Jump to content
BootsandSuits

Once Through Cooling Towers

Recommended Posts

Are a food chain collapse prevention advantage, and a save sea turtles because they're a keystone species advantages enough to keep a case afloat? If not, what could I use for separate advantages? The case is over Once Through Cooling @ power plants, wherein the coolant for reactors is drained from the ocean. This directly affects a vast amount of marine life, and replacing OTC with modern closed cycle systems saves 95% of the marine life surrounding power plants (including thousands of sea turtles.) Basically, are those two advantages enough to win, or do I need to scrap one of them and find a new one? Also, I don't think a development T can do much damage, because our def. of development is using scientific knowledge to meet a specific goal, the goal being saving 95% of marine life affected by the current system. 

Edited by BootsandSuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are a food chain collapse prevention advantage, and a save sea turtles because they're a keystone species advantages enough to keep a case afloat? 

I mean, it hasn't stopped aquaculture teams.

 

 

Also, I don't think a development T can do much damage, because our def. of development is using scientific knowledge to meet a specific goal, the goal being saving 95% of marine life affected by the current system. 

Development T could still hurt, because of competing interpretations. Your interp of development is potentially bad because a "goal" isn't narrow in focus. This gives the other team leverage with their interp because it is more narrow e.g. just extraction of resources. This probably also gives them better ground and avoids the bidirectionality of the topic. An important lesson I've learned is just because you have an interp that makes your case topical, that doesn't mean that interp is best for debate. Topicality is almost never a question of whether or not there is a way to make the aff T, but instead a question of is this model of debate better than a competing one. This is like saying desal plants were topical under TI because they transported (lol) water, but was that interp the best model for the TI resolution? Probably not: limits, ground etc.

 

More generally about your case. I'm confused how this works. Where are the power plants located? Does the plan create power plants, or use existing ones [actually an exact plantext would help a lot here]? Does it take up water from the ocean? How does it use water from the ocean? Does it even utilize the ocean in any way? 

 

It's vulnerable to T oceans=water column because that occurs above the ocean and may not even use the ocean water at all. This would make the aff definitively extra-t which is another problem with your interp. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important lesson I've learned is just because you have an interp that makes your case topical, that doesn't mean that interp is best for debate. Topicality is almost never a question of whether or not there is a way to make the aff T, but instead a question of is this model of debate better than a competing one.

 

More generally about your case. I'm confused how this works. Where are the power plants located? Does the plan create power plants, or use existing ones [actually an exact plantext would help a lot here]? Does it take up water from the ocean? How does it use water from the ocean? Does it even utilize the ocean in any way? 

 

It's vulnerable to T oceans=water column because that occurs above the ocean and may not even use the ocean water at all. This would make the aff definitively extra-t which is another problem with your interp. 

 

I am referring to current power plants that use once through cooling, there would be a mandate to ban Once Through cooling and replace it w/more efficient and therefore economically beneficial closed cycle cooling systems. All of the offending plants are located on the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf coasts. (23 on the Eastern Seaboard, 5 on the Gulf Coast, 4 on the Pacific Coast) Individually these plants suck 1.5 billions of gallons from the ocean per day. In this process they are entrainment nets where per year billions of fish and other aquatic life are left stuck in nets to suffocate. If any marine life survives the entrainment process they are then processed into the reactor where they are instantly burned to death. The animals that have died in both the entrainment and reactor areas are then dumped back into the ocean and treated as waste. If Once Through Cooling is banned, and replaced w/closed cycle cooling systems the amount of water per day sucked in would be only 20 million gallons of seawater per day. This would save a vast amount of the surrounding aquatic environments that are around these plants. 

 

Also, since I'm vulnerable to a T so much, is there any way I could get a tighter def. that would benefit me more than the one I already have? I found an alternate def. that says using knowledge to meet a predetermined goal. Is that any better? Or do I need to abandon the goal def.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, since I'm vulnerable to a T so much, is there any way I could get a tighter def. that would benefit me more than the one I already have? I found an alternate def. that says using knowledge to meet a predetermined goal. Is that any better? Or do I need to abandon the goal def.?

I think what Arturo is suggesting (and please correct me If I'm wrong) is that having a definition does not mean your aff is topical. Topicality isn't so much if the aff is topical, but what the limits of "development" (or any other T interp) are. Because of this, your interp "knowledge to meet a predetermined goal" is so vague that it can be used to make virtually anything topical and therefore you should prefer a more limiting definition that makes debate more predictable and focused. I have a couple of reccomendations in moving your aff to a more topical place. First, find evidence that says mandates are a form of development. Second, I have an issue with T-Of. Even if we suppose that mandates are development, your mandate effects the power plants NOT the ocean. I would change your plan text to be mandating the usage of ocean water, and then claim you effect ocean resources (water). This way the development occuring is of ocean water in their relation to power plants, not vice versa.

 

As far as advantages go, Bio-D and Food Security are a winnable combination.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of reccomendations in moving your aff to a more topical place. First, find evidence that says mandates are a form of development. Second, I have an issue with T-Of. Even if we suppose that mandates are development, your mandate effects the power plants NOT the ocean. I would change your plan text to be mandating the usage of ocean water, and then claim you effect ocean resources (water). This way the development occuring is of ocean water in their relation to power plants, not vice versa.

 

As far as advantages go, Bio-D and Food Security are a winnable combination.

 

Thank you, so much! I have cards from Foundation Briefs stating mandates are a form of development, and also more cards saying that exploitation of a resource is development. The resource here being ocean water. Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, so much! I have cards from Foundation Briefs stating mandates are a form of development, and also more cards saying that exploitation of a resource is development. The resource here being ocean water. Thanks for your help.

Yes. Exploitation of the resources is the right way to go by far. I would have recommended this but I was extremely unsure of what the aff exactly meant. You would have a little trouble with t of given that the plants aren't in the water (as far as I understood) but you could defeat that with an interp of ocean that says ocean = water. You would be using a resource from the water. E.g. T of is about "development of the oceans" therefore you do develop a resource in the oceans, making you topical. It doesn't say "in" and it also entirely depends on your definition of "development" which I think you have a solid one. I think this aff looks good from all basic standpoints now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...