NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #3Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC
NEG – Abolish Nuclear Loan Guarantees – CON
....................................................................................................................................................................33) Coal Mining
TOPICALITY
A. Interpretation
1. Resolution
That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.
2. Definitionsa. Environmental Policy
“The official rules or regulations concerning the environment adopted, implemented, and enforced by somegovernmental agency.”
William P. Cunningham
[
Ph.D. in Botany
from the University of Texas in (1963); Emeritus Professor at the University of Minnesotawhere he taught for 36 years],
Mary Ann Cunningham
(
Bachelor’s of Arts in Geology
from Carleton College (1986),
Master’s of Arts in Geography
from the University of Oregon (1992) and
Ph.D. in Geography
from the University of Minnesota (2001)],
& Barbara Woodworth Saigo
(St. Cloud State University), The Text Book “Environmental Science: A Global Concern,” McRawHill (Online Learning Center) Glossary Page, Copyright
2003
, http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html
b. Reform
“To amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.”
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
,
2009
, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform
3. Conclusion
We conclude that the affirmative team’s plan – in order to fall under the resolution – must reform the official rulesconcerning the environment. Reform had been defined as to change the structure of something directly, not tosimply improve it. So the affirmative team must directly change the structure of an existing policy that concerns theenvironment. If the “rule” the affirmative team reforms does not directly concern the environment, then it is notTopical and outside of the boundaries of the resolution.We would now like to offer some standards to help determine which interpretation of the resolution should beupheld.
B. Standards
1. Brightline
An interpretation of the resolution must portray it in a way that draws a clear, bright line between what is Topicaland what is not. Our definitions of reform and environmental policy make it clear as to what the affirmative teamcan and cannot do, while the affirmative team’s interpretation draws no such brightline.
Smile, it’s the end of the world : ) Page
1
of
12
NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #3Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC
2. Fair limits
An interpretation of the resolution that offers fair, reasonable limits should be upheld over one that is ridiculously broad. Our definitions offer an interpretation that is not ridiculously broad, but not too narrow. I could think of adozen cases off the top of my head that fall under the resolution as defined this way, but the affirmative team’sinterpretation is so broad as to include policy reform that should fall under energy policy.
3. Framer’s Intent
An interpretation of the resolution that matches up most with the original intent of the resolution’s framers shoulddefinitely be upheld over another interpretation. If we think about the framer’s intent in this year’s resolution, clearlythey did not intend for people to reform energy policy when they said reform environmental policy. There are twoseparate acts for the policies: National Energy Policy Act, and National Environmental Policy Act – if the framerswanted us to reform the energy one, they would have specified in the resolution.
4. Common Man
Is this interpretation of the resolution one that the average person would agree with or understand? The commonman would logically break down the word and decipher its meaning: re….form… we all know what form means,and “re” means to do it again. If when forming a policy one makes its structure, then a
re
form would be to
change
the structure. Quite simple, really. In addition, the common person would picture an environmental policy as a ruleor law that is strictly
environmental
– you can discern that once again by breaking down the term.Our interpretation of the resolution using our definitions of reform and environmental policy most upholds thestandards of the brightline, fair limits, framer’s intent and common man. Therefore it should be upheld above theaffirmative team’s interpretation.
C. Violations
The affirmative team is reforming – through abolishment (or encouragement) the policy that gives loan guaranteesfor nuclear energy. However, Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power are an Energy policy! The Department of Energysaid:“ The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program(,)
paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects that use innovativetechnologies, and spurs further investment in these advanced technologies.
[e]stablished under Title (17) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,(authorizes) the Secretary of Energy
is authorized
to make loan guarantees to qualified projects
in the belief that accelerated commercial useof these new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.”
So we see that the affirmative team’s plan is actually reforming an Energy policy, carried out by the Department of Energy, and established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.By our interpretation of the resolution, they are not explicitly reforming an environmental policy, but reforming anEnergy policy that
affects
the environment. Because of this, they are clearly outside of the boundaries of theresolution that state an affirmative case must
reform
an environmental policy, not and energy policy that
affects
theenvironment.
D. Voters
1. Fairness, Educational Value and Precedence
By voting affirmative, you would be sending a message to affirmative teams that non-Topical cases are okay. If cases are allowed that are outside the resolution, then it becomes harder for negative teams to prepare for all of thecases that may be possible – because up until now they have been researching topics under the resolution, but if theresolution doesn’t matter, then affirmative cases will get harder and harder to predict – up until the point that it becomes impossible for negative teams to research properly. There are several impacts of this. First, the clash in-round is severely damaged. Without proper research and knowledge to back up their arguments, negative teams’ willnot be able to intelligently debate the issue at hand in any given debate round – and affirmatives will always win.Secondly, if it gets so hard to research a topic without limits (or at least, limits that are ignored), negative teams willnot even bother to research – or debate for that matter. If we know the affirmative team will always win – since they basically have infinite prep time and the negative team doesn’t even know what to prepare
for
– why should wedebate? But by voting negative, you can send a message to affirmative teams that non-Topical cases are
not
okay – upholding the fairness, educational value and future of debate.
Smile, it’s the end of the world : ) Page
2
of
12
NEG – Abolish Nuclear LGs CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #3Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC
In addition, there is an even weightier impact of non-Topicality, called…
2. Jurisdiction
In order to justify this debate round, the affirmative team must convince you that the resolution must be upheld – namely, that the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. This is because your jurisdiction extends as far as the resolution. You have the power to negate or affirm it – hence, wehave negative and affirmative teams, the resolution and affirmative and negative boxes on the ballot. But if theaffirmative team is non-Topical, they are not upholding the resolution. Since the affirmative team’s case does notreform and environmental policy, even
if
they convince you at the end of this round that
their case
should be done,their case does not uphold the resolution, so they have not convince you that the
resolution
should be upheld. Sinceyou only have the jurisdiction to affirm or negate the resolution, and the affirmative team has not given you a reasonto do so, we urge to vote negative at the end of this round. Also, if the affirmative team is not affirming theresolution, it only makes logical sense that they are negating it. So we have two negative teams in this round! Nomatter which “case” you prefer (the status quo/counterplan, or the non-Topical 1AC-case), you should still check “negative” on your ballot at the end of this round.
SIGNIFICANCE
1. Loan Guarantees Needed for the Survival of Nuclear Energy
1. Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants2. Developing Nuclear Reactors need billions in loans to be built, and the key to getting those loans is gettingfederal guarantees to back them3. Only nuclear power can the power this nation needs to move forward – and it needs loans4. Nuclear projects live or die based on whether or not they can get an LG5. LGs needed and are win-win-win for the environment, the economy and consumers6. Nuclear energy is good, and loans help encourage it1. Loan Guarantees needed to provide the financial security needed to build plants
Dr. Aris Candris
(president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric Company;
B.A. in physics, math and engineering
from
in Lexington, Kentucky;
M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering
from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; member of the Board of Trustees for Transylvania University; member of the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Board of Directors), “Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal,
November 8, 2009
“These loan guarantees are crucial for providing the financial security that’s needed to build advanced nuclear energy plants. These new plants will promote energy independence, improve our country’s economiccompetitiveness, and help provide a cleaner environment for future generations.”
2. Developing Nuclear Reactors need billions in loans to be built, and the key to getting those loans is gettingfederal guarantees to back them
Mark Clayton
(
staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor
), “Nuclear power’s new debate: cost,” The Christian ScienceMonitor,
August 13, 2009
,
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/
Smile, it’s the end of the world : ) Page
3
of
12
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
NEG - Abolish Nuclear LGs - CON
It's not finished... But expect an update sometime : )
781
Reads
8
Readcasts
4
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
