[eDebate] Extra-Topicality and the Resolution
Ilya
ilyag
Fri Aug 6 13:48:00 CDT 2004
Even excluding the PIC, do you honestly think that it will be an interesting debate on-case regardless? It seems like every plan text will be eerily similar, and those that do offer an alternative source through the plan text would be extra-topical. Personally, I think that's why the PIC is so valuable next year, but at the same time, topicality would be powerful as well. Would it really be worth it for an affirmative team to run a case OTHER than setting caps, or will we be debating ONLY oil dependancy and global warming all year (not that I find anything wrong with either of those two harm areas). I definately see that there is room for some modification on how these caps are implemented, to which industry they are implemented, and which fossil fuel[s] they include; but beyond that scope it almost seems that debates may end up being TOO predictable.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tomas Marples
To: travis neal
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Extra-Topicality and the Resolution
Yeah, a PIC is a powerful argument granted. There is evidence out there that does hint at a certain level of cost that is necessary to be achieved in order for the use in the near term versus the long term. Dicey political situations exist all over involving oil dependency. That and the pledge by administration officials to secure oil supplies creates war scenarios in the global context where near term versus long term could make an impact. They might not be the best add-ons you've ever heard, but they are extra research burden for the negative to spend time on.
We will be debating caps of course. But the idea that we are automatically doomed to a PIC debate is not a given if the affirmative worked on creative add-ons.
Thomas Marples
URoc Debate
travis neal <travisneal at mac.com> wrote:
Yes, we are stuck debating caps. But, that's not necessarily bad,
since there are many ways to cap a fuel and many fuel types to cap.
The word in question seems to be total, as a qualifier of how broadly
those caps must apply. I can forsee a topic that still has many
different affirmatives even if all we are debating is caps.
In response to the previous post by Marples, the reason a PIC will beat
you is because all an aff on this topic does is raise the price of
using the fossil fuel of choice. Banning the use of the 3rd barrel of
oil, so to speak, only makes that 3rd barrel of oil much more expensive
to use (possible jail time instead of just subject to economies of
scale costs). Given that it all comes into an equation of costs, a PIC
using the subsidies portion of the aff can potentially solve is because
the alternative en! ergy source is made cheaper. Now, there is a gap
(the combined actions make the alternative more cost effective, than
just the subsidies) but the alternative is rendered more cost effective
with the PIC than in the SQ.
Travis
On Aug 6, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Ilya wrote:
> I completely agree that the negative team could potentially PIC out
> and leave the slashing caps part of the plan back to the affirmative
> but that, like you said, brings us to the problem to begin with - all
> we'd be doing is debating caps all year. Not to mention that even
> besides being able to PIC out, the negative team could also have a
> very powerful Extra-T attack on the affirmative leaving many to not
> even bother cutting plans that do above and beyond putting caps on
> fossil fuel usage. So are we sort of at a 'dead end'? Will we be stuck
> debating caps? Is there any other innovative way to bring on a
> slightly broader, yet predictable debate such as having the alternate
> energy source as an advantage and under solvency instead of within the
> plan text?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tomas Marples
> To: Ilya ; kkuswa at richmond.edu
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Extra-Topicality and the Resolution
>
> Well part of the debate would be to find a good definition of energy
> policy so that reasonable limits can exist. Also, Coop brings up a
> good point in that the neg can counterplan out any of the broader
> interpretations of energy policy and debate the caps debate. Any
> "energy policy" not really related at all to alleviating the fossil
> fuel energy loss would lose debates because they could not get a net
> benefit from adding their alternative energy policy to their plan.
> > To Coop, the offense involved would be advantages that the affirmative
> would solve for that the negative could not claim with just a
> subsidization or whatever, like fossil fuel market would push out
> renewables without caps on consumption because it is still relatively
> cheap and then global warming cannot be curtailed hence the
> annihilation of the earth unless you vote aff. Not stellar but there
> are plenty other advantages that would stem off that internal link
> chain with better time frames. And yeah, we would still be debating
> caps, but I mean that is kind of the point of the resolution, that we
> have common debate ground.
>
> Thomas "Possum" Marples
> URoch Debate
>
> Ilya wrote:
> To Mr Marples and Mr Kuswa:
>
> Okay, I can see where energy policy gives the affirmative some leeway
> in allowing! for the introduction of an alternative energy source.
> However, would someone really be able to debate this out successfully
> in round? Theoretically, an energy policy could be interpreted in
> broad ways and even allow for affirmative cases that deal with foreign
> nations or fairly-obscure (see: whacked out) methods such as HAARP. I
> think Perkins posed a good question: why wasn't something such as "and
> promoting" included in the resolution? What we can draw from the
> resolution is "requiring", can we really pull out something that's not
> truly *there* for justification on alternative energy sources? And if
> so, wouldn't we be underlimiting severely at that point? I still think
> that the abuse would be very easy to prove regardless.
>
> If you're gaining all of your advantages off the plank of slashing
> fossil fuel consumption through caps or the like, then you don't
> neccessarily even need the alternative energy source in your plan
> text. If you're counting on the alternative energy source to give you
> your advantages, it seems that affirmative ground would almost be
> limitless (something like a high school topic :) ). And just another
> thought - would teams maybe be able to access alternate energy sources
> by proving that an alt-source industry would set in IF some certain
> caps were set on fossil fuel consumption and then claim advantages off
> of that? Seems like a more legitimate and at least predictable
> strategy.
>
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tomas Marples
> To: Kuswa, Kevin ; Dallas Perkins ; Ilya
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 9:24 AM
> Subject: RE: [eDebate] Extra-Topicality and the Resolution
>
> I don't get why the only ! thing the energy policy proposed by the aff
> can do is reduce consumption on fossil fuels. That's only one
> required facet of the plan. Check it-
>
> The USFG should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial
> reduction in the total nongovernmental consumption of fossil fuels.
>
> That does not say requiring only a substantial reduction just
> requiring, meaning that the energy policy need only include that
> requirement. Other parts of the energy policy could be whatever your
> definition of energy policy allows. This makes the topic similar to
> the sanctions topic in the way plans may be formed. People will all
> have a cap to consumption plus perhaps the subsidization of another
> form of electricity generation. Hey, you could even reduce
> governmental consumption and be topical as long as you substantially
> reduce nongovernmental consumption as well and you have a definition
> of energy policy that will allow that.
> So I think that extratopicality is not something to worry about as
> long as you can convince someone that there are very few authors who
> advocate just a slashing of fossil fuel consumption. It seems from
> beginning research that solvency advocates almost always have an
> alternative in mind.
>
> Of course some may think this is underlimiting, but you will always
> get all reduction ground like anything that has to with the fossil
> fuel economy as dp said.
>
> Thomas Marples
> UR Debate
>
> "Kuswa, Kevin" wrote:
> depends on "requiring" and whether it's different than "to require a."
> Extra topicality may also be encouraged by the "establish an energy
> policy."
>
> Besides, even "requiring"--w/o promotion--may not "result in..."
>
> we'll see :)
>
> kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dallas Perkins [mailto:dperkins at fas.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thu 8/5/2004 11:50 PM
> To: Ilya
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Extra-Topicality and the Resolution
>
>
>
> I think Ilya makes a pretty good point. I wonder what the topic framers
> thought about this issue? (Sorry, I was in Costa Rica.)
>
> I'll advance an argument in support of Ilya's reading: The framers
> COULD
> have said "requiring and promoting." The topic would still have
> saddled
> the aff with the burden of defending caps, but they would have had
> some
> flexibility on alterna! tives. However, the framers DIDN'T SAY THAT.
> Despite the fact that such popular recent topics as the sanctions
> topic
> had such double-mandates, the committee CHOSE not to allow both
> actions on
> this topic, and the voters endorsed that choice.
>
> Pretty serious limits on the aff. What else is on the list this year?
> What? Damn, no list?
>
> dp
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Ilya wrote:
>
> > This may seem naive to many of you, but I am genuinely confused and
> I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. I just really hope that
> I'm missing something very obvious.
>
> >
> > The topic seems to limit quite a bit when it comes to affirmative
> ground; when I view the contextuality and a reasonable interpretation
> of "requiring", I see a definition that implies changes specifically
> within the legal sphere. While limiting out effectually topical cases
> by requiring on-face reductions in fossil fuel consumption, it seems
> that at the same time the resolution ! ! also limits out cases that
> provide an alternative fuel source. I see absolutely no justification
> beh ind the advocacy of an alternative energy source to replace the
> status quo reliance on fossil fuels.
>
> >
> > Honestly, it really seems like many debates next year will end up
> coming down to extra-topicality. The abuse is there, any affirmative
> who runs a case that say puts some caps on fossil fuel consumption AND
> advocates an alternate energy source such as nuclear power would claim
> harm areas that are necessarily linked to nuclear power over the caps.
> Maybe effectual topicality is a good idea when it comes down to it on
> resolutions such as this, at least it allows for a little more
> affirmative ground than something that must not go above the text of
> the resolution and the seemingly limiting implication to the word
> "requiring" over substantially ca! using or the like. It seems to me
> that we'll be seeing many of the same cases, just with fossil fuel
> caps being implement! ed through different methods and in different
> levels making for a pretty boring debate.
>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040806/9d611a7c/attachment.html
More information about the Mailman
mailing list