fishing regulations, I doubt that this is the most prominent one. The only strong point about it is that no one really writes about fishing regulations being bad, but it's also going to be EXTREMELY susceptible to advantage or actor CP's. Honestly, who writes about the US being key for fishing regulations? 

 

Edit: And it is development of the ocean because it slows rates of loss of fish, but if anything, that's DECREASING development, but then we get into dumb topicality grammar st00f and I don't like that so I no explain kthxbai. 

Edited by TimeCube4Lyfe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the what in the 'Build X' is also the regulation itself.  Congress doesn't build anything.  They instruct other people on what should be built and how it should be built.  The what that gets passed is regulations which specify what should and should not be built with the funds allocated, and how it should or should not be done.

 

So when you say: "Incorrect. That is how the mandate of "build x" is carried out, not what the plan text is concerned with.", that's wholly inaccurate.  The Act of Congress is what Plan is concerned about.  When we roleplay as Congress, we roleplay at passing laws.  Someone else is going to (hypothetically) do the building, we only get to specify how.  How is the entire purpose of the Plan text, and legislation in general.  That's even what the word "Plan" literally means.  Plan Text is not and should not be a goal, it should be a specific way to achieve a goal.

 

To put it another way, Plan: Build a habitat is equivalent to Plan: Increase fish populations.  It seriously is.  Congress does neither of those directly.  It passes legislation intended to cause those things to happen.  The fact that one involves human agency at every step and the other doesn't is totally irrelevant to the question of FX T.

 

The immediate intended effect of proposed acts of Congress (Plans) is what we need to look at to assess FX T.  And the immediate intended effect of sustainable fishing regulations is increased fish populations.

The immediate effect of a plan to pass fishing regulations is that the regulation gets passed. The immediate effect of passing a plan to build something is that that something gets built. 

 

Whether or not the fish populations will increase is a matter of solvency--will people comply with the new law? The effect is not guaranteed through fiat. If the action is only topical if the fish populations actually increase (an effect of the plan), ergo; if the plan has to use solvency to cause a topical action, then it can not be considered topical since the plan alone isn't an increase in the fish populations. The plan could lead to an an increase in the fish populations, but this doesn't make it topical. The plan is not mandating an increase in the fish populations at all and so can only be FX T. For instance, what if I win that the new regulation wouldn't actually cause an increase in the fish population? If your interp is that, then you've lost not just solvency but you also lose a claim to being topical by extension since there is no development of the fish population. If losing on solvency means you lose on topicality by default then you can only be FX T.

 

On the other hand, fiat means that if a plan is to build something than that something is built. While fish populations are still not guaranteed, it's irrelevant since the act of building it is in itself development. Plan, build a habitat is not equivalent, since the building of the habitat itself is what constitutes the act of development, and not the increase in fish population. Even if I lose on solvency, because the habitat is being built regardless of whether or not that solves anything I am still topical.

 

It doesn't matter who physically builds the habitat since that is simply a matter of fiat. When we take fiat into account and look at the instantaneous aftermath of passing the plan the outcomes are wholly different. The instant after the plan is passed we have a new regulation. We do not instantly have an increase in the fish populations.

 

Relying on intent opens up huge cans of worms. A plan text could be written that is blatantly not topical, but if the intent is to cause an action that is topical you've blown open the topic no matter the wording. It is a more stable, predictable, and fair standard to weigh it not based on intent (even if it's only 1 degree of separation) but based solely on the mandate of the plan text itself; what you see with fiat alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can send you a few things, if you want. I have a pretty good aquacultures backfile as well as artificial reefs. PM Me, anyone

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get involved in this heated FX T debate, but I think ratifying the Law of the Sea might be a big aff next year.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The immediate effect of a plan to pass fishing regulations is that the regulation gets passed. The immediate effect of passing a plan to build something is that that something gets built.

Sigh, no its not. The immediate effect of passing a plan to build something is that a person or people (or a company, or whatever) get contracted to do the building. That the thing actually gets built is a matter of solvency.

 

Take the example of the space elevator plan. "Plan: Build a space elevator in the tropical pacific" is a legitimately topical plan, but that it actually results in a space elevator being built is a matter of solvency. If the negative successfully argues that the materials necessary do not exist, and aren't likely to exist in the future, nothing actually gets built. You can't fiat that the building is successful!

 

Similarly, on the LA topic, "Plan: Provide foreign aid for VZ Oil infrastructure" has the immediate effect of offering money to Venezuela for oil infrastructure. If Maduro says no, no money actually gets spent on oil infrastructure. If the negative successfully argues that corruption in Venezuela means the money gets taken, none of the money is ever spent on oil infrastructure. That money changes hands, and that oil infrastructure actually improves, are matters of solvency.

 

Whether or not the fish populations will increase is a matter of solvency--will people comply with the new law? The effect is not guaranteed through fiat. If the action is only topical if the fish populations actually increase (an effect of the plan), ergo; if the plan has to use solvency to cause a topical action, then it can not be considered topical since the plan alone isn't an increase in the fish populations. The plan could lead to an an increase in the fish populations, but this doesn't make it topical. The plan is not mandating an increase in the fish populations at all and so can only be FX T. For instance, what if I win that the new regulation wouldn't actually cause an increase in the fish population? If your interp is that, then you've lost not just solvency but you also lose a claim to being topical by extension since there is no development of the fish population. If losing on solvency means you lose on topicality by default then you can only be FX T.

And if passing a plan to build something, there's no guarantee it actually gets built. If its something mundane, like artificial reefs, that doesn't stop it from being a matter of solvency. ("We've done it before" is a trivial solvency claim, but it is a solvency claim).

 

We argue that plan's don't have any topical effect on solvency all the time. (Maduro says no is a classic example from this topic). No one turns those into topicality arguments. It's very clearly an issue of solvency, not topicality.

 

On the other hand, fiat means that if a plan is to build something than that something is built.

That's not what fiat means. You cannot fiat physics (see: space elevator - if the materials don't exist, no elevator). You cannot fiat enforcement. You can only fiat the decision of the government body you're using. So if you fiat an act of congress, you get to pass the law. The successful implementation of that law is a matter of solvency.

 

Further, your conception of fiat has no relationship to real world Congressional Action. Congress can (and has) passed legislation for and supplied funding for programs which were never successfully completed. That the law itself leads to a successful project is the essence of solvency.

 

Your distinction between 'build something' and 'propose regulations to accomplish something' is completely artificial, because in the real world, Congress doesn't build anything, they 'propose regulations to build something', which is just a specific type of accomplishment.

 

While fish populations are still not guaranteed, it's irrelevant since the act of building it is in itself development. Plan, build a habitat is not equivalent, since the building of the habitat itself is what constitutes the act of development, and not the increase in fish population. Even if I lose on solvency, because the habitat is being built regardless of whether or not that solves anything I am still topical.

 

It doesn't matter who physically builds the habitat since that is simply a matter of fiat. When we take fiat into account and look at the instantaneous aftermath of passing the plan the outcomes are wholly different. The instant after the plan is passed we have a new regulation. We do not instantly have an increase in the fish populations.

So, you're saying that no plan to increase fish populations could possibly be topical, because it relies on fish breeding, no matter what the evidence says about what would allow fish populations to recover? Alt causes instantly mean you violate FX T?

 

Further, you don't instantly have whatever you're building. Maybe it simply can't be built. Maybe terrorists blow it up and it never gets finished (not a big danger with underwater habitats, but other structures on other topics could be at higher risk). Maybe nuclear war happens faster, and that means construction never even starts.

 

Relying on intent opens up huge cans of worms. A plan text could be written that is blatantly not topical, but if the intent is to cause an action that is topical you've blown open the topic no matter the wording. It is a more stable, predictable, and fair standard to weigh it not based on intent (even if it's only 1 degree of separation) but based solely on the mandate of the plan text itself; what you see with fiat alone.

Please give an example of a blatantly non-topical Plan whose immediate intended effect is topical?  I don't believe such a thing exists (because the second condition would imply its topical).

 

(When I use 'intent' here, I don't mean some nebulous claim of intent. I mean the direct purpose of the law. What's the purpose of sustainable fishing regulations? To increase the size and health of fish populations.)

 

FX T is used to disallow second-order effects which make a plan topical, not first-order effects. A case I heard this past year: "The US should enter into high level talks with Mexico about Renewable Energy Policy" violates FX T. Nothing about the outcome of those talks guarantees an increase in economic engagement, even if it increases funding of renewables. (Which also isn't a guaranteed outcome, but that funding could be local renewable development without requiring US Foreign Aid to Mexico at all). Any argument that this leads to Foreign Aid or trade with Mexico to implement that policy are FX T violations.

 

For a further example of an obviously not FX T case which relies on solvency to demonstrate topical action, consider the imaginary resolution "The USFG should substantially reduce the cost of healthcare," and further imagine that we're pre-2010.  Is an Obamacare affirmative topical?  Obamacare needed to achieve 7 million subscribers and get enough young people to sign on in order to actually achieved the promised price reductions.  Further, companies could (and did) respond in ways which increased the costs of plans.  All its topicality claims rely on solvency evidence, but they're also the immediate intended effects.  

 

(Sadly, as Von Mises points out, government action rarely has the intended effect, because government rarely considers the reaction of the market to government actions, and assumes markets will go on operating as if they haven't - Obamacare is actually a perfect example of this in practice.  Whether Obamacare will ultimately rein in healthcare costs remains to be seen, but I don't think that would stop the plan from being topical under that hypothetical resolution).

 

 

------------------

 

I would add that your conception of FX T and Fiat is really distressing from a pedagogical point of view.  It de-emphasizes identifying actual and specific problems, because it rejects plans which attempt to actually fix specific problems.  That fixing those problems leads to topical effects directly and with potentially strong supporting evidence becomes a reason to reject the plan as untopical.

 

Further, it emphasizes running plans where the actual details of implementation can be ignored or papered over and not directly dealt with, so you can pretend you fiat solvency and claim the successful completion of plan is the mandate.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I've muddled my argument with poor wording and I just don't have time to respond to everything above (homework ftw). I would like to clarify that I know fiat isn't a *poof, it's there* concept because I feel I've tanked my ethos enough as it is. I still feel that a plan text could be formulated differently (worded differently) to make the connection between plan text and effect more 'direct' in a sense in regards to fish and development but w/e.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get involved in this heated FX T debate, but I think ratifying the Law of the Sea might be a big aff next year.

Thats like unarguable FX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trollanator, how many K affs are topical nowadays ;P? I mean, of all the problems with sustainable fishing regulations, I doubt that this is the most prominent one. The only strong point about it is that no one really writes about fishing regulations being bad, but it's also going to be EXTREMELY susceptible to advantage or actor CP's. Honestly, who writes about the US being key for fishing regulations? 

 

Edit: And it is development of the ocean because it slows rates of loss of fish, but if anything, that's DECREASING development, but then we get into dumb topicality grammar st00f and I don't like that so I no explain kthxbai. 

The only place the US is going to make fishing regulations is in US waters.  I think the US is probably key (except the states CP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after doing some thinking, these are the potential plan texts I came up with for my novice aff. Any help/ideas would be greatly appreciated. 

 

1.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by adopting a policy of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

2.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building two ocean-tethered space elevators.

 

3.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in offshore ocean thermal energy converter plants within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

4.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in sustainable aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

5.    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should substantially increase its exploration of the Earth’s oceans through the use of sonar mapping to map the geography of the Earth’s oceans. 

Edited by KarlLikeMarx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after doing some thinking, these are the potential plan texts I came up with for my novice aff. Any help/ideas would be greatly appreciated. 

 

1.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by adopting a policy of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

2.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building two ocean-tethered space elevators.

 

3.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in offshore ocean thermal energy converter plants within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

4.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in sustainable aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

5.    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should substantially increase its exploration of the Earth’s oceans through the use of sonar mapping to map the geography of the Earth’s oceans.

 

1 - Doesn't make much sense. What does that mean, "adopting a policy of IMTA within the US EEZ?" We're going to build IMTA systems covering the entire 200 mile zone from the US coast? The phrasing in 4 is better for this one.

 

2. Fine.

 

3. Investing how much? Plans that say "invest in X" without giving specifics are usually not inherent. Pretty sure the USFG already has some investment in this research.

 

4. Same problem as 3, but more so--I know the USFG already is investing in sustainable aquaculture generally.

 

5. And the same problem as 3 and 4.

 

Not that people won't run those plans and win with them (how many people won rounds this year with "invest in renewable energy cooperation with Mexico"?), but a Neg that understands why policy specification matters should beat vague plans like "invest in X" every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that people won't run those plans and win with them (how many people won rounds this year with "invest in renewable energy cooperation with Mexico"?), but a Neg that understands why policy specification matters should beat vague plans like "invest in X" every time.

Lets say I wanted to have a plan that created ocean thermal energy converter plants. What would  my plantext be?

Edited by Solax10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say I wanted to have a plan that created in ocean thermal energy converter plants. What would would my plantext be?

 

Something like, "The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building N ocean thermal energy converter plants in U.S. territorial waters," or "The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building sufficient ocean thermal energy converter plants in U.S. territorial waters to provide N% of US energy needs."  

 

If it's too experimental to do that, maybe "The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building a commercial scale proof-of-concept thermal energy converter plant in U.S. territorial waters."

 

You don't need to overspecify details, but you do need enough details to distinguish the plan from the status quo and on which to base solvency.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after doing some thinking, these are the potential plan texts I came up with for my novice aff. Any help/ideas would be greatly appreciated. 

 

1.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by adopting a policy of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

2.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building two ocean-tethered space elevators.

 

3.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in offshore ocean thermal energy converter plants within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

4.    The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by investing in sustainable aquaculture within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

 

5.    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should substantially increase its exploration of the Earth’s oceans through the use of sonar mapping to map the geography of the Earth’s oceans. 

 

1. This is vulnerable to CP:  The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by adopting a policy of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture

 

2. I think there's strong lit that says a space elevator would be militarized, but supposing you get around that, Why 2? Unless you have a really good reason for 2 rather than one, You'll get beat down with a Spending DA / PIC--CP Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by building ONE ocean-tethered space elevator.

 

3. The word "investing" is vague, the problem will also be that if the USfg is currently even spending one dollar on Offshore Ocean Energy Conversion (research or development) then your plantext (as written) has no Inherency. Specify an amount from the solvency literature in your plantext.

 

4. Try using a different word than 'investing' here. I don't see aquaculture as an 'investment' for the USfg. Try promoting, or regulating, or hell "developing" sustainable aquaculture.

 

5. This has topicality issues-- the best sonar tech we have belongs to the US Navy. Supposing you specify/clarify that you won't be using the US Navy or their tech, then you'll probably lose to a US Navy Agent CP every time. They simply will solve better, and won't link to politics thanks to that card about how DoD spending is insulated from politics. 

The other minor T issue I foresee is that you won't be exploring the Earth's Oceans, but rather the Earth's Ocean Floor. You can beat this T arg, but there's a case to be made about how land-centric exploration is flawed:

 

 

Lester and Robinson 2009 (Daniel F., Dept. of Astronomy @ UT Austin and Michael, Dept. of History @ Hillyer College, U of Hartford, “Visions of Explorationâ€, Space Policy 25, p. 236-243 GAL)

So far. this essay has pointed out the range of meanings attached to exploration, a term so conceptually broad that it would seem to admit anyone with a geographical goal and a good pair of shoes. But exploration has hidden assumptions that restrict its meaning. For example, the objectives of the VSE involve traveling to places distinguished by land and landforms (e.g. Moon-to-Mars. and perhaps to Near-F-arth Objects— NFOs) rather than to points in space. In this focus on rocky places- NASA is following in a long tradition of exploration.¶ Renaissance voyagers during the "Age of Discovery" viewed other lands — Asia. Africa, and the Spice Islands — as the goal of their voyages. Oceans, on the other hand, were treated as highways rather than habitats, a medium to traverse rather than to be investigated. Only in the 19th century did this change, as deep-sea exploration came of age. Yet even then many of these sea expeditions focused on the ocean floor rather than the watery world that covered it [24].¶ Twentieth century explorers have expressed this "land bias" too. When Frederick Cook and Robert Peary returned from their North Pole expeditions in 1909. their photos rep­resented the North Pole, a geographical point in the middle of the polar sea. as a towering hummock of ice. Yet neither man had navigational equipment precise enough to determine the location of the North Pole so exactly. Nevertheless, both men saw fit to plant their Hag on the tallest, "rockiest" mound of ice in the vicinity (see Fig. 2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...