Jump to content
Crispy

DebateForLife (AFF) vs Debate VZG (Neg)

Recommended Posts

CX:

 

What is your timeframe for climate change becoming irreversible?

 

 

How much percentage wise do you plan to mitigate climate change or reduce carbon emissions?

 

 

How do you plan to mitigate and or reduce carbon emissions?

 

 

How does warming cause extinction?

 

 

In your plan you intend to trade renewable resources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

What is your timeframe for climate change becoming irreversible?

Yea, are Roberts 13 evidence indicates by the end of the century. So an estimate would be 50-70 years from now. 

 

 

How much percentage wise do you plan to mitigate climate change or reduce carbon emissions?

Well the plan is meant to stave us from the worst of impacts which is 4C. We don't indicate a specific percentage, but the plan is meant to reduce warming, not to completely get rid of it.

 

 

How do you plan to mitigate and or reduce carbon emissions?

Our plan is a trade promotion organization, between the U.S and China. Our Aldy 16 evidence does a good job at explaining why trading would directly limit carbon and methane emissions. 

 

 

How does warming cause extinction?

Our Roberts 13 evidence, list multiple warrants to justify this, some examples is Ocean Acidity, Crop Yield, and others. I don't mind listing all if u want. 

 

In your plan you intend to trade renewable resources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, correct?

Yea, our Aldy 16 evidence states some examples, and our Val 13 evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:


 


What is your timeframe for climate change becoming irreversible?


Yea, are Roberts 13 evidence indicates by the end of the century. So an estimate would be 50-70 years from now. 


 


 


How much percentage wise do you plan to mitigate climate change or reduce carbon emissions?


Well the plan is meant to stave us from the worst of impacts which is 4C. We don't indicate a specific percentage, but the plan is meant to reduce warming, not to completely get rid of it.


 


 


How do you plan to mitigate and or reduce carbon emissions?


Our plan is a trade promotion organization, between the U.S and China. Our Aldy 16 evidence does a good job at explaining why trading would directly limit carbon and methane emissions. 


 


 


How does warming cause extinction?


Our Roberts 13 evidence, list multiple warrants to justify this, some examples is Ocean Acidity, Crop Yield, and others. I don't mind listing all if u want. 


 


In your plan you intend to trade renewable resources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, correct?


Yea, our Aldy 16 evidence states some examples, and our Val 13 evidence


 


How long would a trade of renewable resources last? Such as the trade of solar panels and wind turbines? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome.

 

TLDR paradigm:

 

I think affs should read a plan but the 1ac is up so thats irrelevant

 

Im fine with the k as long as you give specific link analysis and make sure i can follow the argument.

 

cross x is binding

 

I lean toward competing interps

 

I hate arguments like timecube and wipeout.

 

Theory is awesome no matter how cheap, and potential abuse can be a voter. Spec is kinda dumb tho

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CX:

 

What is your timeframe for climate change becoming irreversible?

Yea, are Roberts 13 evidence indicates by the end of the century. So an estimate would be 50-70 years from now. 

 

 

How much percentage wise do you plan to mitigate climate change or reduce carbon emissions?

Well the plan is meant to stave us from the worst of impacts which is 4C. We don't indicate a specific percentage, but the plan is meant to reduce warming, not to completely get rid of it.

 

 

How do you plan to mitigate and or reduce carbon emissions?

Our plan is a trade promotion organization, between the U.S and China. Our Aldy 16 evidence does a good job at explaining why trading would directly limit carbon and methane emissions. 

 

 

How does warming cause extinction?

Our Roberts 13 evidence, list multiple warrants to justify this, some examples is Ocean Acidity, Crop Yield, and others. I don't mind listing all if u want. 

 

In your plan you intend to trade renewable resources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, correct?

Yea, our Aldy 16 evidence states some examples, and our Val 13 evidence

 

How long would a trade of renewable resources last? Such as the trade of solar panels and wind turbines? 

If your specifically talking about how long the trade would last, then it would be a long time, because there's always going to be demand for these techs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CX:

 

What is your timeframe for climate change becoming irreversible?

Yea, are Roberts 13 evidence indicates by the end of the century. So an estimate would be 50-70 years from now. 

 

 

How much percentage wise do you plan to mitigate climate change or reduce carbon emissions?

Well the plan is meant to stave us from the worst of impacts which is 4C. We don't indicate a specific percentage, but the plan is meant to reduce warming, not to completely get rid of it.

 

 

How do you plan to mitigate and or reduce carbon emissions?

Our plan is a trade promotion organization, between the U.S and China. Our Aldy 16 evidence does a good job at explaining why trading would directly limit carbon and methane emissions. 

 

 

How does warming cause extinction?

Our Roberts 13 evidence, list multiple warrants to justify this, some examples is Ocean Acidity, Crop Yield, and others. I don't mind listing all if u want. 

 

In your plan you intend to trade renewable resources, such as wind turbines and solar panels, correct?

Yea, our Aldy 16 evidence states some examples, and our Val 13 evidence

 

How long would a trade of renewable resources last? Such as the trade of solar panels and wind turbines? 

If your specifically talking about how long the trade would last, then it would be a long time, because there's always going to be demand for these techs.

 

 

Ok, that is it for my cross-ex. I'll post my 1nc later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in to judge too if yall dont mind. 

Sorry, barely saw this post and i dont think we will mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, barely saw this post and i dont think we will mind.

Paradigm:

I'm cool with anything, ive dabbled a bit in everything and I should be good as long as warrants are a thing. I also won't read cards and do work for you and will only call for(i guess read in this case) cards if both sides are challenging readings of ev. 

Tech > truth to a certain extent

Edited by CoolioBrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright time for CX: 

 

Within your Cheng 15 evidence, you say that the SQ is solving for China's emissions. Your Warrant is specific to Coal, do u have any other warrants for any other fossil fuels they use such as methane, natural gas etc....

 

Within your Mann 15 evidence, You say India will surpass China in emissions. 

A. How long would it take for them to surpass China in emissions. 

B. How does the Case not solve for it. 

 

In your Adams 15 evidence, you say China says no. What's your specific warrant to this, and how does this evidence out weighs ours from the 1AC, If china already says yes. 

 

In your Weidong 15 evidence you say China and the U.S Partnership can't work out for certain differences. So has China and the U.S not worked with Renewables pre plan. 

 

In your Lomborg 11 evidence, doesn't indicate that for a 4C world or for current degrees to 2C. 

 

In your Singer 11 evidence, is it specific to IPCC Claims or everyones, And where in our evidence did we bring up an IPCC Study. 

 

In your Ridley 12 evidence you mention stable sights get their PH changed all the time. Does the entire ocean account for this or only certain spots, and what are the species of fish or animals living in that sight that are able to adapt to it. Does it account for all types of species being able to adapt to a more acidic Ocean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright time for CX: 


 


Within your Cheng 15 evidence, you say that the SQ is solving for China's emissions. Your Warrant is specific to Coal, do u have any other warrants for any other fossil fuels they use such as methane, natural gas etc....


My warrant is specific to carbon emissions and how the increases are decreasing every year. What you are referring to is the end of the card where it refers to the decreased usage of production and consumption of coal


 


 


Within your Mann 15 evidence, You say India will surpass China in emissions. 


A. How long would it take for them to surpass China in emissions. 


B. How does the Case not solve for it. 


A.It would take India two decades to pass what china was in the 1990s.


B. The case does not solve for it because we must act on solving for the uprising problem right now, and not the 'problem' that is being solved. 


 


In your Adams 15 evidence, you say China says no. What's your specific warrant to this, and how does this evidence out weighs ours from the 1AC, If china already says yes. 


My warrant is that in my Adams 15, who the author is an economist, gives reasons as to why China cannot say yes and will say no. One is that China faces intense domestic pressure to grow their economies and that no country has been able to curtail fossil fuel use while growing their economies


In your Weidong 15 evidence you say China and the U.S Partnership can't work out for certain differences. So has China and the U.S not worked with Renewables pre plan. 


Not through any bilateral deals


In your Lomborg 11 evidence, doesn't indicate that for a 4C world or for current degrees to 2C. 


Can you rephrase your question?


In your Singer 11 evidence, is it specific to IPCC Claims or everyones, And where in our evidence did we bring up an IPCC Study. 


Firstly it uses the IPCC calim as a base, so it is specific to everyones claim about a massive loss of biodiversity. To address your second question, In your Roberts 13 'citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies', so this is where you brought up the IPCC Study, as it is an intergovermental panel of climate change.


In your Ridley 12 evidence you mention stable sights get their PH changed all the time. Does the entire ocean account for this or only certain spots, and what are the species of fish or animals living in that sight that are able to adapt to it. Does it account for all types of species being able to adapt to a more acidic Ocean?


This accounts for these stable spots, some of these animals are calcifiers. I would say yes because first, in my card it states that more marine live thrives then suffers and secondly, animals adapt to their conditions to live. This is a basic law of nature. Finally, my card states that this impact of acidification will not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In your Adams 15 evidence, you say China says no. What's your specific warrant to this, and how does this evidence out weighs ours from the 1AC, If china already says yes. 

My warrant is that in my Adams 15, who the author is an economist, gives reasons as to why China cannot say yes and will say no. One is that China faces intense domestic pressure to grow their economies and that no country has been able to curtail fossil fuel use while growing their economies

 

Is China not a huge Economy right now, and when did we say we were curtailing fossil fuel use.

 

In your Weidong 15 evidence you say China and the U.S Partnership can't work out for certain differences. So has China and the U.S not worked with Renewables pre plan. 

Not through any bilateral deals

 

 

 

In your Lomborg 11 evidence, doesn't indicate that for a 4C world or for current degrees to 2C. 

Can you rephrase your question?

 

Does the evidence account for a 4C world or the current situation. 

 

In your Singer 11 evidence, is it specific to IPCC Claims or everyones, And where in our evidence did we bring up an IPCC Study. 

Firstly it uses the IPCC calim as a base, so it is specific to everyones claim about a massive loss of biodiversity. To address your second question, In your Roberts 13 'citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies', so this is where you brought up the IPCC Study, as it is an intergovermental panel of climate change.

 

So are u saying anything that talks about Biodiversity Loss has to involve the IPCC Claim and not be it's own independent research?

 

This relates to the back question, but does every other claim, have to be tied into IPCC's claim or can they be their own independent study. 

 

In your Ridley 12 evidence you mention stable sights get their PH changed all the time. Does the entire ocean account for this or only certain spots, and what are the species of fish or animals living in that sight that are able to adapt to it. Does it account for all types of species being able to adapt to a more acidic Ocean?

This accounts for these stable spots, some of these animals are calcifiers. I would say yes because first, in my card it states that more marine live thrives then suffers and secondly, animals adapt to their conditions to live. This is a basic law of nature. Finally, my card states that this impact of acidification will not happen.
 
What is determined as a stable spot?
 
Does your evidence get into specifics, like what marine life actually thrives in this environment, and those that don't? 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In your Adams 15 evidence, you say China says no. What's your specific warrant to this, and how does this evidence out weighs ours from the 1AC, If china already says yes. 

My warrant is that in my Adams 15, who the author is an economist, gives reasons as to why China cannot say yes and will say no. One is that China faces intense domestic pressure to grow their economies and that no country has been able to curtail fossil fuel use while growing their economies

 

Is China not a huge Economy right now, and when did we say we were curtailing fossil fuel use.

 

Whether it is huge or not, it needs to develop its economy even more to raise it's peoples standard of living. In my Cross examination, you directly said that you woould limit carbon and methane emission. These fossile fuels are the main outputter of the emissions.

 

In your Weidong 15 evidence you say China and the U.S Partnership can't work out for certain differences. So has China and the U.S not worked with Renewables pre plan. 

Not through any bilateral deals

 

 

 

In your Lomborg 11 evidence, doesn't indicate that for a 4C world or for current degrees to 2C. 

Can you rephrase your question?

 

Does the evidence account for a 4C world or the current situation. 

 

The evidence accounts for the most pessimestic model, which would include the 4C world.

 

In your Singer 11 evidence, is it specific to IPCC Claims or everyones, And where in our evidence did we bring up an IPCC Study. 

Firstly it uses the IPCC calim as a base, so it is specific to everyones claim about a massive loss of biodiversity. To address your second question, In your Roberts 13 'citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies', so this is where you brought up the IPCC Study, as it is an intergovermental panel of climate change.

 

So are u saying anything that talks about Biodiversity Loss has to involve the IPCC Claim and not be it's own independent research?

 

No i am not saying that but in your Roberts 13 card, the specific card that adresses your impact, it states that it is a compilation of climate studies. I can only imagine that that a Intergovernamental study would be included into a intergovenmental compilation of climate studies

 

This relates to the back question, but does every other claim, have to be tied into IPCC's claim or can they be their own independent study. 

 

In your Ridley 12 evidence you mention stable sights get their PH changed all the time. Does the entire ocean account for this or only certain spots, and what are the species of fish or animals living in that sight that are able to adapt to it. Does it account for all types of species being able to adapt to a more acidic Ocean?

This accounts for these stable spots, some of these animals are calcifiers. I would say yes because first, in my card it states that more marine live thrives then suffers and secondly, animals adapt to their conditions to live. This is a basic law of nature. Finally, my card states that this impact of acidification will not happen.
 
What is determined as a stable spot?
 
Stable site is a site in the open ocean used for scientific study
 
Does your evidence get into specifics, like what marine life actually thrives in this environment, and those that don't? 
 

One of the marine life that can thrive is calcifiers, coral and clams fall under this category, which are the central concern for the ph lowering, My evidence does not give specifics for those that dont thrive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross Ex:

 

What is your plan trying to do with climate change and/or emissions?

 

 

Do you have any more recent studies besides your Post Magazine 15?

 

 

Why are your china says yes cards outweigh my more recent china says no card?

 

 

What are your warrants for china saying yes?

 

 

In your Callahan 14 card, it states a tipping point. When is that tipping point?

 

 

In that same card, how does it cause extinction?

 

 

How long would large scale change of the human behavior in reducing emissions be evident?

 

 

In your Zacharias 15 card, the infomation is from agriculture from india, yes or no?

 

 

Imperialism K

How would your Perm do both for the imperialism K work?

 

 

How is there no link to your climate change plan?

 

 

Why should your Kagan 12 card, imperialism is sustainable, outweigh my Foster 15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross Ex:

 

What is your plan trying to do with climate change and/or emissions?

So what the plan is meant to do is stave us off from the worst of impacts which would be a 4C world. We have multiple pieces of evidence that indicate why that is bad for the world, but the plan doesn't get rid of emissions as a whole. It's mean't to just balance out, in the sense that we won't be increasing the temp of the planet. 

 

Do you have any more recent studies besides your Post Magazine 15?

On China's emissions? It's pretty specific to their emissions, plus our Shi 15 evidence explains how currently the U.S and China make about 40% of Emissions sooooo.

 

 

Why are your china says yes cards outweigh my more recent china says no card?

A they give up pretty specific examples on why China would say yes to economic engagement, such as green tech on climate change. Plus with in our Hart 15 evidence, we have examples of how the U.S and China have worked together on climate change before (Just not enough to solve for our goal.) 

 

What are your warrants for china saying yes?

Sure. 

 

Hart 15. On climate change, China’s willingness to issue bold climate targets with the United States last November challenged other developing nations to follow suit and knocked down a firewall that has hindered global climate negotiations for decades

 

Val 11, I'm to lazy to copy and paste it, but everything that's highlighted is a warrant, because it explains China's ambition to reduce climate change. 

 

Zhang 15, for China, the incentive for climate mitigation is to reduce energy consumption and improve air quality

 

Val 13, Both nations appear focused on  initiatives to reduce emissions while a bilateral relationship between the two could  facilitate opportunities. 

 

 

In your Callahan 14 card, it states a tipping point. When is that tipping point?

the tipping point would be 4C, since once that happens we will all die. We only have till the end of the century to solve this problem. 

 

 

In that same card, how does it cause extinction?

Well more Co2 into the ocean explains how that gets absorbed into the ocean, and we also have other evidence how warming directly will hurt the ocean. The plan is so unique to solving this because we focus more on a renewable source that solves economic problems and warming, so we wouldn't be adding on to more fossil fuel use, the only fossil fuels being used are the ones that are already co existing, but the plan balances it. 

 

 

How long would large scale change of the human behavior in reducing emissions be evident?

Can u clarify your question?

 

 

In your Zacharias 15 card, the infomation is from agriculture from india, yes or no?

Yes, but it also indicates that crop failures will occur in those parts of the world, and we have more evidence that indicates warming had a direct affect on plant yield as well. 

 

 

Imperialism K

How would your Perm do both for the imperialism K work?

So our Perm is a form of moderate engagement between the U.S and China. Having this moderate engagement is key to de esclating conflicts because it helps build relationships with each nation. 

 

How is there no link to your climate change plan?

Well the Imperialism K is saying that the plan is being Imperialistic, but the thing is China wants this, we have multiple piece of evidence that indicate China has collaborated before on climate change, so the plan would be no different in the sense of the same ideal. How are we being Imperialistic, if China wants the plan.

 

 

Why should your Kagan 12 card, imperialism is sustainable, outweigh my Foster 15?

It's sustainable because we are number one in Military and have a high economy. There's some warrants that state that U.S Military power is higher then the top nations combined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX:

 

How long would it take for the decrease in emissions to be evident?

It wouldn't take long since we would be focusing more on Renewable sources. Plus we still have enough time to reduce, if we start now. 

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...