The best 2425 Climate/Energy res – re: Truvanov’s proposed ranking

[Revelins]

Anthony Truvanov wrote a thoughtful blog/article where he proposes how he would rank the 6 possible resolutions for the 2425 season. It’s a thoughtful piece! Check it out here

I tried just now to generate a couple of threads that touch upon things mentioned in Truvanov’s article. If you have specific thoughts about transmission, maybe post it in the transmission thread. If you have specific thoughts about MBI vs Carbon Pricing, maybe post it in the MBI vs Carbon Pricing thread.

But, because it was such a thorough article and also offered a proposed ranking, perhaps for things not covered in other threads but worth discussing from that blog/article – do so here!

For starters, do you agree with Truvanov’s statement “My personal ranking is 1 >>>> 3 > 4 >>>> 2 >> 6 >>> 5. Vote for resolution 1, vote for resolutions with market-based. ”

If so, why? If not, why not? What ranking do you think is best for the 2425 topic papers, in case you would like to share instead of silently vote?

[DMWoodward]

Still looking into the wording things that have been done by the TC, Truvanov and other voices in the community, but I don’t agree with parts of the ranking posted here.

The big difference is I think 1 and 3 are two of the better topic options, I am a fan of 6 even if there are risks of affirmative ground being too large, or affirmatives being too small or other concerns about literature or good word phrasings to limit the topic. My personal vote or preference at the moment is

6 > 1 > 3 >>>> 2 >>>> 4 >>>>>> 5

My rationale is as follows.

1. I would prefer topics to be larger than smaller. I do work at a small school that most, if not all of our varsity and junior varsity teams either do or will lean heavily towards critical arguments in debate rounds. I think about what their debates will look like and I also think about our eventual novices that will be defending a plan text for some portion of their first year in debate. I worry about topics for people newer to our activity, not because they are complicated or too focused on topic literature but because they’re too small and repetitive. It is one thing to optimize in the name of strategy because certain arguments are just good (The same way NFU had better answers to Deterrence, Assurances and various Process CP’s last year, than Triad or Disarm affirmatives did. Carbon Taxes and Cap & Trade may have better answers to States/Elections + The Electricity and Oil DA’s and Cap than other affirmatives will). I am not a fan of topics that will limit teams to 1 or 2 affirmatives all season on the policy side due to the resolutional wording instead of strategic utility. And that is my worry about resolutions 4, 5 and to some extent 2.

2. Transmission needs to exist in the topic. We already had a year where the vast majority was focused on pricing or similar portions of energy debates (2016-17 had a LOT of carbon tax/cap and trade discussions on a topic that did have a lot more flexibility in what they could say.) I think even if a lot of teams, especially early in the season start with Cap & Trade or Carbon Taxes, the ability to pivot is important. I do not expect a topic to go well if there are very few affirmative options in general BEFORE we get into the strategic decisions of what aff has the best answers to states, or the financial incentive vs tax counterplan, or even how to deal with DA’s or critiques. That already heavy limits the affirmative because you need answers to strong generic neg positions. So letting natural development of a topic remove small affirmatives seems better than a topic that says “Carbon Tax, Cap & Trade and these 3-4 other things that could be argued as a form of carbon pricing are what you can say go nuts. Transmission could have dense literature but opens up important parts of energy debates like renewables, or how to resolve wind or solar energy expansion that I worry only pricing/market mech affs would exclude.

3. Novices- I want topics that are more accessible to novices, both to talk about and to have a variety of debates without having to move up divisions. I again understand growth and simplicity but I also would like future Bing novices to have debates on a large swath of the topic, instead of debating NFU 2-4 times a tournament on the negative, and the same way I thought hearing NFU in most novice debates that did not have a team from Army, New School, Rochester, Suffolk, Liberty, JMU, NYU, Binghamton, Cornell, West Virginia, Monmouth (and maybe i’m misremembering some schools/teams in the novice division or forgot you I promise it isn’t intentional) But I don’t want another year where novices potentially debate the same aff 6-9 times in 1 weekend even in divisions without mandated packet. I prefer topics where novices have a core area to start with when learning the game but then have the flexibility to do their own research or look into something new.

4. Critical Debates – I’m not worried about the affirmative. I think res 6 is somewhat ok because I can see some possible route for teams who wish to do critical approaches and be topical with that resolution, but I don’t see it being possible on resolutions 1-5 (will do more research over the summer of course). And even if it’s possible strategically I think it’s better to not be topical on this topic for critical affirmatives that do not want to use the USFG as an actor. But simiarily I think resolutions that do not specify carbon pricing opens up additional areas for research to maybe find links or carve out more specific negative ground.

I do not think these thoughts are intensive or complete. But I would prefer any wording that allows for some affirmative flexibility, caused by strategic decisions as the semester goes on, than a wording that pigeonholes the affirmative to 1-3 options before that vetting is done. My only reasoning for 2 being above 4 and 5, is because it still has the transmission portion of the topic.

[Author]

Posts