I’m just trying to set up the lanes for discussion here. So, resolution options 1-3 each explicitly allow the aff to do a policy that involves transmission, either as fed authority for transmission (res 1, res 2), or as a “minimum interregional transfer capacity requirement”. These are resolutions with 2 floor options, where the first floor is always something about either carbon pricing or market based instruments, the second floor is always something about transmission, and aff’s can choose to do engage either floor (they don’t need to do both)
So, to distill some of what has been discussed on facebook and in some other discussions among coaches. Note, I am very much leaving some things out and I am also injecting some of my own interpretation on what people are thinking and why. I’m not trying to single anyone out, I’m not trying to paraphrase or itemize all sub-discussions that have happened so far on FB as frankly at the moment I don’t have the bandwith/stamina to do so. I’m trying to just instead help kickstart CEDA forum discussion over here with a quick nudge as best I can.
– There is worry about aff’s losing to pics if they engage both floors as part of their plan text. But, so far I’m not convinced that is a problem. Aff’s can choose to just do one of the floors, and at least with these resolution options aff’s have access to a broader solvency set of tools, in case they want to go big and engage reasons why some of the topic specific pics are insufficient
– There is worry that transmission literature is too technical/hard to process, this challenge is augmented by the fact that there are some recent governmental changes happening with transmission (the topic is too hot! developments are nipping at the heels of my uniqueness ev for disads!) while also perhaps also not readily lending itself overall to advantages and disads that match the workflow of how coaches/debaters typically construct advantages/disadvantages (for example, Disad: aff does a thing, that alienates/harms/angers some stakeholder, there is a behavioral reaction of x, then kaboom! some kind of extinction). I also gather that some folks are just dubious that more than one or two aff cases could be topical, they don’t see advantage ground beyond just legal/apparently stale advantages over appropriate authority as a legal question, and I’m not seeing mention of an explicit/obvious set of disads. My hot take is that it is way too early to decree that transmission is any of the following 1) technical and boring (doesn’t reading more and more about a thing often generate the interest as one realizes the details, and on first pass one can dismiss almost anything on similar grounds?) 2) too difficult to research (how to write arguments in light of fast-moving developments? what arguments to write?) but I would like to see more discussion even as I gather some articles and conduct my own inquiry!
– There are other concerns about transmission… but like I said I just want to kickstart some conversations here on ceda forums. My goal is not to be comprehensive in this post, but just to get things going
.