Jump to content
Solax10

Developing Zones

Recommended Posts

I have posted here a lot trying to get some ideas for next year. My question is would it be topical to develope zones in the ocean for a purpose. For example, (this isn't what I'm thinking) Develop two seperate zones for oil drilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you clarify?  Are you just asking if you could do development in more than one place?  If so, definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will clarify sorry it's late. There is something called exclusive economic zones. My actual idea was to develop  zones inside the EZZ for a certain purpose

Edited by Solax10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds effects to me.

It's possible to win on framers intent, because the NFHS is calling the law of the sea a novice case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible to win on framers intent, because the NFHS is calling the law of the sea a novice case.

Wtf is the NFHS? Im so not use to all of these news terms, NSDA, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

national federation of high school associations, and looking at the definition of develop it's simply to bring out capabilities of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems legit to me, as long as it's 2 oceans (that multiple oceans thing is gonna piss me off over the year, I can tell already). I may watch out for a "must develop all of the ocean) T, but that'll probably be harder to win with judges for a neg anyway. 

 

Sounds effects to me.

how so?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the impact to creating these certain zones? My point being, I don't think you have to distinctly put that your making a zone in you ptext but rather make it a solvency mech. 

Edited by glg1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the impact to creating these certain zones? My point being, I don't think you have to distinctly put that your making a zone in you ptext but rather make it a solvency mech. 

what kind of plantext would one have then? I honestly can't think of a single plantext that wouldn't involve the zones itself, but I'm also not super familiar with the concept of the aff in the first place....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as long as I state that we are developing in these zones (two of them to be exact) I should be good to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible to win on framers intent, because the NFHS is calling the law of the sea a novice case.

Can somebody explain more on framer's intent?  I never really got that standard.  If the neg team wins that the aff opens up the floodgates, or is effectually topical, how does the aff weigh?  Like, if the aff justifies bad things/is bad, then why does it matter if the NFHS likes it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: in terms of city government action, "zoning" (the process of defining or changing what particular areas can be used for) is considered development (and, in fact, is the primary mode of 'development' action taken by city governments).

 

Can somebody explain more on framer's intent?  I never really got that standard.  If the neg team wins that the aff opens up the floodgates, or is effectually topical, how does the aff weigh?  Like, if the aff justifies bad things/is bad, then why does it matter if the NFHS likes it?

 

Every year there's a topic paper which describes how the people who wrote the resolution understood it, and lays out the foreseen negative and affirmative ground.  This topic paper is published (Used to be in the Rostrum, its also online these days), so its available for everyone.  

 

Framer's Intent is an argument to standards:

 

-Framer's Intent answers predictability, because if it's in the topic paper, everyone should have predicted and researched it.

 

-Framer's Intent justifies particular standards on FX T.  Every plan is FX to some degree when the resolution requires real action (as opposed to just require changing laws - all plan does is create new regulations on face, actually doing stuff is an effect of that), so its a question of proximity of topical action to plan.  If the Framer's expected certain plans, then it's clear they thought they were sufficiently proximal to plan mandates to not  be FX.

 

-The topic paper provides a standard for appropriate ground.

 

-Framer's Intent is a great standard for reasonability answers, because it's available for everyone.  (Aff trying to predict random negative interpretations on topicality isn't reasonable).

 

It's still possible to defeat Framer's Intent.  It's not gospel on ground or FX T, but it is an understanding of those things that was available to everyone.  It is a silver bullet against predictability standards.  (There's literally no excuse to have not skimmed the topic paper).  The best standard against Framer's Intent is Limits, because its quite possible to reach a different conclusion on how broad the topic should be, and the Framers have only limited authority on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: in terms of city government action, "zoning" (the process of defining or changing what particular areas can be used for) is considered development (and, in fact, is the primary mode of 'development' action taken by city governments).

 

 

Every year there's a topic paper which describes how the people who wrote the resolution understood it, and lays out the foreseen negative and affirmative ground.  This topic paper is published (Used to be in the Rostrum, its also online these days), so its available for everyone.  

 

Framer's Intent is an argument to standards:

 

-Framer's Intent answers predictability, because if it's in the topic paper, everyone should have predicted and researched it.

 

-Framer's Intent justifies particular standards on FX T.  Every plan is FX to some degree when the resolution requires real action (as opposed to just require changing laws - all plan does is create new regulations on face, actually doing stuff is an effect of that), so its a question of proximity of topical action to plan.  If the Framer's expected certain plans, then it's clear they thought they were sufficiently proximal to plan mandates to not  be FX.

 

-The topic paper provides a standard for appropriate ground.

 

-Framer's Intent is a great standard for reasonability answers, because it's available for everyone.  (Aff trying to predict random negative interpretations on topicality isn't reasonable).

 

It's still possible to defeat Framer's Intent.  It's not gospel on ground or FX T, but it is an understanding of those things that was available to everyone.  It is a silver bullet against predictability standards.  (There's literally no excuse to have not skimmed the topic paper).  The best standard against Framer's Intent is Limits, because its quite possible to reach a different conclusion on how broad the topic should be, and the Framers have only limited authority on that.

 

Do you happen to have a link? I found this but I think it is more of a proposal rather than a report 

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you happen to have a link? I found this but I think it is more of a proposal rather than a report 

 

Thanks!

 

That looks right.  It is a proposal, but it also covers foreseen ground and how the proposer understands the scope of the topic.  The topic paper is what gets submitted in support of a topic when people are proposing resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...