Jump to content
TheSnowball

Help with a JV Aff - Solar Desal - Harms & I + Plan + T Defense

Recommended Posts

Hello Cross-x,

I'm a JV who has been doing fairly well with the year, but would like some help getting the Aff solidified before state quals.

 

1) We do Harms and Inherency as a single block, but it's all stuff about drought in California. Inherency in general is confusing to me because of this, because it's apparently supposed to be about SQ barriers, which for us is upfront capital, but I'll get to that. Is it okay to not do Inherency at all and just do "Harms" or "The SQ"? If not, how do I make an I that says we just need money? If we do need I it will depend on the:

 

2) Plan Text. This is our current: "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of the Earth’s oceans by approving a P3 for $175 billion to build seven large-scale Carocell solar desalination plants along the coast of California so as to deal with the drought in that location. The United States should purchase 350,000,000 Carocell modules from F Cubed. The P3 is between the NOAA and the private sector. The modules will be assembled into seven plants that will be placed near key coastal areas and areas of relatively intense drought. The plants will be fed by 0.5 feet per second velocity intake pipes from the Pacific Ocean. Affirmative can clarify as necessary during the CX period."

 

The 0.5 feet per second thing is just so we can negate a intringement and entrainment bio-d DA. Spending... Woah. 175 billion. That's way to much money for this, but I did all the math for what we would need, and that's what it came out to. We can't get full solvency without it, and we kept losing on that before I did the math. The plan buys CaroCell panels from F CUBED - http://www.fcubed.com.au/aspx/carocell-panels.aspx - which is an Australian company. I would love to make our plan as simple as mostly cost free legislation like tax incentives (is that topical?) but since we're buying from Australia... we can't really let the Australian companies pay less American taxes. So that brings me to the question of funding. I like the P3 (Is it topical to use both USFG and private sector in an aff? If it is, where's a good place to find supporting ev. for P3s, solar desal related or general?) but it would be really nice if the plan was free. Is there a way to pass legislation that gives tax incentives or a monetary incentive to companies if they develop or buy this and implement it? Would it be better to focus on American solar desal like "Water FX" and change our advocacy entirely?

 

What it all really boils down to is "What is a better plan text?" What gets full solvency and is cheaper or free? It is to be noted that we have ev. for that the U.S. will take 45 billion worth of damage if California's agricultural sector fails. We can't go to state quals and say the U.S. should spend $200,000,000,000 on water. We would get shot out of the sky *cough* Royal 10 *cough* so is there a better way to do this?

 

3) As for topicality, there's a couple issues. Actor is going to depend on funding/plan text, but the NOAA is our current. If we're doing anything like the P3 or private sector in any way, we need defense against T that attacks that. I know how to set up T defense - kind of - but where can i find ev. for this? We've gone against some stupid T like "Water isn't a useful resource" which was pretty easy to defend, but how do we deal with "non-topical" attacks? We have a definition of aquaculture that desalination fits - so as to abide by JV rules - but how can we defend this further. I can talk to my coach about this too, but I just wanted specific opinions and perhaps helpful resources for T in general. Are there better actors for this? How would we defend them? I know this is a lot of vague questions, but I'm fine with vague answers.

 

Thanks, Cross - X.

Sincerely,

Ryan

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cross-x,

I'm a JV who has been doing fairly well with the year, but would like some help getting the Aff solidified before state quals.

 

1) We do Harms and Inherency as a single block, but it's all stuff about drought in California. Inherency in general is confusing to me because of this, because it's apparently supposed to be about SQ barriers, which for us is upfront capital, but I'll get to that. Is it okay to not do Inherency at all and just do "Harms" or "The SQ"? If not, how do I make an I that says we just need money? If we do need I it will depend on the:

 

2) Plan Text. This is our current: "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of the Earth’s oceans by approving a P3 for $175 billion to build seven large-scale Carocell solar desalination plants along the coast of California so as to deal with the drought in that location. The United States should purchase 350,000,000 Carocell modules from F Cubed. The P3 is between the NOAA and the private sector. The modules will be assembled into seven plants that will be placed near key coastal areas and areas of relatively intense drought. The plants will be fed by 0.5 feet per second velocity intake pipes from the Pacific Ocean. Affirmative can clarify as necessary during the CX period."

 

The 0.5 feet per second thing is just so we can negate a intringement and entrainment bio-d DA. Spending... Woah. 175 billion. That's way to much money for this, but I did all the math for what we would need, and that's what it came out to. We can't get full solvency without it, and we kept losing on that before I did the math. The plan buys CaroCell panels from F CUBED - http://www.fcubed.com.au/aspx/carocell-panels.aspx - which is an Australian company. I would love to make our plan as simple as mostly cost free legislation like tax incentives (is that topical?) but since we're buying from Australia... we can't really let the Australian companies pay less American taxes. So that brings me to the question of funding. I like the P3 (Is it topical to use both USFG and private sector in an aff? If it is, where's a good place to find supporting ev. for P3s, solar desal related or general?) but it would be really nice if the plan was free. Is there a way to pass legislation that gives tax incentives or a monetary incentive to companies if they develop or buy this and implement it? Would it be better to focus on American solar desal like "Water FX" and change our advocacy entirely?

 

What it all really boils down to is "What is a better plan text?" What gets full solvency and is cheaper or free? It is to be noted that we have ev. for that the U.S. will take 45 billion worth of damage if California's agricultural sector fails. We can't go to state quals and say the U.S. should spend $200,000,000,000 on water. We would get shot out of the sky *cough* Royal 10 *cough* so is there a better way to do this?

 

3) As for topicality, there's a couple issues. Actor is going to depend on funding/plan text, but the NOAA is our current. If we're doing anything like the P3 or private sector in any way, we need defense against T that attacks that. I know how to set up T defense - kind of - but where can i find ev. for this? We've gone against some stupid T like "Water isn't a useful resource" which was pretty easy to defend, but how do we deal with "non-topical" attacks? We have a definition of aquaculture that desalination fits - so as to abide by JV rules - but how can we defend this further. I can talk to my coach about this too, but I just wanted specific opinions and perhaps helpful resources for T in general. Are there better actors for this? How would we defend them? I know this is a lot of vague questions, but I'm fine with vague answers.

 

Thanks, Cross - X.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Inherency:

Inherency does not have to necessarily be a barrier in the SQ, though that would be stronger.  Inherency is the uniqueness to your harm, showing that the status quo is not (and will not- barrier) solve the harm.  You could run gap inherency, which argues that there is a problem in the status quo, and current efforts are inadequate to solve the problem- showing a gap in solvency.   In terms of inherency- lacking money, you can run that as your "gap" or an "attitudinal inherency", depending on your region.  PM me if you need more explanation.

 

Plan text:

Wording seems okay, for your region and level.  Do you have a solvency advocate for your specific plan?  USFG key warrants?  NOAA key? P3 key? 350 million modules key?  Incentives would seem okay possibly, but I'd argue effects topical, topicality its.  If you're just doing the plan for California, I'm pretty sure someone could run a states CP, unless you have a Federal Key warrant.  You're not going to get free water-. :/  If I were neg I'd possibly run a states conservation/water management CP or Land (brackish) Desalination + Oceans DA + Spending DA + Federalism DA + (politics?).  WaterFX desalinates irrigation runoff, not ocean water, so you may have problems with T. 

 

Topicality:

There's an interp which says development is the use or exploitation of a resource.  I think it's on openev.  Oceans/water is obviously a resource.  Not too sure with T-its, though.  You may hit effects t as well.  PM me for help.

Edited by DebateSquash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inherency:

Inherency does not have to necessarily be a barrier in the SQ, though that would be stronger.  Inherency is the uniqueness to your harm, showing that the status quo is not (and will not- barrier) solve the harm.  You could run gap inherency, which argues that there is a problem in the status quo, and current efforts are inadequate to solve the problem- showing a gap in solvency.   In terms of inherency- lacking money, you can run that as your "gap" or an "attitudinal inherency", depending on your region.  PM me if you need more explanation.

i think you are misunderstanding the idea of attitudinal inherency. The lack of money wouldn't be an attitudinal inherency rather its a specific reason for why the plan hasn't passed in the status quo. Like in congress

Edited by philiburgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you are misunderstanding the idea of attitudinal inherency. The lack of money wouldn't be an attitudinal inherency rather its a specific reason for why the plan hasn't passed in the status quo. Like in congress

I'd be willing to debate you on this in another thread.

 

First, inherency is NOT that the plan hasn't passed in the status quo.  Inherency is that the harm isn't being solved in the status quo (uniqueness of harm).

 

Attitudinal barrier means attitudes against action to stop the harm- e.g. Congress doesn't want to lift the Cuban embargo, attitudes against it.

Structural barrier means a law or fact of life is causing the harms- again you could argue this with the Cuban embargo, codified into law.

 

I wasn't saying that lack of money is attitudinal inherency, but you can argue it (it's not the strongest or most strategic).

 

You could run lack of money as gap inherency- efforts are working to solve the harm in the SQ, but they fail and don't solve because of the lack of money (the gap).

Edited by DebateSquash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Attitudinal barrier means attitudes against action to stop the harm

Thats what im saying. I thought you were saying that lack of money is attitudinal inherency. 

Attitudinal inherency is just the people who are preventing the plan from happening in the squo so there is a reason for why aff needs to fiat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to debate you on this in another thread.

Also idk if debating this will resonate with most people on this forum cause for some reason inherency has phased out even though it is probably one of the most important stock issues 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so my partner and I run solar desalination. We do run WaterFX, and trust me the solvency cards they have with modeling after this helps a lot. We have been very successful running this aff. It doesn't hurt the environment and is cost effective. Pm me, and we can talk more about trading evidence if you want!

 

Solar desal avoids brine waste dumping –goes to other uses

Peters 14[Peters, Adele. "Can This Solar Desalination Startup Solve California Water Woes?" Fast Co-Exist. N.p., 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 June 2014. <http://www.fastcoexist.com/3026234/can-this-solar-desalination-startup-solve-california-water-woes>.]

Since solar desalination can enable the use of local water, it can also help reduce one of the state's biggest uses of energy--pumping water through the aqueduct system.Besides saving electricity, the technology has other advantages. Regular desalination, which uses high pressure system, can only create a limited amount of freshwater; half of the original saltwater ends up unusable, so salty that when it's dumped back in the ocean it can harm marine life. WaterFX, on the other hand, claims its process has a 93% water recovery rate. The remaining salt is so concentrated that it can actually be turned into something useful, like gypsum, a salt used in making drywall, or epsom salts.

Edited by kylerbuckner

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...

×
×
  • Create New...