Rubaie Speaks
Brian Rubaie, our Debate Central moderator, spends time each week answering your questions about debate in our forums. Here we have combined all of his answers into a comprehensive, accessible format.
Brian debated for four years at Shawnee Mission East High School. He finished his high school career as the Kansas State Champion in Policy Debate, Foreign Extemp, and Student Congress. He is currently the NFL's all-time points leader. He is now a junior debater at the University of Texas-Dallas. He has qualified for the National Debate Tournament (NDT) for three consecutive years. This season he has advanced to elimination rounds at Harvard, Kentucky, USC, and Texas. He is currently an assistant coach for Coppell High School in Dallas. This season he has helped Coppell reach the elimination rounds at Greenhill, St. Mark's, and the Glenbrooks in route to qualifying for the TOC. This year Brian was named Best Debater for his region.
Click the links to skip to the appropriate section.
Q: When looking at funding planks, what should I consider?
Re: Funding specification arguments
Q:What is effects topicality (FX-T)?
Q: Will it help me build a strong disadvantage link if I concede solvency?
Q: How should I respond to a counter plan in the 2AC?
Re: permutations
Re: Plan Inclusive Counterplans
Re: Counterplan status
Q: Where can I find NFL results?
Q: What does a properly cut card look like?
Q: How should I approach Topicality?
Q: What is the purpose of Agency Specification arguments (A-Spec)?
Q: Are RVI’s a good strategic decision?
Q: What are appropriate ways to edit cards?
Q: What is the Chaloupka Kritik?
Q: What are the differences between high school and college debate?
Q: Are socialism counter plans effective?
Q: What is purpose of the “resolved” in the resolution?
Re: Is the affirmative responsible for affirming the entire resolution
Q: How can I answer a capitalism kritik?
Q: What kind of arguments exist for kritiking topicality?
Q: As the affirmative, how do I answer a kritik?
Q: What came first: high gas prices or fuel efficient cars?
Q: Would an argument about biofuels inflating food production be good?
Q: What are the arguments surrounding global warming?
Q: Where can I find a comprehensive list of federal incentives?
Q: What are good inherency arguments against solar power?
Q: What are some good Kritiks for this year?
Q: Could you run a topicality with each of the States in it?
Q: What are some arguments against wind energy?
Q: How should I go about extending the bailout disadvantages?
Q: What are good generic disadvantages against solar power?
Q: What are some negative responses to wind power?
Q: Is nuclear a good affirmative? What are the weaknesses?
Q: What are some good arguments for oil dependence causing disease?
Q: What does the military aff look like and what are some disadvantages against it?
Q: What are arguments against the hemp case?
Q: How can you argue corn ethanol good?
Q: How do you answer an aff that cuts all domestic ethanol subsidies and imports it from Brazil?
Q: What will some big arguments be this year?
Answers
Q: When looking at funding planks, what should I consider?
Here are three things to possibly consider;
(1) Speed. One of the greatest challenges to guaranteeing federal funds is bureaucracy. Creating a new regulatory regime for drugs would, even by the best projections, take a good deal of time to actualize.
(2) Specificity. One of the best ways to defend funding planks is to reveal that they are grounded in the literature of currently available funding sources. While your ideas are very bright, they're still necessarily speculative in nature and far enough away from the typical policy literature than it would likely make research and education on the question difficult.
Re: Funding specification arguments
One more thing to keep in mind with funding specification arguments is the reason WHY the ground is key. Most teams I judge seem to be stuck on the "it's key to economy ground" line. Explaining WHY economy ground is an important ground is equally important.
Teams arguably need to be able to ensure core negative generic ground through economy arguments. They're the one constant factor under "assistance." In that way, it's as much or more a "it's key to this topic" matter rather than a "we need all the DAs we can get" matter.
Q:What is effects topicality (FX-T)?
Effects Topicality is a negative topicality argument that argues the plan text doesn't directly address the resolution. For example, if a team ran an affirmative plan text that said "the US should disarm all nuclear weapons" and an advantage that said "US nuclear weapons increase the likelihood of nuclear war, and nuclear war would kill African public health," a negative team would argue that they only discuss public health in the context of the effects of the plan.
The most important standard to effects topicality is that it focuses debate to a limited, predictable number of ways to offer public health. It helps prevent an interpretation that would allow any affirmative that somehow indirectly relates to public health to be considered topical.
Q: Will it help me build a strong disadvantage link if I concede solvency?
It's bold to concede solvency but it really does help to secure a DA link. One place to think about doing this is with sphere-of-influence DAs (the US crowds out China, the US crowds out Russia, etc.). The good thing about that uniqueness story is that you get to spin some of the uniqueness debate and answer in cross-x with arguments like "well, of course China isn't worried about US influence in the status quo, your 1AC says the US hasn't been able secure a current oil contract, which your 1AC oil advantage directly changes. You turn the US into an effective oil power in Africa which would certainly set off alarms in Beijing."
Q: How should I respond to a counter plan in the 2AC?
This is a mental checklist you might want to perform before every 2AC:
1) Does someone really think this proposal is a good idea? You should look at the 1NC's solvency evidence for their CP and determine whether their evidence actually suggests their specific CP action. Sometimes evidence just suggests things like "Russia is good at development in general," not specifically in Africa.
This is important because, arguably, when a negative team reads a CP presumption flips affirmative. Because an affirmative attempts to change the status quo, before the 1NC the negative is considered to have presumption since the affirmative advocates change. When the CP advocates parts of the affirmative, the plan text becomes like the status quo was before; a policy that a team changed part of. If presumption flips negative and they don't a solvency advocate, arguably they'd lose rather quickly.
2) Why is this incompatible with the 1AC? A lot of CPs today have slid under the radar because they compete only in the barest possible way. To continue the example of the Russia CP, the first question to ask yourself "why can't the US and Russia both give development assistance?" The most basic negative response is "using Russia as the agent avoids all the DA links to affirmative action."
This is an important argument to interrogate. If the 1AC and 1NC could be done simultaneously, they arguably should be. Two theory-based arguments are important to consider;
1) If the negative wins that the judge has the hypothetical authority to enact policies from any range of institutions, you grant them an exorbitant role that isn't grounded in any sort of realistic authority. Because there's no authority on Earth that has the authority to pull the strings of every government, no realistic policy-maker could say "we'd prefer to just let Russia handle it." Actors can't predict each other's moves which is why they have to recognize unique failures, work on the ground, and take action. It is important to also argue why a realistic mode of policy evaluation makes debates themselves better. More realistic policy assessments benefit the quality of the literature that is discussed, limit it towards a more finite set of questions, and more clearly set a brightline for ground for both sides.
2) In their model there is no way to fairly assess opportunity cost. Nothing in the 1AC precludes the possibility of Russia taking action. In this way, there's no opportunity cost associated with the plan in relation to the CP. Of course, when weighed against the status quo and the negative's DAs, there's a large cost to the affirmative's opportunity. However, that is weighed versus a more fair model (the status quo) than the one described in the paragraph above. The question to ask is whether the negative gets to add a new opportunity to address the plan's cost. There always has to be a cost associated with policy; giving the judge authority to hypothetically outsource every African health problem can often ignore that.
Re: permutations
These arguments are almost always effective:
-- The permutation still incurs the same disadvantage as the plan. For example, if the CP is EU and the net benefit is a Politics DA, the perm would still have the US act and thus still link to the politics DA.
-- There's no solvency advocate for the permutation. There's a solvency advocate for the 1AC and a solvency advocate for the CP but none for the permutation.
There are also a variety of theoretical objections to a permutation --
-- Severance: If the permutation does not contain a portion of the original 1AC plan text, it is considered to have 'severed' that part of the plan text. Many negatives claim this makes the affirmative a conditional, moving target that makers it impossible to establish clash and consistency.
--Intrinsicness: If the permutation contains something that is NOT in the 1AC plan text or CP text it is intrinsic. For example, if the CP was 'Consult NATO on the plan' and the perm was 'Consult NATO on space weapons' then the perm is intrinsicness because neither the plan text or the CP text deal with space weapons.
--Timeframe: If the permutation does the CP first and the plan second, it's argued to be a timeframe permutation. Many negative teams argue that the plan's implementation should be immediate since it's almost impossible to generate offense to a hypothetical future scenario.
I hope that helps! One last tip is to always make sure that the AFF has written a text to their permutation. The 2AC answer "perm: do both" is incredibly vague on the question of who does what, when they do it, how it's done, etc.
Re: Plan Inclusive Counterplans
Everyone's opinion on this is a little bit different. However, if you have a completely lay judge (never seen a debate before) or a more contemporary judge, PICs are some of the best arguments in debate. If you can go to another team's solvency article and find something else that solves the case without the incentives, using a different type of technology, etc. then its very difficult to generate offense.
A few reasons PICs might be good --
1) They increase education about the plan by testing each part of it to see whether the same benefits can be achieved through a different option.
2) They're crucial negative ground - they establish ways of solving the most specific DAs to the plan.
3) They're real world policy-making - they're just like amending a bill in Congress.
A few reasons PICs might be bad --
1) They're topical counterplans and don't disprove the resolution. A judge could still affirm the resolution and vote affirmative even if the counterplan is correct.
2) They moot the 1AC - they don't contend with 99% of what is said in the 1AC, only a minor, contrived difference.
3) They encourage vague plan-writing - instead of inspiring teams to be careful when writing plan texts, PICs might encourage teams to use vague, evasive language to make sure the plan was difficult to PIC out of.
The arguments above are only really a very brief and incomplete starter, please let me know if you have any more questions I can help answer.
Re: Counterplan status
There is no hard and fast rule about what you can and can't run with a counterplan. It all depends upon the "status" of your counterplan. The term "status" refers to the set of conditions under which you will continue to advocate the counterplan throughout the debate.
If you the run the counterplan "conditionally" you are arguing you should be able to cease advocating the counterplan at any time.
If you are reading the counterplan "dispositionally" you are often arguing that you have the right to kick the counterplan if the affirmative proves it is either theoretically illegitimate or reads a permutation that shows the counterplan isn't competitive.
If you are reading the counterplan "unconditionally" you are arguing you will continue to advocate the counterplan regardless of the circumstance.
So, if you're reading the counterplan conditionally, you can make any other argument, since you won't be bound to going for the counterplan in the 2NR. If you read the counterplan unconditionally, however, you have to account for how other arguments effect your counterplan.
Q: Where can I find NFL results?
http://www.nflonline.org/points_application/reports.php
If it doesn't work out, going to 'Resources' (it's the 4th column from the left) and click 'Membership Reports' (furthest tab to the left).
I think the argument that "Ks are cheating" is possible to win. It is important to address the most important aspects of a debate; how would the negative's alternative effect competitive equity, is it a predictable point of clash, a reasonable use of fiat, etc.
If anyone has any questions about the issues I raised above feel free to ask and I'll explain more, I want to focus more on an important benefit to theory that some teams haven't quite latched onto yet.
If you make a theory argument that another argument practice isn't fair, the important thing to do is to move beyond "they cheated, they lose." You're asking a judge to do quite a bit to punish the other team. Why not just reject the argument? Because you sometimes have to cut your losses, it's important to make "even if" statements.
For example, against a K alternative, you could say "even if you don't reject the team, you should reject their alternative or allow us to make severance permutations to leverage our competitive equity arguments."
In the second example (the "even if" statement) you're asking a judge for much less. You're asking for an equal playing food rather than a reactionary move against a specific argument practice. This is a much softer, easier sell and will often help put you ahead in debates.
Q: What does a properly cut card look like?
(tag) Budget offsetting is exclusive with the AFF’s method of earning funding – Congressional rules mandate a tradeoff
(cite) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ‘07
[“INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS.” 12-3-07. http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud.htm acc 6-12-8]
(card)
Independent of the Congressional Budget Act, the House and Senate each have a rule requiring that all entitlement increases and tax cuts be fully offset. For example, a bill that increased Medicare spending would have to be paid for by cutting somewhere else in Medicare or another entitlement program, by raising revenues, or by a combination of the two. The rule does not apply to discretionary spending, which is limited by the allocations set in the annual budget resolution.
If legislation providing for new tax cuts or entitlement increases is not paid for, the “PAYGO” rule gives any Senator the power to raise a point of order against the bill, which can only be waived by the vote of 60 Senators. In the House, any Member can raise a point of order, and there is no opportunity to vote to waive the PAYGO requirement — the bill is automatically defeated, unless the leadership-appointed Rules Committee has decided in advance to waive PAYGO as part of the broader measure (referred to as a rule) setting the terms of debate on the bill as a whole and the House has agreed to that rule.
PAYGO is an additional requirement, separate and apart from the terms of the budget resolution. A bill that cuts taxes or increases entitlement spending without an offset would violate the PAYGO rule even if the budget resolution had assumed the enactment of tax cuts or entitlement increases and allocated the necessary amounts to the relevant committees. (The PAYGO rule does not directly apply to the budget resolution itself or amendments to it, however.)
In order to satisfy the House and Senate PAYGO rules, a bill must be paid for over the first six years (including the current year), and over the first 11 years (including the current year). The Senate PAYGO rule does not consider the impact of a bill on Social Security and other “off-budget” items, whereas the House PAYGO rule applies to the “unified budget,” which includes Social Security.
Q: How should I approach Topicality?
The important part of using the word 'the' is to indicate what 'the' modifies. In the current resolution, 'the' modifies the actor (USFG) and the object of the incentive (in the US).
One thing that might help is to approach topicality from a slightly direction. Instead of first asking 'what is the most grammatically correct interpretation of the topic,' try asking yourself 'which interpretation of the topic most fairly balances negative and affirmative ground.' Although grammar is very important, most judges are willing to overlook a slight grammatical inaccuracy if the plan serves as a good starting point for debate. If you can disprove that premise, that the plan is a good starting point for debate, you'll be in a much more effective position to win your Topicality arguments.
Q: What is the purpose of Agency Specification arguments (A-Spec)?
A-Spec typically is run with a politics DA as part of a larger negative strategy. The most popular of these is to run A-Spec, a politics DA, and an executive order counterplan. Running A-Spec prevents the AFF from saying "but we ARE an executive order" and makes it harder for them to generate permutations. The XO is good because (arguably) it isn't perceived by the public or some elements of political institutions.
Q: Are RVI’s a good strategic decision?
The inclination of most judges is against RVIs, but it's really a very low risk maneuver. It takes 8-10 seconds in the 2AC to make and at least 20-30 seconds for the negative to answer. The time tradeoff is good and it is an important argument if they don't answer it.
Q: What are appropriate ways to edit cards?
The practice of gender-modifying evidence (to make it gender neutral) is generally consider to be acceptable as long as a note is made at the bottom of the cite (i.e.--note, this evidence is gender-paraphrased).
Other practices, such as removing sentences from paragraphs or in any way deleting text from an original source, is almost universally considered unacceptable. Many judges, myself included, will vote against teams who have been proven to read evidence in this manner.
Q: What are good tricks to trap my opponent in cross-examination?
A few tricks I've seen this year that are pretty good --
(1) Finding a portion of their harms listed in their evidence that they don't solve. For example, if someone is reading a DDT Aff and their evidence says 'DDT and other crop sprayers kill millions and destroy the natural environment' a good question would revolve around the other crop sprayers listed in the AFF's OWN evidence that they don't solve for.
(2) Similarly, yet not so much a trap, is finding damaging statements in the unhighlighted portions of their evidence. A sentence that always sparks a judge's interest is 'the un-underlined part of your evidence says...'
(3) Know the arguments in your 1NC and think of ways to interrogate the 1AC about them in advance. For example, some negative evidence says great things like 'advocates often make the erroneous assumption that the infrastructure to deliver new pharmaceuticals is reliable.' Ask the 1AC questions they aren't prepared to answer about infrastructure and see if you can get them to make a few of the 'erroneous assumptions' outlined in their evidence. If they backtrack, it makes them look contradictory. If they don't, it's their word versus your professional author's.
CX is the most underutilized part of debate, I'm glad to see so many people thinking through smart CX strategies! Keep up the good work, the focus on CX is the surest way to improve your presence and win percentage.
For a good example, the most effective cross-examiner I've ever heard was 2007 CEDA Champion Blake Johnson from Oklahoma. He cross-examines a very good Emory debater here at about 10:00: http://debatevideoupload.blogspot.com/2 … ncmp4.html
Q: What is the Chaloupka Kritik?
The most basic form of Chaloupka's argument attempts to prove that nuclear war shouldn't be feared. Instead, Chaloupka suggests we should 'mock the bomb.' A shell to Chaloupka might look something like --
A. Link - The affirmative continues the pervasive fear of nuclear weapons - this analysis ignores that nuclear war is now a virtual uncertainty. The threat of nuclear war only exists textually because poor scholarship perpetuates fear-driven motives
B. Impact - This attitude towards the bomb creates a form of worship towards the bomb - nuclear weapons are built, tested and designed to ensure an ongoing paranoia that makes nuclear violence possible
C. Alternative - Vote negative to mock the bomb and resist the threat of nuclear war
Q: In the Heidegger Kritik, what is the difference between old (techne) and new technology (poeises)?
Poiesis is when one thing fundamentally changes and becomes another thing. This term is often used to describe a literal event - i.e. snow melting, an egg hatching, a butterfly coming out of a cocoon, etc. The crucial distinction is that this involves crossing a certain threshold. This typically ties into alternatives like McWhorter's, which encourage an ontology that remains fundamentally open and to let beings be. The important element of this standpoint is to remain open to the changing of other beings. This avoids the staticizing temptation of techne to know, map, and control being.
In thinking back to some good debates on this issue with teams like Oklahoma, the question 'what is the ontology of a chair?' was actually argued as an example. The point of their investigation was not to approach the question to be answered as 'what is the chair?', but instead 'what are we in relation to the chair?' The point is that you should never pre-figure the ontology of other beings. Attempting to form distinctions (something like 'object like a chair v subject like a human', or 'the object of the environment,' etc.) is negative because it prefigures those subjects into whatever role we assign them. According to some Heideggarians, this relationship to being is necessarily violent.
The important distinction here is not to target the alternative as the revealing of some unforseen truth. Rather, teams are usually more successful arguing that they present a method that would offer a truer relation to others and a more peaceful ontology.
I'll be honest in saying I'm unsure of how to reconcile the difference between 'old' and 'new' technology. I do know that Heidegger usually highlights historical examples in his examination of technology. The key thing here might to take one concept and explain how that technology has been managed or controlled. For example, wind used to a natural force that humans harnessed to drag small ships. It has always been managed, but before it was managed in a way that had a limited production value, i.e. that it got you down or across a river. Modern wind farms might be designed to enhance consumerist energy use. The affirmative advantage would likely be that they sustain current energy use and prevent a major energy crisis. A Heideggerian alternative would likely say something like 'wind power is okay, but the plan's mode of technology and its relation to the environment is bad.'
-We will eventually build super weapons that wipe out the Earth. A limited nuclear war now is crucial to preventing this development.
-We are overpopulated. This crowding will eventually kill us all. A limited nuclear war resolves this problem.
Of course, both claims are wild and crazy, but teams have enjoyed success by catching people off guard. However, now that the argument is more well-known, it is usually difficult to surprise teams with this argument, making its only real value minimal.
Q: What are the differences between high school and college debate?
One of the first major differences is the way the topic is framed. For better or worse, college resolutions are typically very specific and list-driven. There was a list of specific cases the Supreme Court could overrule, a list of limited actors in the Middle East the AFF could engage and now a limited number of crops the AFF can reduce support for. This tends to produce fewer 'squirrel' AFFs.
College debate also involves a much smaller group of participants. 90% of rounds are judged by coaches or graduate students, while the remaining 10% are usually judged by college debate alums. As a result, you get to know your judging pretty well. This is especially true as things like mutual-preference judging have become almost standard practice.
While college speech times are only a minute or so longer, that translates into much longer days. Debate tournaments typically involve 8 rounds, each entailing about 30 minutes of prep time and 30 minutes afterwards for a judge to make a decision. The obvious downside is that this tends to make the weekends a bit longer. However, the extra time generally means better preparation, both in coaching afterwards and better judge comments after.
College debate is a bigger challenge but I've found all those things to be worth it. If you have any more specific questions about the nature of tournaments or certain squads, etc. feel free to post here or e-mail me anytime at brubaie at gmail dot com
Q: Are socialism counter plans effective?
A few theoretical problems --
1) There are multiple historical models for socialism -- China, Russia, etc. -- it's unclear which the CP implements.
2) There's no mechanism for the CP - no actor within the government has the power to re-write the constitution to change the fundamental structure of government. The nature of the CP's fiat is utopian, there is no solvency advocate and no literature base defines a process for the US to rid itself of capitalism.
3) What is socialism? Obviously some aspects of US policy are socialist (i.e. Social Security) but others aren't explicitly defined. This also shows that a permutation to adopt socialism in all instances but one (space development, for instance) would be desirable.
4) Socialism is bad...empirically it hasn't worked and has been displaced in favor of capitalism, it doesn't create resource equality, it fails in practice due to pride and bureaucracy, etc.
The 'Gift' K challenges the nature of government assistance to a targeted group. The argument is that when the government offers a 'gift' it always carries the expectation of reciprocity. For example, when the first European settlers brought 'gifts' to native colonies, they carried the expectation of a similar return. When certain tribes didn't acquiesce it created a process of hostility which disrupted the desired norm of reciprocity.
The two primary authors for this critique are Arrigo and Williams (http://ccj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/321) and Derrida/Bataille (www.sauer-thompson.com/essays/Bataille% … 20Gift.doc). Both of those resources are pretty good starts for getting into the literature.
I'm not positive there's a strong link on this year's topic outside of Natives, but there is still some possible story with AFFs that make claims about justice (Brownfields, Environmental Racism, etc.)
Q: What is purpose of the “resolved” in the resolution?
The most common interpretation is that 'resolved' expresses the stance the affirmative must take towards enacting the resolution. It is usually designed to ensure that the affirmative is performed immediately and prevent bidirectionality. I'm not saying this to back up either side of the dispute's argument, only to argue that 'resolved' performs a very limited function.
People still struggling to find a good interpretation of 'resolved' should consider its function in a round. While a literal interpretation might mean something like 'resolved means the AFF has to support the resolution in every instance', that would obviously be unworkable and destroy the AFF. It is perhaps more useful to simply imagine a good model for debate and then make "resolved" fit in after rather than using "resolved" as a gateway to approch how debate should occur.
Re: Is the affirmative responsible for affirming the entire resolution?
The AFF should be responsible for proving an instance of the resolution true. There is an argument to be made that the resolution is a hypothesis and the AFF has to prove it true in every instance. However (in my personal opinion) that seems grossly unfair to the AFF. If the resolution was true 90% of the time it would probably be a good idea.
The more popular modern argument method is plan focus. The AFF is required to prove that their plan is an example of the resolution which should be performed. 'Resolved' then modifies the plan action as an example of the resolution, not as one instance of many which must be proved by the AFF.
I definitely agree the AFF can't selectively choose which words in the resolution they affirm to dodge CPs. However, the "resolved" stem of the resolution usually seems irrelevant to me unless the AFF says they aren't enacted immediately or that one area of the topic is bad (i.e. replace corn ethanol with algae, which wouldn't be resolved to increase the pool of incentives to produce alternative energy).
Q: How can I answer a capitalism kritik?
A. Incentives are capitalist mechanisms of understanding the environment
B. Capitalism encourages global war
C. AFF doesn't solve the case because they misunderstand the environment
D. The alternative is to do nothing, not taking part in consumption-driven capitalist enterprises means they can't function (this is the most popular alternative, either by Zizek or Herrod)
Some introductory defensive link responses might include things like:
'empirically disproven - capitalism promotes mechanisms to address its own problems, proven by exxon-valdez, western action to preserve rainforests, etc.',
'the plan doesn't promote capitalism as a way to exploit others' resources, it promotes it as a way to incentivize better business behavior', and
'there's no threshold or mechanism to weigh the plan's effect on capitalist markets, rejecting incentive-based effects alone is ineffective', etc.
Some introductory impact responses would include things like
'history disproves the ultimate 'cap leads to extinction and all war' impact because war pre-dates capitalist economies, wars happen for reasons other than capitalism, and resource wars never go nuclear', and
'the NEG impact is hype and impossible to quantify - even if capitalism is flawed we have much more specific evidence on the necessity of the plan in halting an extinction-level impact.'
Other than that, other ways to reply would be "the case is a DA because capitalist incentives are key to solving the AFF", "capitalism is good", and "revolutions against capitalism fail."
Q: What kind of arguments exist for kritiking topicality?
Critiquing topicality is another way of attacking the negative's "limits" and "ground" standards. It is MUCH easier for the AFF to critique topicality if they, in some way, affirm the idea of the resolutoin. It is much more persuasive to hear "we should get to try different ways to incentivize alternative energy that are experimental" than "we should get to talk about whatever we want."
If you're AFF, your argument might be something like:
The advantage to our interpretation is that it promotes education on a critical issue. This education is important because (x). Their grounds and limits standards impose political censorship, which blocks radical change. Education garnered by the AFF is a better method for debate than one which uses censorship to enforce itself.
If you're NEG, your argument would be something like:
We're not saying the AFF can't have revolutionary ideas in debate, we're simply saying that they have to connect their ideas to the resolution. This is important to clash and education because it encourages good debates that are grounded in things we can predictably research. Education isn't about teaching people things you think are important, it is a byproduct of two well-informed teams having a debate with research and preparation to aid them. Their model of debate makes that impossible. If people got to talk about whatever they wanted we could never possibly develop a well-researched reply.
Q: As the affirmative, how do I answer a kritik?
There is a growing sentiment that there are two effective ways for an AFF to engage a run-of-the mill critique: link or impact turn. This set of two options bothered me at first because it seems to leave a very logical option off the list -- the plan v. the alternative. If anti-capitalist revolutions are bad, it would seem a reason to vote AFF. This is where what other posters above have cautioned is important. It is tough to stick the neg to a stable alternative. It isn't that they'll change the text of their alternative, or even become a "floating PIC" by advocating part of the plan.
Instead, they'll make framework arguments about which set of links they're winning existing in a separate framework from their alternative. This often sounds something like "even if the Alt doesn't solve it's try or die for the negative because extinction is inevitable under biopolitical governance..."
Here are common AFF tools to stop the neg from making this happen --
1. Framing arguments. There is an important distinguishing quality here. There are two types of framework. One is an impact framework, i.e. util or 'discourse first.' The other is a theory framework, i.e. whether the existence of the alternative creates a fair framework for debates.
I think it is wise to make both arguments and see if the negative simply groups it and reads theory. If they do they often concede winning impact arguments. Cites for some of these with short explanations are below...
-- Former debater Nicholas Bostrom writes about existential risks. These risks are ones where "humankind as a whole is imperiled." This doesn't exclude the possibility of other risks being important (i.e. it doesn't make genocide or famine irrelevant). Instead, it argues for an inclusion of other large-scale risks. The card we usually read for this says:
Bostrom, '2 - Prof of Philosophy @ Yale, "Existential Risks; Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," Journal of Evolution and Technology v9, March, http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html.
Existential risks are distinct from global endurable risks. Examples of the latter kind include: threats to the biodiversity of Earth’s ecosphere, moderate global warming, global economic recessions (even major ones), and possibly stifling cultural or religious eras such as the “dark ages”, even if they encompass the whole global community, provided they are transitory (though see the section on “Shrieks” below). To say that a particular global risk is endurable is evidently not to say that it is acceptable or not very serious. A world war fought with conventional weapons or a Nazi-style Reich lasting for a decade would be extremely horrible events even though they would fall under the rubric of endurable global risks since humanity could eventually recover. (On the other hand, they could be a local terminal risk for many individuals and for persecuted ethnic groups.)
I shall use the following definition of existential risks:
Existential risk – One where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.
An existential risk is one where humankind as a whole is imperiled. Existential disasters have major adverse consequences for the course of human civilization for all time to come.
2 The unique challenge of existential risks
Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is useful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such risks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven’t significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species.
With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about.
The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by “igniting” the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don’t know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
The special nature of the challenges posed by existential risks is illustrated by the following points:
Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions.
We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat.
Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk.
If we take into account the welfare of future generations, the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor, the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [15,16].
In view of its undeniable importance, it is surprising how little systematic work has been done in this area. Part of the explanation may be that many of the gravest risks stem (as we shall see) from anticipated future technologies that we have only recently begun to understand. Another part of the explanation may be the unavoidably interdisciplinary and speculative nature of the subject. And in part the neglect may also be attributable to an aversion against thinking seriously about a depressing topic. The point, however, is not to wallow in gloom and doom but simply to take a sober look at what could go wrong so we can create responsible strategies for improving our chances of survival. In order to do that, we need to know where to focus our efforts.
-- The permutation can be offense. For example, if they 'capitalism is bad' and you say 'we agree, we stop evil oil companies' that is offense. However, if they say 'your form of activism is passive role-playing, only we challenge consumer patterns which actually leave the room' you need something to make your link turn offensive. The reason your old link turn, 'we fight the oil companies', is no longer offense is because they're now controlling a framing argument. However, you can make your own framing arguments. Some people who argue a policy-centered approach should be used as a prerequisite to action:
Restricting ground to arguments about the consequences of institutional adoption is a revolutionary conception of the political that re-orients citizen agency and invigorates social interdependence
Adolf G. Gundersen, Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas A&M, 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 108-9
Will deliberation work the same way among ordinary citizens? Yes and no. Yes, deliberation will tend to heighten citizens appreciation of their interdependence. At the same time, the results are likely to be analogous rather than identical to those in formal governmental bodies, since citizen deliberation must of course function in the absence of the institutional interdependence established by the US constitution, with its clear specification of joint responsibilities. The theoretical mutuality of interests assumed by the Constitution exists among ordinary citizens, too. The difference is that they have only their interests, not the impetus of divided power, to encourage them to discover and articulate them. Granted. But once they begin to do so, they are every bit as likely to succeed as the average representative. Citizen deliberation, in other words, will intensify citizens' appreciation of interdependence. Although I cannot prove the point, there are compelling reasons to think that citizen deliberation yields an awareness of overlapping interests. I have already alluded to the first, and perhaps most telling of these: if governors in a system of divided government such as our own succeed in deliberating their way to the public interest (however imperfectly or irregularly), surely ordinary citizens can be counted upon to do the same thing. Indeed, if my initial argument that decision-making spells the end of deliberation is on the mark, then we have good reason to expect citizens to deliberate better than their representatives. One can add to these theoretical considerations a lengthening list of empirical findings which suggest not only that citizens are willing and able to engage in political deliberation, but also that they are quite able to do so—able, that is, precisely in the sense of coming to a deeper appreciation of the collective nature of the problems they face (Dale et al. 1995; Gundersen 1995; Dryzek 1990; see also Gundersen n.d., chapter 4). In the end, the claim that deliberation enhances interdependence is hardly a radical one. After all, if deliberation will of itself diminish partisanship, as I started out by saying, it must at the same time enhance interdependence. To aim between Athens and Philadelphia requires, perhaps more than anything else, a changed way of thinking about partisanship. Institutions and ways of thinking tend to change together; hence if the institutional reorientation suggested here is to take root, it must be accompanied by a new way of thinking about partisanship. Shifting our appraisal of partisanship will amount to a nothing less than a new attitude toward politics. It will require that we aspire to something new, something that is at once less lofty (and less threatening) than the unity to which direct democracy is supposed to lead, but more democratic (and more deliberative) than encouraging political deliberation among a selected group of representatives. As I argued above, it will require that we seek to stimulate deliberation among all citizens. With Madison, we need to view partisanship as inevitable. Collective choice, indeed choice itself, is a partisan affair. But we also need to resist the equation of politics and partisanship. If politics is seen as nothing more than a clash of partisan interests, it is likely to stay at that level. Conversely, for deliberation to work, it must be seen as reasonable, if not all-illuminating—as efficacious, if not all-powerful. At the same time, of course, citizens must borrow a page from the participatory democrat's book by coming to view deliberation as their responsibility rather than something that is done only by others in city hall, the state capitol, or Congress—others who are, after all, under direct and constant pressure to act rather than deliberate. Politics, in other words, must be resuscitated as an allegiance to democratic deliberation.
Their education is distrusting of institutional study and pragmatic reform. Even if their intentions are noble, their message results in fascist totalitarianism
Martin Lewis, Assistant Professor at George Washington, 1992 Green Delusions p. 258
A majority of those born between 1960 and 1980 seem to tend toward cynicism, and we can thus hardly expect them to be converted en masse to radical doctrines of social and environmental salvation by a few committed thinkers. It is actually possible that a radical education may make them even more cynical than they already are. While their professors may find the extreme relativism of subversive postmodernism bracingly liberating, many of today's students may embrace only the new creed's rejection of the past. Stripped of leftist social concerns, radical postmodernism's contempt for established social and political philosophy—indeed, its contempt for liberalism—may well lead to right-wing totalitarianism. When cynical, right-leaning students are taught that democracy is a sham and that all meaning derives from power, they are being schooled in fascism, regardless of their instructors' intentions. According to sociologist Jeffrey Goldfarb (1991), cynicism is the hallmark—and main defect—of the current age. He persuasively argues that cynicism's roots lie in failed left- and right-wing ideologies—systems of thought that deductively connect "a simple rationalized absolute truth ... to a totalized set of political actions and policies" (1991:82). Although most eco-radicals are anything but cynical when they imagine a "green future," they do take a cynical turn when contemplating the present political order. The dual cynical-ideological mode represents nothing less than the death of liberalism and of reform. Its dangers are eloquently spelled out by Goldfarb (1991:9): "When one thinks ideologically and acts ideologically, opponents become enemies to be vanquished, political compromise becomes a kind of immorality, and constitutional refinements become inconvenient niceties.
-- Impact turning isn't always as bad as it seems. Some critiques are easier to impact turn than others (i.e. it is easier link turn capitalism than Lacan because neoliberalism is a bit less nebulous and there is empirical evidence about what neoliberal social structures look like and achieve). I think its often useful to impact turn
* representation arguments (the link turns here are sometimes silly -- the AFF probably does instill fear of death, etc.).
* management/security arguments.
*capitalism/neoliberalism, etc.
Others can be impact turned as well but those three circumstances above where you will almost certainly enter the game behind the negative on the link debate. You can fight your way through it with technically superior debating but you can also put yourself a step a forward by just choosing to invest time making good strategic decisions that center around a deep, embedded center of controversy (the impact).
Q: What came first: high gas prices or fuel efficient cars?
Really interesting thoughts all around. Fuel efficient cars have been around for a while but unfortunately (esp. for people in Dallas) it seems high gas prices pre-date them.
I'm not sure that the $5-$7/gallon prices would be the necessary trigger for alternate energy research. While I think you're right that those would certainly be a sufficient cause, I don't think they're a necessary cause.
The key question to consider for this year is which types of incentives can reduce fossil fuel consumption. For example, along with gas prices, most Americans will have an increasing amount of their revenue sapped by taxes. Fuel efficient tax breaks seem like a great middle ground for a possible future Democratic presidency wishing to look for ways to lower taxes or a McCain administration looking to go green.
The conceptual foundation of your question is very sound. I have no doubt that the worst case would certainly fuel (no pun intended) the ingenuity needed to address the crisis. Hopefully, though, policy makers can devise other tools to reduce consumption. Next year's topic represents a really great start for how to begin.
Q: Would an argument about biofuels inflating food production be good?
http://debate-central.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=33317
I really like the inflation idea. Just this year, Michigan won on an Econ DA over Northwestern in the Quarterfinals of the NDT. Here are some things I saw them do well -
(1) Quantify your impact. There are TONS of authors who say (x) is the red line. You had a great point above -- inflation is occurring now, but only 3-4 percent. I'm sure a good number of authors cite hypothetical red lines that would lead to things like mortgage lending, mass stock sales, etc. that typically are signs of a recession. In this debate, Michigan talked about dollar revaluation. They won partially on the fact that they had very good evidence that quantified the internal link.
(2) Win the perception debate. The affirmative may have good answers like market rebound, other sectors check, etc. The way to get around these is to control the perception debate. If you win that investors and fuel lobbies freak out in the interim, it short circuits the AFF's ability to win their defensive claims because their arguments are process-based, not perception-based.
What are some arguments I should look to run?
--Pollution. Tying health into pollution is a really good idea. There is a lot of literature on how air quality effects quality of life, productivity, etc. in addition to the obvious environmental harm. Another area to look into might be "environmental racism," a term used to describe when the effect on health seems limited to the poorest areas of society.
--Biodiversity. The United States has a surprising amount of it, especially in refuges like ANWR. Resolving American oil dependency through incentives for renewables is one of the few backstops things that hurt biodiversity, such as offshore drilling.
--Business Confidence. Businesses are profoundly influenced by new environmental laws but often have few incentives to comply. Finding a good compromise solution would likely accrue many economic advantages.
Keep an eye on ethanol subsidies and biofuel. The 2007 Farm Bill that is being hammered out this week has a HUGE section on funding ethanol and other alternative fuels. It might make many new affirmatives likely and many old disadvantages to new investment non-unique.
One other thing to keep in mind -- look through your squad's backfiles, if you have them. The Oceans topic of 2003 will have a lot of bearing on this topic, especially areas detailing energy use. Backfiles are a really quick way to get ahead on some complex environmental issues.
Q: What are the arguments surrounding global warming?
The scientific community almost universally concludes that global warming is a real phenomenon produced by human activity. It is often difficult to find recent, peer-reviewed evidence from qualified sources suggesting that global warming is false.
However, there are a few very good resources for those wishing to dispute the theory of global warming. The most popular is Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist." The book is one of the most widely read and well-examined volumes for skeptics of global warming. Lomborg coins the term "environmental catastrophism" to describe the widespread social costs of believing environmental catastrophe lurks silently around the corner. This evidence could effectively answer affirmatives, bolster disadvantages, or function as a critique of affirmative impact scenarios.
One of the most effective debate strategies may be to strategically limit your skepticism. The best approach to the global warming debate often lies somewhere in the middle. Consider the following two hypothetical rounds:
-- The negative argues global warming is false. They have tons of good evidence indicting things like glacial evaporation, climate models, and ozone depletion. However, the affirmative still has some good evidence from new studies that the arguments made by negative authors don't consider.
If I'm judging this debate, I'm put into a tough position. Even if I conclude that the effects of global warming are overstated, I still have cause for concern. Affirmatives can effectively say "even if warming is unlikely, there's still a small chance of great catastrophe if we don't act."
This is why it's important to consider the second scenario:
--The negative concedes that some greenhouse gases cause ozone depletion. However, the negative still argues that this ozone depletion won't be nearly large enough to melt ice caps or destroy natural environments.
Not only will the initial concession get you a good nod from lay judges, a point mentioned by tonystarcraft, but it will also allow you the ability to generate offense. While the affirmative can't access their 'icecaps will melt' or 'the planet will explode' arguments, the negative can make any of their 'carbon good' arguments. Many scientists suggest that the current rate of carbon production encourages species survival and blocks more dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere.
The most famous debate example of this argument is often called "SO2 screw." The argument made by climatologists Idso and Idso is that the high levels of carbon produced by greenhouse gases prevent more harmful SO2 from reaching earth's atmosphere. It has gained great fame because many of its arguments explicitly compare the impacts of CO2 and SO2 and argue that SO2 is far more deadly. They write extensively, but the most widely used articles in debate are:
“Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment Increases Quantity of Plant Biomass Without Sacrificing Quality,” Volume 4, Number 13, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n13edit.htm
“Elevated CO2 May Slow Plant Decomposition Rates, Increasing Soil Carbon Storage,” November 28, 2001, http://www.co2science.org/subject/comme … 4n3com.htm
"SUSTAINING THE WORLD OF NATURE IN THE FACE OF GROWING HUMAN PRESSURES," 2002,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N20/EDIT.php.
Q: Where can I find a comprehensive list of federal incentives?
Q: What are good inherency arguments against solar power?
I've only done a few brief searches, but I turned up a few inherency-type articles for solar power.
A lot of progress has been made following the President's Solar America Initiative in 2006. However, I found what appeared to be two very good proposals--
*Expand the federal tax credit. It is due to expire on December 31st and faces a key subsidy battle with other groups. However, the program has demonstrated its effectiveness in convincing large business groups to invest in solar power--
Downing, 4-27-08
[Jim. "Looming tax shift powers solar boom; The scheduled phase-out of a big federal credit at the end of the year prompts many businesses to make buying decisions now." Sacramento Bee (California). BUSINESS; Pg. D1. P. Lexis]
The role of big investors in the solar boom illustrates the importance of financial sophistication in making green technology viable. Here's why:
The chief federal incentive for solar power provides a tax credit equal to 30 percent of the cost of a non-residential installation, which ranges from about $1.5 million to $20 million and up.
However, for a variety of reasons, many businesses can't take full advantage of such a large tax credit. And a government or school that pays no income tax gets no benefit at all.
But big investors -- the Citigroups and Wells Fargos of the world -- have a virtually bottomless appetite for tax credits. And starting in 2006, several California firms began to figure out how to package solar projects to be attractive investments for Wall Street.
"In 2007, the floodgates opened," said Matt Cheney, chief executive of MMA Renewable Ventures in San Francisco.
Through such arrangements, the solar panels on the rooftop of a business actually belong to a bank. Mark Frederick, managing partner for Auburn-based Pacific Power Management, which built Cooper's system, said financial giants are ready to fund more projects.
"We have a $250 million open line with Morgan Stanley," Frederick said. "That lets us go out and sell a lot of projects."
Frederick said that with some luck, he'll do 10 times as much business in 2008 as he did last year.
Individual homeowners generally don't get such a good deal on solar because they aren't eligible for the largest federal subsidies. The tax credit for homeowners is capped at $2,000, often only 5 percent to 10 percent of a solar system's cost, though subsidies are available from electric utilities. Economies of scale also favor large, commercial-scale projects.
A key reason Frederick and others are finding it so easy to sell big solar projects this spring is the prospect of the federal tax credit expiring at the end of the year. A solar project must be generating power by Dec. 31, or it becomes ineligible for the entire subsidy.
"It's forcing people to decide," said Michaels.
In addition, the state-mandated utility subsidies that add to the savings for solar projects are set to decline over time. Whoever builds first gets the most savings. These subsidies, totaling $3.3 billion over 10 years, are funded by a surcharge on ratepayers' electric bills.
The solar industry is lobbying Congress for an extension of the tax credit, which it estimates would cost the treasury $700 million over 10 years. Monique Hanis, spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the extension has bipartisan support in concept, but funding it will require cuts to other programs. A bill passed by the House would pull money from oil and gas subsidies, but the Senate has yet to agree to a funding plan.
"We really don't know what's going to happen," Hanis said.
Within the next decade, the combination of improved technology and manufacturing efficiencies should begin to make solar electricity competitive with grid electricity, even without subsidies, according to a recent report by UBS AG, the Swiss investment bank.
Solar will first beat the grid in sunny regions with high electricity prices, like Italy, the report said. If current trends continue, areas in the Sacramento Valley served by PG&E won't be too far behind.
Solar costs would have to fall further to be competitive in SMUD's service area, since the municipal utility's rates are lower than PG&E's.
The development of a low-cost solar industry in the United States, however, would likely be significantly delayed if the federal tax credit is not extended.
"A lot of people will be laid off," Cheney said. "It would be hugely disruptive."
*Support business conversion. Many small business owners, especially those of environmentally-based corporations, describe the difficulty of shifting to solar without federal incentives. John McCain encountered one such example on the campaign trail--
NYT, 5-14-08
["Stumping On Climate, McCain Faults Bush." Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 16. P. Lexis]
Before his news conference Tuesday, Mr. McCain led a round-table discussion with environmentalists and local leaders at the education center of the Cedar River Watershed, which supplies water for Seattle. The panelist Mr. McCain appeared most excited to meet was Sally Jewell, chief executive of the outdoor gear and attire company REI, based in Seattle, who told Mr. McCain that she was converting 10 REI stores to solar power and that if she had federal incentives, they would help.
Mr. McCain made no promises but said the panel had renewed his enthusiasm to return to Washington ''to try to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan'' -- one of his favorite expressions.
Q: What are some good Kritiks for this year?
A few ideas come to mind --
*Critiques of capitalism. Most affirmatives next year will address environmental problems by offering a financial incentive to businesses. This process reduces nature to a commodity in a business exchange. While capitalism may have tenets as a principle of social organization, there is a very active debate regarding whether capitalist socities promote sustainable environmental practices. Some argue that capitalist principles are antithetical to environmental health. Business expansion tends to produce incredible amounts of pollution and waste. Perhaps equally important, it promotes the ideology that the health of nature is secondary to economic growth, an ideology which drives rising levels of consumption and waste.
*Critiques of management and securitization. Many authors indict the idea that nature is a stable, managable entity. These critiques vary dramatically.
Some authors, including Martin Heidegger, say that this view of nature produces a relationship between humans and nature that divorces the two. This disconnect makes it incredibly difficult to answer the most basic question of all--what it means to be human. Heidegger refers to this understanding of what it means to be human as "ontology." Heideggarian critics argue that without forming the fundamental understanding of ontology it becomes impossible to form a peaceful existence. A flawed ontology that divorces humans from nature produces everything from environmental devistation to complete social collapse.
Other authors, most notably Timothy Luke, argue against what they term "environmental securitzation." In his 1997 book Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture, Luke argues against the fundamental tenets of policies which attempt to securitize nature. Many advantage scenarios next year will argue that humans need to secure their continued existence by stopping global warming, protecting biodiversity, etc. Luke argues that this politics of security is a flawed way to determine environmental policy. He criticizes traditional environmentalists for determining solutions that articulate new visions of power of nature. He similarly criticizes the idea that true environmental health can occur in a capitalist economy predicated on insatiable growth imperatives.
Q: Could you run a topicality with each of the States in it?
I think the question of what a topical energy policy must do is an interesting debate. I read your question as asking whether the plan should have to effect each individual state.
My initial perception is to say that it shouldn't necessarily have to. Most of the incentives offered by affirmatives next year aren't likely to be consumer incentives (i.e. the government giving you money for buying an energy-efficient vehicle). I think next year's incentives are likely to be industry-based incentive, i.e. to incentivize certain waste reduction techniques. The nature of these incentives is that they would obviously only effect oil-producing corporations who operate in a finite set of oil-rich states.
However, there's a reasonable limits question to be asked about the counter-interpretation. While it may be true that there are some federal incentives that only target certain industries, there are also incentives that would reward all US consumers equally.
This is where it's great to become an expert on the topic early. The more good affirmative and negative evidence you can find the more qualified and warranted your discussion about the most education vision of the topic becomes.
Q: What are some arguments against wind energy?
I think you let your opponent frame the debate a bit too much early on. I don't think you have to agree with the basic premise on wind for cars. For instance:
Neg - "How will you use the electricity for cars. The cars run on gas not electricity"
---Strategy one would be to deny their basic premise, i.e. "The plan displaces the predominant use of oil by providing an incentive for industry conversion. Literally everything from factories to electricity plants will have a massive economic incentive to convert. These are also the predominant form of consumption for consumers."
--Strategy two would be to say something like "Our plan fuels a massive industry conversion that would be appealing to both car manufacturers and the producers which make their inputs."
Neg - "How will we afford the cars, would Americans give up their cars and buy the electric ones?
--"Affordability is a bigger problem in the status quo. Gas is increasingly expensive and the average American can't afford to spend $35 a week filling up their gas tank. The plan is an incentive to help defray costs for average consumers."
Neg - "How will the low income families afford these cars."
--"Low-income Americans would be most benefited by the plan. From high energy costs to expensive gasoline, the American consumer is paying the price for the status quo. Expensive oil raises the price of production for producers who pass that cost on to consumers who foot the bill."
Those are, of course, all hypothetical and shouldn't be taken as points of fact. However, among the research I did over the summer, those seem like the answers the politicians in support of wind typically give.
Q: How should I go about extending the bailout disadvantages?
The big problem for the DA is brink/uniqueness. This has been the worst September for the U.S. stock market since 2001. The Dow fell the furthest in one day since I've been alive today. The 'delay' for the bailout has already occurred. If Congress fails to reach a vote Bush would likely act independently.
Additionally, the failures of the credit bank may still be contained. A lot of smart people say the economy is still fundamentally sound, such as:
Truman, ‘8 – Former senior Treasury Department official [Ted, “Seven Questions: Why You Shouldn’t Panic About the Financial Crisis,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms. … y_id=4471]
FP: President George W. Bush and Secretary Paulson stressed in their public comments that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain sound. Is that your view? ET: Yes. I think the remarkable thing is that you’ve had more than a year’s worth of financial turbulence, and the impact on the real economy has been minimal. The stock market is down 25 percent, house prices are down 15 percent, and the real economy is flat. The capacity of Americans to produce goods and services has been maintained. Unemployment has gone up; that’s true. [But] incomes are holding up. We actually are producing at the same rate, maybe a little higher, than we were a year ago. And that’s certainly quite different from saying the economy is contracting and that the economy is in a spiral and needs a fundamental reconstruction. The financial system is taking a bigger hit than it has at any time since the Great Depression, but the real economy is now nowhere close to that. If you look at the Great Depression, the unemployment rate went up to 25 percent and real GDP dropped substantially. We’re not close to that, and we’re not going to be close to that.
Of course, there are great negative cards as well that say precisely the opposite and have great facts and support. The bailout is one of the great ways for debaters who do a lot of researching week to week to get ahead of those who don't.
Q: What are good generic disadvantages against solar power?
There are a couple generic disadvantages which will be very popular and highly effective against a solar power affirmative:
-- Russia/Saudi/Iraqi oil production. The prevalence of oil is crucial to maintaining the domestic stability of each country. Many solar advocates claim they could lead a revolution away from fossil fuels. As a possible counterplan idea, other forms of alternative energy, such as biofuels, ensure that oil would stay in demand while decreasing deadly emissions.
-- Business confidence. Major energy industries have built their future plans around different forms of energy than solar power. Specifically, farmers have begun to grow more corn to meet the government's new ethanol demands. Introducing large volumes of solar power would hurt their bottom line and create an unstable market for their investments.
Q: What are some negative responses to wind power?
I worked with my lab on a wind power affirmative this summer at Baylor. The major negative responses you may wish to prepare for include --
-- Topicality "increase" / Inherency (as mentioned previously). The Production Tax Credit for wind is currently in place but is set to expire at the end of this year and hasn't been renewed. The big question is whether an affirmative can topically extend an existing status quo program or must create a new form of incentive for alternative energy. There are other wind power programs being developed (such as Pickens' series of wind farms in Texas), but most of those are private ventures taken due to personal interest, not economic incentives.
-- Agent counterplans. The US is not the only actor pursuing wind power, nor is it a global leader. Several nations have taken action to become leaders in developing wind power. Their efforts are documented most thoroughly in this article:
Zaidi, ‘7 – Lawyer at Millrise Law Office, JD from U Tulsa Law
[Kamaal R. “WIND ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PLANNING: POWERING RENEWABLE ENERGY IN CANADA AND ABROAD.” Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, 11 Alb. L. Envtl. Outlook 198, p. Lexis]
-- Litigation. Wind farms tend to evoke a 'not in my backyard' syndrome. (NIMBY is what it's sometimes called in the literature) Many of these areas have moratoriums against wind farms. These efforts are described most thoroughly here:
Brown and Escobar, ‘7
[Brit T. Brown and Benjamin A. Escobar. “WIND POWER: GENERATING ELECTRICITY AND LAWSUITS.” Energy Law Journal. 28 Energy L. J. 489, p. Lexis]
-- Other helpful articles if you're still interested in pursuing wind power:
KAPLAN, ‘4 – counsel in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of the law firm of Nixon Peabody LLP
[Carolyn S. “COASTAL WIND ENERGY GENERATION: CONFLICT AND CAPACITIE: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: Congress, the Courts, and the Army
Corps: Siting the First Offshore Wind Farm in the United States.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 177, p. Lexis]
Daulton, ‘7 – Director of the National Audubon Society
[Mike. “IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES ON BIRDS AND BATS.” CQ Congressional Testimony@ HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND OCEANS. 5-1, p. Lexis]
Cotter '7
[Christopher, JD Candidate Univ of Dayton School of Law, “COMMENT: WIND POWER AND THE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD: AN OHIO ANALYSIS” 32 Dayton L. Rev. 405, LEXIS]
Shoock ’7
[Corey Stephen, JD candidate Fordham Univ. School of Law, “BLOWING IN THE WIND: HOW A TWO-TIERED NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, A SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND, AND OTHER PROGRAMS WILL RESHAPE AMERICAN ENERGY INVESTMENT AND REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL EXTERNALITIES” 12 Fordham J. Corp & Fin. L. 1011, LEXIS]
Q: Is nuclear a good affirmative? What are the weaknesses?
I also think nuclear power is a very good affirmative. The evidence supporting it is well-warranted and has a very deep literature base.
I would caution you on two main concerns, though, which may or may not be important given the region you debate in;
--Topicality. Every time I have judged a nuclear power AFF the negative has run 'Topicality - Nuclear Power isn't alternative energy.' To be fair, I haven't voted negative on this argument so far, but the evidence to support it is very good. If you are worried about debating topicality as a new debater then nuclear power might be a tough sell.
--In-depth strategies like counterplans. They're all over the place for nuclear power. As an example, I judged a debate where the negative team read a counterplan to use a different type of coolant for the nuclear power plants (they said sodium was bad and caused nuclear accidents because it is combustible and the chambers in nuclear storage are subject to erosion). Of course, this is what makes the debate really fun--there are lots of cool things contained within it. At the same time, that can be difficult if you're a younger team and looking for something simple.
Q: What are some good arguments for oil dependence causing disease?
It might lead to the destruction of the environment. There are great cards that say these areas of the environment are vital to developing future pharmaceuticals that would be the frontline in a major bioterror attack or any other response to disease.
There is also the backdoor in, which is just to say that dependency is crucial to checking scenarios for a nuclear war which would cause mass radiation and disease spread.
The final way would be to read a US credibility advantage. There are several articles which discuss the important of US credibility to mounting effective international responses to contain disease. The one below is one of the best --
Weber et. al, 2k7
[Steven, professor of political science and director of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Naazneen Barma, Matthew Kroenig, and Ely Ratner, all Ph.D. candidates at U.C., Berkeley and research fellows at its New Era Foreign Policy Center, Foreign Policy, January/February, 2007, Issue 158, l/n]
Q: What does the military aff look like and what are some disadvantages against it?
The first type of plan targets incentives towards the US military with the goal of introducing a transformation in military energy use. The main advantages are usually leadership based, arguing that the US can't maintain hegemony in a world where its military is hamstrung by dependence. The most common alternative fuels proposed for this purpose are synthetic fuels and biofuels.
The second type of plan text allows the United States Air Force to negotiate long-term contracts with biofuel plants to fuel the fleet. The argument is that although the Air Force is moving towards alternative energy now, they can't enter into long-term deals that ensure a shift away from dependence.
As far as the original question goes about DAs, a few to keep in mind would be any basic Oil DA (the military is a huge consumer), Politics, and possibly a Civil-Military relations DA (the military doesn't like civilian branches of government directing its military strategy - upsetting relations hurts combat effectiveness and hegemony, turning the affirmative).
Q: What are arguments against the hemp case?
I think everyone's gut reaction to run Topicality is fundamentally correct. There is a good argument for a large number of sources of that could be converted to fuel, if only they were legal. It would seem like a very low limit to place on the AFF to simply make something legal.
This also highlights the fundamental weakness of the AFF, that there is very little need for the incentive. A counterplan which ended the War on Drugs combined with any number of alternative energy DAs is a great strategy.
The political nature of the AFF also makes it a hard sell. While alternative energy sure is popular, hemp surely isn't. Most teams' 1ACs even seem centered around this claim (that it is only illegal because of political perception). That would seem to make a counterplan which used a different type of alternative energy with a politics DA as a net benefit a very persuasive negative strategy, especially since it's so hard for the AFF to win the 'plan is popular' link turn.
Q: How can you argue corn ethanol good?
I'm not sure 'corn ethanol good' is such an impossible sell. Biofuel subsidies are a large part of the college topic and there's an active corn biofuel good/bad debate.
I don't read that AFF so I don't have a large personal position on the nature of the literature. Admittedly, it leans against corn ethanol. However, corn ethanol's negative effects can be characterized as long term. There are also good cards that suggest that corn ethanol is a necessary transition to next-generation ethanol sources, such as:
Sandalow, ‘8 – SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
[David. “HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS TITLE: RISING OIL PRICES, DECLINING NATIONAL SECURITY?” May 22, Federal News Service, p. Lexis]
MR. SANDALOW: I think that the role of corn ethanol in food price increases is real, but it has been wildly overstated in some of the media accounts. And I agree with Anne that a set of other factors are more important, including rising oil prices, increasing demand in developing countries, weather problems and speculation. That said, corn-based ethanol, which I support, is a transitional fuel. And the real reason to support corn-based ethanol at this point, in my opinion, is to build up an infrastructure so that as we develop cellulosic ethanol and even more advanced biofuels like algae- based ethanol and biofuels; we'll have the infrastructure in place in order to have a real alternative to oil.
There are also good basic outlines to an oil prices or economy DA, such as;
Oil Prices 1NC -
<insert uniqueness>
Ethanol is the crucial determinant in half-gallon price hikes
Thune, ‘8 – US Senator (SD)
[John. “PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA); SUBJECT: ETHANOL PRODUCTION.” Federal News Service. May 22, 2008. p. Nexis]
And I think it's important that it be stated, too, that the only thing that really has positively impacted the supply of energy in this country over the past several years is biofuels. We use 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year. We're generating now about 8 billion gallons of ethanol. But according to studies that have been done -- and of course, one of them that's already been alluded to was published in the Wall Street Journal several weeks back by Merrill Lynch suggested that gas prices and oil prices would be 15 percent higher today were it not for the impact and the effect of ethanol. Well, at today's prices, that's about 50 cents a gallon. We don't need less biofuels, we need more biofuels because it's the only thing that is having a positive impact on the price of gasoline in this country.
Escalating prices lead to nuclear resource wars
Qasem, ‘7 – Masters in IR from Columbia
[Islam Yasin. 7-9, The Coming Warfare of Oil Shortage, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne … are_o.htm]
Recognizing the strategic value of oil for their national interests, superpowers will not hesitate to unleash their economic and military power to ensure secure access to oil resources, triggering worldwide tension, if not armed conflict. And while superpowers like the United States maintain superior conventional military power, in addition to their nuclear power, some weaker states are already nuclearly armed, others are seeking nuclear weapons. In an anarchic world with many nuclear-weapon states feeling insecure, and a global economy in downward spiral, the chances of using nuclear weapons in pursuit of national interests are high.
BUSINESS CONFIDENCE - 1NC
The ethanol industry is crucial to wider economic growth for several reasons
Dinneen, ‘8 – PRESIDENT & CEO @ RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION
[Bob. “FOOD PRICES AND SMALL BUSINESSES.” CQ Congressional Testimony, Committee on House Small Business. May 15, p. Lexis]
In an overall environment of slowing economic growth, the U.S. ethanol industry stands out in sharp contrast. According to a report by economist John Urbanchuk of LECG, LLC, dated February 20, 2008, the American ethanol industry is a job creating engine. The increase in economic activity resulting from ongoing production and construction of new ethanol capacity supported the creation of 238,541 jobs in all sectors of the economy during 2007. These include more than 46,000 additional jobs in America's manufacturing sector -- American jobs making ethanol from grain produced by American farmers. Ethanol production is providing a dramatic economic stimulus across the country, particularly in rural America. It is helping to raise the price for which farmers sell their corn, provide good paying jobs where few existed before, and generate the kind of economic activity that is returning vitality to Main Streets across America. U.S. agriculture is evolving in very important ways, and rural America is primed to take advantage of these opportunities. Ethanol today is the single most important value-added market for farmers. The increased demand for grain used in ethanol processing has increased farm income, created jobs in the agricultural sector, and revitalized numerous rural communities where ethanol biorefineries have been located. The House Small Business Committee will have a critical role to play to ensure that investment opportunities for small, rural communities continue.
Speculation will drive market signals quickly downward
LUGAR, ‘8 – R-IND. RANKING MEMBER of SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
[SEN. RICHARD G. “SEN. JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. HOLDS A HEARING ON GLOBAL FOOD ISSUES.” Congressional Quarterly, Inc. May 14. p. Lexis]
Furthermore, I would just point out, technically, from the Ag Committee's standpoint, the speculation in grain prices in the United States has been enormous. Farmers note that the normal way of establishing a price, if you want to sell forward, has sort of gone out the window. People are -- by electronic means around the world, 24 hours a day are speculating in surges of prices.
So the price of wheat, corn, what have you, if you're a farmer, may fluctuate 50 cents in a day, per bushel, not on the basis of reality, but on the basis of hedge funds and the thoughts as to how money might be made from the trade.
You can't control all of that. These are factors in our life. But they have a huge implication.
That will spread throughout the market and collapse economic growth
Braithwaite, 4 – ARCF fellow
[John, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, Australian National University, and chair of the Regulatory Institutions Network, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 592 Annals 79, l/n]
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emancipation and hope is addressed within the assumption of economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we know capitalism thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence on hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories; consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before they will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory; scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their invention. Keynes's ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of "animal spirits" of hope ("spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation" (p. 161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).
Extinction results
Bearden, 2k
[U.S. Army (Retired), T.E., LTC, U.S. Army, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
There are a few reasons the people who read Nano generally do so --
-- Impact size. The types of calamity that nanoweapons could cause are enormous. One example:
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
4 Bangs
This is the most obvious kind of existential risk. It is conceptually easy to understand. Below are some possible ways for the world to end in a bang.[8] I have tried to rank them roughly in order of how probable they are, in my estimation, to cause the extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life; but my intention with the ordering is more to provide a basis for further discussion than to make any firm assertions.
4.1 Deliberate misuse of nanotechnology
In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale self-replicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9]
The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an “active shield” [23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23].
Even if effective defenses against a limited nanotech attack are developed before dangerous replicators are designed and acquired by suicidal regimes or terrorists, there will still be the danger of an arms race between states possessing nanotechnology. It has been argued [26] that molecular manufacturing would lead to both arms race instability and crisis instability, to a higher degree than was the case with nuclear weapons. Arms race instability means that there would be dominant incentives for each competitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runaway arms race. Crisis instability means that there would be dominant incentives for striking first. Two roughly balanced rivals acquiring nanotechnology would, on this view, begin a massive buildup of armaments and weapons development programs that would continue until a crisis occurs and war breaks out, potentially causing global terminal destruction. That the arms race could have been predicted is no guarantee that an international security system will be created ahead of time to prevent this disaster from happening. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was predicted but occurred nevertheless.
-- Impact strength. Simply saying 'nanotech is bad' doesn't really answer most AFFs. Most AFFs will say nanotech is inevitable, it is simply a question of whether it is regulated/unregulated or done by the government/private actors. In that circumstance, the only question isn't 'is nanotech good or bad?' but instead 'should we regulate it?'
-- Doesn't link to most oil DAs. The point of most nanotech isn't to displace oil, which allows you some leeway on lots of different DA links.
Q: How do you answer an aff that cuts all domestic ethanol subsidies and imports it from Brazil?
I've heard a few good arguments judging this AFF in HS and debating the corn biofuels AFF in college. If anyone is interested in more let me know, but a couple effective ones I've heard have been --
1) I think topicality is actually a pretty good argument against this AFF. AFFs that can increase one type of fuel (cellulose ethanol) by trading off with another (corn ethanol) make the topic bidirectional. If the goal of cellulose is simply to displace corn, it isn't a net increase in the total number of incentives offered to businesses. Both seem like compelling arguments.
2) There is a lot of good evidence that cellulose simply isn't ready to come online for large-scale production. Some cites include:
Rapier, ‘8
[Robert Rapier, M.S. Chemical Engineering from Texas A & M University and Engineering Director for Accsys Technologies , “Cellulosic Ethanol is Dead,” R-Squared Energy Blog, March 07, 2008, http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/03 … dead.html]
Philpott, ‘8
[Tom Philpott, Grist's food editor. Tom is a founder of Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture non-profit and small farm located in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina , “Cellulosic ethanol: not likely to be viable,” Grist, 03 Mar 2008, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746]
Sklar, ‘8 – president of Sklar & Associates, a consulting firm specializing in biofuels project development
[Tim. He is also a CPA with expertise in project finance, due diligence investigations, viability assessments, and business plans. He has extensive consulting and operational experience in business turnarounds and operational management and restructuring, having served on the management consulting division of accounting and consulting firms PriceWaterhouseCoopers and KPMG on US and international assignments. Sklar served as chief financial officer of regional manufacturer GFC Inc, leading a major business turnaround effort. He has held positions in the federal government as research director of a presidential commission charged with developing policy recommendations on educational finance reform and as director of regulatory enforcement in the Federal Energy Administration. Sklar has developed courses for CPAs and attorneys on due diligence for acquisitions and sales of closely held companies, high risk ventures, and emerging growth companies. He also provides liaison services for project sponsors, private investors, and concessionaires in dealings with international institutional lenders such as the World Bank, IDB, Ex-Im Bank, and OPIC. Energy project experience includes petroleum refineries, power plants, power distribution systems, hybrid remote power generation systems, integrated oil seed crushing-biodiesel processing plants, and integrated pulp mill-cellulosic ethanol processing plants. “Obstacles bedevil EISA's RFS biofuels mandate.” Oil & Gas Journal, 3-17. p. Lexis]
Social Services
Q: What will some big arguments be this year?
I think when one imagines the most popular AFFs, they'll likely envision three major case areas;
-- worker compensation (minimum wage, child tax credit, unemployment insurance, unions, etc.)
-- assisting children (ranging from everything like after school care to pell grants for college)
-- social reconfiguration (consumer products targeting, prisoner re-integration, housing vouchers, etc.)
A greater explanation of each program can found in the topic paper at http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager … erty08.pdf
I agree with the initial concern that critiques will be common. This literature base will incorporate a lot of people who aren't as commonly referenced in most policy debate literature (sociologists, anthropologists, historians, etc.) This type of common literature source will mean a lot more critiques of social relations and the law as a mechanism for addressing them. Critiques of economic policy will also predominate in the debate about unions and taxes.
As far as DAs go, there are several. The most obvious is the least unique but most well-known, coercion. This is a surprisingly common strategy among top teams against these types of AFFs. There are several economy DAs related to taxes and unions alone. The issue is highly politically charged, opening room for great politics DAs. As debaters begin to navigate the topic, I think they'll see a number of interesting things that occur during recessions. For example, military recruiting (and all the impact it relates to like hegemony, readiness, rapid-deployment ability, etc.) all go up when the job market is generally down: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11369345. The AFF might trade off with some of those recruits by encouraging people to stick with local union jobs or lower-taxed, higher-waged jobs.
Counterplans are a bit trickier. I suspect that many people will perhaps counterplan out of the tax portion of the AFF and do some sort of alternate economic mechanism. The states CP will be back in full force.
One thing that will be interesting about CP literature is that a lot of it will come from think tanks. For example, a lot of Obama's cabinet has think tank ties (Flournoy, etc.). I agree with Chuck Ballingall in the topic paper when he says "Every private think tank that deals with domestic issues has published materials on poverty. In additional there are a number of academic and private organizations devoted to the poverty issue. Since poverty is also a fundamental economic problem, there is also a substantial amount of academic economic literature discussing the causes and potential solutions for poverty." That should mean good debates between different schools of thought, i.e. debates about the Brookings Institution proposal versus the CATO proposals on 'card-check' for union workers.
Hope that helps, I'd love to hear other ideas for what people think will be common next year.