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
form would be to
the structure. Quite simple, really. In addition, the common person would picture an environmental policy as a ruleor law that is strictly
– 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.
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
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
the environment. Because of this, they are clearly outside of the boundaries of theresolution that state an affirmative case must
an environmental policy, not and energy policy that
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
– why should wedebate? But by voting negative, you can send a message to affirmative teams that non-Topical cases are
okay – upholding the fairness, educational value and future of debate.
Smile, it’s the end of the world : ) Page