Theory

SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INDEX
Index...............................................................1
CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels 1NC...........3
CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels 2NC/1NR..4
AT: Literature Checks Abuse..........................4
AT: Clash Checks Abuse.................................5
AT: No IR Abuse/No Potential Abuse.............6
AT: Fairness Outweighs..................................6
AT: Education Outweighs...............................6
CTL Specific T AE ≠ Fossil fuels more definitions ........................................................................7
Speaking in Canberra yesterday, Ferguson said he would push for more deregulation of global
energy markets but also support local projects to deliver low-emission fossil fuels, including
coal-to-liquids, and renewable energy............7
T FLex-fuel incentive ≠ Mandate 2nc/1nr......8
PICS Bad.........................................................9
PICS Good....................................................10
Dispositionality Bad .....................................11
Dispositionality Good .................................12
Conditionality Good......................................13
Conditionality Bad........................................14
Agent Counterplans Bad ..............................15
Agent Counterplans Good.............................16
Floating PICs Bad.........................................17
Floating PICs Good.......................................18
Severance Perms Bad ...................................19
Severance Perms Good ................................20
Intrinsic Perms Bad ......................................21
Intrinsic Perms Good ...................................22
International actors good...............................23
International actors bad.................................24
Multi- Actor Good.........................................25
Multi – Actor Bad........................................26
Utopian Fiat Bad...........................................27
Utopian Fiat Good.........................................28
50 STATES CP THEORY Bad......................29
50 States Fiat Good.......................................30
Intrinsic Perms to CP Bad: 2NC...................31
Intrinsic Perms to CP Bad: 2NR...................32
AT: Intrinsic Perms to D/As ........................33
OVERVIEWS...............................................34
UNIQUENESS ext........................................35
LINK ext.......................................................36
AT: IMPACT TURNS...................................38
IRAN ext (AT: strikes good).........................38
LOST ext (AT: crushes economy, heg, power projection, etc.).....................................................40
LOST ext (AT: leads to prolif, terrorism, etc.)41
-1-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
LOST ext (AT: arctic, oil, etc.).....................42
Global Warming link turn answers...............42
-2-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 1NC

A. Interpretation: Alternative energy is all energy that is derived from any
other source but fossil fuels. US Dept. of Interior 2008 –
(http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy /Definitions.htm)
Fuel sources that are other than those derived from fossil fuels.
Typically used interchangeably for renewable energy. Examples include:
wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal energy.
B. Violation: The affirmative mandates the use of coal, a fossil fuel, as the
source for their energy.
C. Standards:
1.) Limits – Our interpretation provides the best limits, allowing for
equal ground for aff and neg and allows for more on and off case args
that are specific rather than generic. This increases education.
2.) Predictability – Our interpretation forces the affirmative team to
debate about incentives for alternative energy sources, which makes
their cases more predictable, this is key to fairness.
3.) Bright Line – Our interpretation makes clear what is and isn’t
topical.
4.) Context – Our interpretation comes from the federal government
and captures the heart of the topic.
5.) Competing Interpretations – Our interpretation is even slightly more
true to the resolution you must vote neg. This is key to clearly defining
the resolution.
6.) Bi-Directionality – The aff should only be able to increase one way
towards alternative fuels and not fossil fuels. This is key to ensuring
predictable negative ground.
7.) Breadth vs. Depth – Only our definition allows for an in-depth
argument on core topic issues. One learns more reading a book than
standing in front of a shelf in a library. Depth is uniquely key to
education.
D. Topicality is a voting issue

1.) Jurisdiction: It’s not within the jurisdiction of the judge to vote for an
untopical case.
2.) Education: A topical case is key to education.
3.) Fairness: An untopical case means the neg can’t win.
4.) Potential Abuse: Voting for an untopical case promotes even worse
abuse in future rounds.
-3-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 2NC/1NR

OV:
Our interpretation is that alternative energy is energy that is not derived from fossil fuels.
Their plan violates our interpretation and exploits the core of the resolution. Our interpretation
ensures the best, most educational debates by keeping competitive equity.
Line-by-Line:
1.) They don’t meet: b/c coal to liquid is still derived from the source of coal, a fossil fuel
which violates our interpretation.
2.) CI: Their CI is abusive and true to the resolution for many reasons.
A. Ground: They destroy any neg. ground by assuming all energy is alternative
energy except crude oil. Negation theory would restrict the neg to only defend one
option, which is crude oil.
B. Overwhelms neg – Under their interpretation any energy sources besides oil
are alternative energy. This completely underlimits and explodes the neg’s
research burden.
C. Predictability: Their interpretation gives aff an infinite number of cases.
D. Their CI definition comes from three different authors. It should be rejected
because it is an opinionated card from three separate, unqualified, biased authors,
while ours comes from the federal government.
3.) Congress-Their IHT ‘7 evidence says Congress supports coal as an alternative fuel,
not an alternative energy, which is specified in the resolution.
4.) Encyclopedia-Your always going to prefer our evidence, over their generic
encyclopedia, because it comes directly from experts working for the federal government, which
is key to all policymaking. Plus Encyclopedia Brittanica but rather never actually says that coal
to liquid is an alternative energy, but rather, the search for alternative energy has spurred new
technologies for fossil fuels, such as CTL.
5.) Their ground args assume that oil based D/As are the only ones the neg could run.
They still don’t link to specific alternative energy D/As that would link to wind or algae. Specific
arguments are better than generics for education.
6.) Their interpretation doesn’t give fair limits and gives extreme overflexibility for the
aff and destroy any possible neg ground.
7.) Extensions: [EXPLAIN]
- Limits
- Predictability
- Competing interpretations
- Context
8.) Insert additional arguments. [Analytics, Reason., ect.]
9.) Extend voters for education, fairness, potential abuse and jurisdiction.
AT: LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE
1. Literature is inevitable – generic topic links and extra research means we will
always have something to say in terms of off-case positions, and advantage
counterplans and advantage-specific negs mean we will probably have case
arguments too; this doesn’t mean we have adequate literature on their case.
-4-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
2. Any risk that there is any literature specific to their affirmative that we can’t access
based on topic research means this arg doesn’t apply.
3. This argument is irrelevant – as long as we win our competing interpretations
standard this argument doesn’t apply because it no longer is a question of what
actually happens or can happen in round but which interpretation can provide the
most fair and predictable literature base.
AT: CLASH CHECKS ABUSE
1. This is probably the worst debate argument ever made and you know it.
2. Clash is inevitable – we are never going to read T and sit down without at least
reading generics against their case; proves clash is inevitable even when not on case-
specific issues.
3. Clash is arbitrary – there is no brightline between how much “clash” is enough or
even a way to determine how much clash is truly in a round because clash happens
on an individual argument basis.
most fair and
predictable literature base.
-5-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
AT: NO IR ABUSE/NO POTENTIAL ABUSE

1. Abuse doesn’t have to be a flagrant offense on a flow – if there is even a single
argument that we have lost as a result of them not meeting our interpretation then
there is abuse in the round which by their argument is enough to vote neg.
2. Their arg justifies 2NC T violations – if proving abuse is the prerequisite to voting
on topicality then we are justified either waiting until the 2NC or reading a second
or morphed T violation in the block in a response to abusive arguments in the 2AC.
most fair and predictable literature base.
AT: FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS

1. Education is a prerequisite to fairness - the more equal the division of knowledge
and topical education to both sides the more fair the debate will be because each side
will have learned intuitive arguments and research bases that are necessary for in-
depth and fair debate.
2. Education outweighs – debate is an activity whose core purpose is to foster
policymaking education; fairness is an important byproduct of good debate but
should never be held above education as long as the core purpose remains so.
AT: EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS

1. Fairness is prerequisite to education – the only way we can learn from debate, or at
least to a degree that matters, is through a fair and equal division of ground to both
sides in order to foster more in-depth argumentation and thus more in-depth policy
analysis.
2. Fairness outweighs – fairness is the primary element that keeps debate fun and
keeps people in the activity; a world of no fairness means a world of no debate,
which short circuits all of their offense.
-6-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS MORE

DEFINITIONS
( ) Coal to liquid is a fossil fuel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, June 25, 2008 (Energy talk, but little action-Lexis Nexis)
As federal lawmakers are set to leave for the July 4th recess at week's end, Republicans and
Democrats are fighting over a fifth energy bill in as many years. The fight now is about including
subsidies for fossil-fuel alternatives, such as coal-to-liquid fuel (something Barack Obama has
supported), oil shale and tar sands with those in place for wind, solar and ethanol.
( ) Coal to liquid qualifies as a fossil fuels
UPI Energy 08
UPI Energy, June 6, 2008, Lexis Nexis
Speaking in Canberra yesterday, Ferguson said he would push for more deregulation of global
energy markets but also support local projects to deliver low-emission fossil fuels, including
coal-to-liquids, and renewable energy
-7-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
T FLEX-FUEL INCENTIVE ≠ MANDATE 2NC/1NR

1. They don’t meet, a mandate is not an incentive, that’s what our definition is and their plan
says “Mandate” in it.
2. Extend our interpretation that Incentives are not mandates, this definition is the best
a) limits the topic reasonably- Otherwise it is aff biased, they can run almost any aff, our
interp limits the debate reasonably
b) fairly splits Aff and Neg ground- We still give them all the ground the resolutional
provides
3. Their definition is bad
a) explodes the topic, twice as many Affs are topical under their Interp.
b) Unpredictable, under their interpretation sending anyone to jail who drives a car is
topical, or threatening to nuke the united states in 2010 if they don’t switch to
alternative energy is topical.
c) Resolutional basis, at the point when you allow their definition, the topic is no
different than the college resolution in 04 or the high school resolution in 97 which
did not have the word “Incentives” in them.
d) Ground, this destroys Neg ground, an example of such is a Counterplan that mandates
things as opposed to incentivizing them also their Interp can spike out of all our links
talking about incentives and not mandates.
4. Extend our voter from the 1NC, Topicality is a voter
a) Lit does not check abuse, if we are prepared vote us up for that, not down
b) Clash does not check abuse, same reason as lit
-8-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
PICS BAD
Infinitely regressive
- Neg can PIC out of absolutely anything
- They can change the smallest of details and claim net benefits
Unpredictable
- Aff cant predict what the neg will pic out of
- Neg can run virtually anything
Steals aff ground

- Neg uses all of the plan except for any section that links to a neg argument
- Makes the aff debate against its self which destroys the purpose of debate
Focuses debate on trivial issues

- Only focuses on the part the PICed out of
- Doesn’t focus on real world issues, just one aspect of the plan
Education
- Aff doesn’t learn about the opposing issues
- Not depth over breath because it’s unpredictable since the neg can PIC out of anything
Neg can test parts of plan without using all of it

- The neg can still read DAs, non-topical CPs, mutually exclusive CPs etc. to test the plan.
Voters
- Theory is an independent voter for the reasons above and competitive equity
-9-
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
PICS GOOD
Flexibility
- Neg should be able to test aff plan in any way possible
- Forces aff to defend their plan
Education
- Learn depth over breadth more about a specific area instead of under-covering arguments
Fairness:
- Checks back aff side bias because aff gets the first and last speeches
Best policy option

- Allows us to find the most real world solution
Small Focus Good

- Large impacts prove importance
- Encourages better plan writing and more specificity
More real world

- The only other types of cps are utopian
- Policies are constantly amended in politics
No Voters
- Vote down the argument, not the team
- 10 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD
Not reciprocal
- Forces Aff to straight turn the CP or else Neg can drop it whenever
Time skew
- The Aff must defend the plan throughout the entire debate, while the Neg can kick their CP at
any time
- Neg could kick the argument if aff spent a lot of time on it, wasting aff time
Reduces Aff ground

- The Aff only has the choice of straight turning or perming the CP
- Neg has too many options of arguments against case
Education
- Aff has to straight turn or perm the CP or else they can drop it so reading cards against it is
pointless.
Aff loses perms and theory arg.’s, which are the most strategic 2AC
args.
Neg can read artificial net benefits to other planks
Voters
- Theory is an independent voter for competitive equity and the reasons above
- 11 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD
Ground
- Aff can develop any plan in the resolution
Critical thinking
- Tests the plan
Predictability
- Aff can choose what arg.’s to go for since they are able to straight turn the CP
- Aff can stick the neg with the CP
Straight turning the CP saves a lot of time in Aff speeches

- If you straight turn the CP, whatever links to the CP, they don’t have to answer it.
Time skews and strat. skews are inevitable

- Neg can choose which arg.’s to go for and Aff can choose which case advantages to go for
Best Policy Option

- Most real world option is best
Education
- The Neg doesn’t have to defend the plan, their job is to prove that the Aff just doesn’t solve
No Voters
- 12 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
CONDITIONALITY GOOD
Neg flex
- Neg should not be able to choose to go for the arg that competes most with the plan
Best policy option

- Allows for most educated decision in the real world
Negation theory
- Neg can test plan in as many ways as possible to find problems
Critical thinking
- Forces aff to make best args in 2AC which increases education
Most real world

- Policymakers can always opt for status quo
Turn checks abuse

- Aff can always straight turn condot. CP and make neg defend it, even without going for it
- All other Neg args can be kicked, CP should be the same way
Time/strat skew inevitable

- Different speed and neg block prove
Always err neg on theory since aff has advantage though first and
last speeches and infinite prep time
No Voters
- At worst only reject CP, but never the team
- 13 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
CONDITIONALITY BAD
Multiple worlds bad
- Leads to unstable advocacy
- Not real world because people don’t advocate contradictory arguments
Strat skew
- Aff cannot stick neg with CP so neg can capitalize on whatever the aff spends less time on
Not reciprocal
- Aff can only advocate one action, giving neg multiple advocacies makes in impossible for aff to
win
Depth vs Breadth
- Allowing neg to have too many CPs makes shallow debate
Critical thinking
- Only unconditional CPs force the neg to really evaluate strength of CPs before reading them
Voters
C/I-neg gets one dispositional CP
- 14 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD
Education
- It discourages topic specific research because all you research is the outcome, not how the
United States passes plan
Research Burden
- There are numerous branches to the United States governmental, the negative can chose any of
them, and then do it as the plan.
Limits
- There are an infinite number of different agents Neg could choose from, forcing the Aff to
argue against any trivial organization
Aff Ground
- The negative can simply change the process by which the plan is done to avoid DA links and
still access the advantages
Voters
- 15 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD
Negative Flex
- The affirmative gives the first and last and speech, going negative is hard, we need all the
ground we can get, and testing the agent of the plan is a legitimate test of the plan.
Best Policy Option

- Testing and changing the agent of a plan is key to finding the best policy option.
- Happens in the real world
Education
- Talking about different agents and not just congress is key to increasing topic education
because we learn about others ways to enact legislation
Critical thinking
- It makes the aff. defend all of their plan and not just parts of it
No Voters
- At worst only reject CP, but never the team
- 16 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
FLOATING PICS BAD
They spike out of any offense you could read by creating a moving
target
- Aff can’t answer arguments sufficiently if Neg doesn’t have a stable advocacy
They force the aff. to argue against themselves.

- Ruins the idea of debate
Unpredictable
– There’s no way for the aff to predict what miniscule thing the aff. will PIC out of.
Education
- Aff doesn’t learn about the opposing issues
- Not depth over breath because it’s unpredictable since the neg can PIC out of anything
Steals AFF ground

- Neg uses all of the plan except for the section that links to a neg argument
Voters
- 17 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
FLOATING PICS GOOD
Best policy option

- Allows for most educated decision in the real world
Critical thinking
- Makes the Aff defend all aspects of their plan
Education
- Learn depth over breadth, more educated about a specific area
Negative Flex
- The affirmative gives the first and last and speech and infinite prep time,
- Neg needs all the ground we can get
No Voters
- 18 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
SEVERANCE PERMS BAD

Aff conditionality
- Aff’s role in the debate is to present a policy option and defend it, when they can kick out of a
piece of their plan they aren’t doing this.
Kills predictable negative

- The whole round is based around the plan. neg loses stable ground when aff can jettison any
part they don’t wish to defend
Limits
- Neg can sever out of any miniscule aspect of the plan, forcing the Aff to argue against
themselves
Voters
- 19 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD
Best policy option

- In the real world, policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible.
Education
- Forces the neg to use critical thinking to figure out how to answer these arguments
Ground
- Neg must test Aff plan in any way possible for the Aff to defend
No Voters
- 20 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTRINSIC PERMS BAD
Kills neg ground

- The whole neg strat is predicated around the plan. When the aff can advocate things outside the
plan or CP, the negative loses all their ground,
Predictability
- Neg can add anything to the plan, which destroys predictability because Aff will have to
argue against an infinite number of issues
Limits
- Neg should not be able to add anything imaginable to plan or else it forces Aff to debate trivial
issues
Voters
- 21 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTRINSIC PERMS GOOD
Best policy option

- Real-world policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible
Education
- Forces the neg to use critical thinking to figure out how to answer our argumnts and defend
their plan
No Voters
- 22 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTERNATIONAL ACTORS GOOD

Increases negative ground
- Give the negative an advantage to balance the aff has of unlimited prep and the first and last
speech, CP does not have to be topical
Education
- We learn about more countries and a comparative government which is important
- It helps debate because we are arguing a greater variety of topics
Best policy option

- Real world policies use the best actor possible
Lit check
- Much literature is written on international actors
Reciprocal
- If the aff should get to defend one central government, so should the neg
No Voters
- 23 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTERNATIONAL ACTORS BAD

No bright line
- It could include or exclude any number of international actors
Abusive
- The aff would have to research every possible actor and provides a huge research burden
Vagueness
- We are not debating a specific topic we are being too broad
It decreases topic specific education

- We don’t get to debate specifics of the topic we are stuck debating about how the plan should
be enacted
It is non reciprocal because other countries pass laws in a different

way
Voters
- 24 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
MULTI- ACTOR GOOD
USFG has several actors in it and there’s no difference in using a

specific part of the USFG.
The standard destroys CPs

- Every counter plan is a pic or it’s utopian
They have to defend the whole plan
Best policy option

- Real-world policies are constantly amended to ratify the best policy possible
Encourages better plan writing for the aff
No Voters
- 25 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
MULTI – ACTOR BAD

Not reciprocal
- The aff only gets one actor, neg shouldn’t get two
Steals aff ground

- Steal aff plan with different actors
It is infinetly regressive
- Justifies doing the plan minus one part and having any other country combined with the U.S. or
combined with another country do it
- Makes aff debate against themselves.
Net benefits don’t check abuse.
Voters
- 26 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
UTOPIAN FIAT BAD
Not real world

- No empirical evidence
- Cannot fiat people’s mindset.
- Internal link turns their impacts
Perm
- Do alt- in all other instances
Destroys aff. ground:

- Can fiat out of links
Supercharged by vague No Text Alt: destroys Aff ground even more because the aff can’t
perm it without the text
Voters
- 27 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
UTOPIAN FIAT GOOD
- Increases real world personal education.
- Counters rampant pragmatism which is entrenched in policy

debate.
- Increasing personal education is best because it influences actual

personal actions of individuals as opposed to concerning the actions
and ideology of the government.
- Helps to view the world as a whole as opposed to focusing small

issues.
- At worst, reject the alternative, not the team. We are still winning
a case turn with our criticism.
- 28 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
50 STATES CP THEORY BAD

DEFENSE
1. not real world – there’s never been an example of a time when all 50 states have done
something together. Puts you in a double bind – either the 50 states won’t all act and you
lose solvency or your counterplan is illegitimate because we can never garner evidence
against it because it’s never happened before.
2. makes neg a moving target – you could read solvency that pertains to one state and then
change the state your talking about
3. fiat abuse– the aff gets to fiat one actor, the neg should only be able to fiat one actor.
Changing branches would be legit, but saying every state in addition to the Supreme
Court would solve is not.
4. not predictable – articulating a cohesive aff strategy is impossible when your forced to
defend on multiple fronts that Texas and California would provide.
5. Ground- They can spike out of arguments against one agent by going for another; it’s
impossible for us to win.
VOTERS FOR REASONS OF:

education
fairness
in-round abuse
- 29 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
50 STATES FIAT GOOD
1.Stable target -- We can’t change the state we’re talking about since
we talk about all of them and our solvency is only for one or two of
them.
2.No fiat abuse -- We can fiat as many actors as we want, the Aff uses
all 3 branches of the USFG, why can’t we use lots of states.
3.Predictable -- Aff strategies are easy to create against more actors,
if anything we open ourselves up to more offense.
4.Ground -- More actors mean more ground, we are stuck advocating
all of them.
5.Negative Flexibility -- Key to checking back Aff side bias
6.Best Policy Option
7.50 state fiat is not a voter for the reasons above.
- 30 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTRINSIC PERMS TO CP BAD: 2NC

Kills Predictability
The whole Neg strat is predicated around the plan. If the Aff can bring up
new things to add to their plan anytime, it is impossible to predict what they
advocate until the 2AR.
Destroys Neg Ground

When the Aff can advocate things outside of their plan or CP, they Neg loses
all their ground.
Independent Voting Issue

Theory is a voting issue for competitiveness, fairness and education.
- 31 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
INTRINSIC PERMS TO CP BAD: 2NR
Kills Predictability
The whole Neg strat is predicated around the plan. If the Aff can bring up
new things to add to their plan anytime, it is impossible to predict what they
advocate until the 2AR.
Destroys Neg Ground

When the Aff can advocate things outside of their plan or CP, they Neg loses
all their ground. Depending on what the Neg says, the Aff can perm out of
anything they choose. This takes Neg ground.
Independent Voting Issue:

1.1.Competitiveness: If the Aff can add to their plan at any time, it’s
impossible for the Neg to know every part of the plan. Intrinsic perms do not
guarantee competition on all parts.
1.2.Education: When there is significant loss of competitiveness and
fairness it destroys clash and then creates substantially less education.
1.3.Fairness: The Neg is unable to be prepared for an infinite number of
cases if the Aff is able to advocate whatever they want. This eliminates
fairness.
- 32 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
AT: INTRINSIC PERMS TO D/AS

1. It’s not a test of the link, the perm doesn’t link because they can
always structure it in a way that doesn’t link.
2.D/A perms are always intrinsic because we don’t provide any
alternative.
3.They allow you to perm to perm out of any argument and creates a
huge Aff bias.
4.They justify perming out of solvency arguments which is even more
abusive and destructive of education
5.Voting issue for competitive equity.
- 33 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
OVERVIEWS
IRAN
Obama is going to win the elections in the squo now, but after the plan passes, Bush and
McCain will gain popularity because of the alternate energy support from the public. McCain will
win and strike Iran, and Syria will retaliate against Israel with smallpox. Probability is greater
because a strike on Iran will immediately escalate into full-blown war from the tension and
instability. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected, and the
magnitude is greater because biological weapons and a nuclear war outweigh environmental
impacts. A new strain of smallpox would have no cure and a nuclear war would cause even
more environmental destruction.
LOST
not ratify LOST which is key to leadership, and preventing prolif, terrorism, and economic
destruction. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected, and
probability is inevitable because LOST is a key issue now. Magnitude outweighs because
proliferation, terrorism, destruction of leadership and the economy are much greater than a slim
chance of environmental impacts and they would lead to destruction of the earth as well.
GAG RULE
not repeal the gag rule, unlike Obama, and the gag rule leads to overpopulation and ecological
extinction. The timeframe is immediately after the plan passes and McCain is elected.
Probability is inevitable because the gag rule is affecting the world now, and ecological
extinction from overpopulation is more probable than environmental impacts. The magnitude
outweighs Aff because extinction is much greater than any environmental impact.
- 34 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
UNIQUENESS EXT
1) Extend our Cillizza ’08 Uniqueness card that says Obama will win independents. He has an
edge over McCain for independent voters in four states
2) Obama will win because of the economy
Faucher 6/28/08 (Augustine, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pa, Boston
Globe,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/28economy_bodes_ill_wind_for_mccain/)
HISTORICALLY, ECONOMIC conditions have played an enormous role in presidential
elections, even as other factors come into play. Economic downturns are bad news for the incumbent, while
expansions tend to lead to reelection. Franklin D. Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in the depth of the Great
Depression in 1932. Boom times helped reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996. For all the money
and time and effort that go into campaigning, the results of presidential elections often seem to
track basic economic conditions. My employer, Moody's Economy.com, has developed a model to predict
the outcome of the vote in each state, based on economic conditions at the time of the election. The results
forecast the Electoral College vote. And as of June, the model is predicting a big victory for the Democrat,
Senator Barack Obama.
3) McCain is imploding and Obama will win elections
Jenkins 6/30/08 (Paul, staff writer, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-mccainbush-

effect-on_b_109881.html)
When a Republican spokesperson recently said that "there are no safe Republican seats in this election," she was
talking about Congressional races, but she may as well as have been describing the presidential election. It is
increasingly clear that the Arizona Senator can rely on very few safe havens (perhaps even including his own state.)
At this point, McCain can only count on 56 (!) electoral votes as being solidly in his camp (ie,
those where he leads in most recent polling by more than 10 points). By contrast, Obama can count on close
to 200 (270 are needed.) It is hard to exaggerate the difficulty of the task ahead for McCain, even this long before
the election. He is running 15 to 20% behind Bush in a whole series of red states where independents have not
jumped back on his bandwagon, and where many of Bush's core supporters appear to be planning to sit it out (or
vote for Bob
Barr, the Libertarian candidate). McCain will not win by relying on reluctantly loyal GOP support in Wyoming, Utah,
Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas (barely), Nebraska, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, the only states where he is
comfortably ahead. Meanwhile, Obama has basically already closed the deal in the entire Northeast
and large swaths of Midwestern and Pacific ex-swing states.
- 35 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
LINK EXT
1) Extend our Young ’08 link card that says alternate energy swings the election. Energy is the
top priority for 51% of the voters and people want an alternate energy policy to combat
environmental problems.
2) Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular – public wants to reduce dependency
Broder and Connelly ’07 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global
Warming”, April 26)
The poll also found that Americans
want the United States to support conservation and to be a
global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy
sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. The presidential candidates have recognized
the desire for swifter action on energy and the environment than the Bush administration has pursued and have
offered plans with varying degrees of specificity.
3) Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular with voters – even if it increases energy

costs
PR Newswire 4/14/08 (“Survey says US consumers are willing to pay premium for Renewable Sourced
Products” Proquest)
A new survey released today shows
that nearly seven out of 10 U.S. consumers (65 percent)
are willing to pay more for products made with renewable resources. The nationally
representative survey, sponsored by DuPont and Mohawk Industries, queried 1,001 U.S. homeowners to identify
consumers' personal attitudes and behavior toward environmental responsibility. Conducted by MarketTools, the
survey also revealed that global warming and helping American farmers were important drivers for consumers.
Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would consider purchasing renewably
sourced products that are more expensive to help deter global warming, while 33 percent of
respondents said they would consider doing the same to help American farmers. Renewably sourced products on the
market today include carpets, textiles, personal care products and others derived from renewable, farm-grown
sources rather than petroleum.
4) Massive public support for alternate energy – new polls prove
Purnell 6/11/08 (President, American Institute of Architects, CQ Testimony)

The American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of
climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide
poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that "the government should take the lead in
promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources." In addition, 71 percent of voters
agreed that "the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The American public supports conserving our precious
resources, and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our
reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in
our nation's homes would be a major step towards that goal.
5) Extend our Farmer ’08 internal link card that says increasing Bush’s popularity causes
McCain to win because McCain is tied to Bush. Since the plan is popular, Bush and McCain’s
popularity increases, so McCain will win the election.
6) Obama solves alternate energy – calls for increased incentives
Biofuels Digest 4/23
- 36 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
In endorsing cap-and-trade, Clinton is in agreement with Senators Obama and McCain, although implementation
details may differ. Senators Clinton and Obama agree on a 10-year, $150 billion fund for alternative
energy research. Senator Clinton calls for 55 MPG Cafe standards by 2030, compared to “doubling by 2026″ for
Senator Obama. The National Energy Council is unique to the Clinton campaign, but the Obama campaign is more
agressive on a global front, calling for a Global Energy Forum including the G-8, China, Mexico,
India, Brazil and South Africa. The Obama campaign calls for the increase in the Renewable Fuel
Standard to 60 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2030, a mandatory 10 percent reduction in low-carbon
petroleum fuels, and increased incentives for local investment in biofuels plants.
- 37 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
AT: IMPACT TURNS

IRAN EXT (AT: STRIKES GOOD)
1) Iran will destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan by lashing out
Brookes ’06 (Peter,- Senior fellow @ Heritage 1-23 “Iran: Our Military Options”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012306a.cfm)
But it's unlikely to be that simple. After an assault, Iran might lash out with a vengeance. We'd have to be fully
prepared for some nasty blowback. Tehran and its terrorist toadies can brew up some serious trouble for both America and
Israel — or anyone else that supported an attack on the fundamentalist Islamic state. The Iranian regime is already up
to
its neck in the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could certainly increase its financial/material support
to the Sunni insurgents, Shia militants, al Qaeda, and the Taliban to destabilize the new Baghdad and Kabul
governments — and kill Coalition forces.
Next, Afghanistan will go nuclear and cause a war between Pakistan, India, China, and
the US
Kavanagh 07 [Trevor, esteemed Journalist and Political Editor @ the Sun Times, “We need to win hearts and minds at home
too,” Jan 22, ln]
The headlines focus on brutality in Baghdad, but the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off than ever before.
In Afghanistan, two out of three are building a new life and hope the Taliban will never return. They don't want the
burka back. But these fragile improvements are an affront to mullahs, who lose power once
If we allow them to fail, the price will be incalculable. A return to
people develop a mind of their own.
Taliban rule in Afghanistan would almost certainly put the skids under Pakistan's "moderate" President
Musharraf.That could set the stage for the first nuclear war -between Pakistan and India -
dragging in China and the USA. We are at a dangerous crossroads. Western security services
are under no illusion that fanatics are radicalising young men at an alarming pace. At home and abroad we are
competing for the hearts and minds of sensible, decent Muslims who are being bullied and intimidated in the name of
extreme Islam. In many ways we are in their hands. Only they can stand in the way of a virulent spread of terror.
2) Strikes fail - Iran already has the required uranium hidden and Iran will prolif after
strikes
Fitzpatrick ‘07 (Mark,- senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies “Can Iran’s Nuclear Capability be Kept
Latent?” Survival, March, InformaWorld Online)
At best, air strikes will only delay the programme a few years, and probably not at all, unless the United States or
Israel were prepared to extensively widen the bombing campaign and to repeat it in a few short years - in effect, to
launch an interminable war against a Middle East foe stronger, larger and more cohesive than Saddam's Iraq.
America's disastrous experience in Iraq after Saddam should make such a scenario unacceptable. Iran's nuclear
facilities are more dispersed than were Iraq's in 1981, the time of Israel's pre-emptive air strike, popularly
credited with having significantly set back an Iraqi nuclear-weapons programme. In any case, as Richard Betts
convincingly argues, the Israeli 1981 example is a fallacy: destroying the nuclear reactor at Osirak did not delay Iraq's
nuclear programme and probably accelerated it.17 After the bombing, Saddam increased the budget and number of
scientists dedicated to the programme twentyfold.18 Without accurate intelligence about Iran's dispersed nuclear
facilities and hidden equipment, air strikes that only target the known facilities will not cripple the
nuclear programme. An unnamed senior US official said on 7 November 2006: 'We do not have enough
information about the Iranian nuclear program to be confident that you could destroy it in a single attack. The worst
thing you could do is try and not succeed.'19 The uranium-conversion plant at Esfahan is vulnerable, but Iran may no
longer need it for a small weapons programme, having already produced enough UF6 for at least 30 bombs.
According to a knowledgeable Western official, the UF6 produced to date is of sufficient purity for Iran's initial
purposes and is stored in dispersed locations safe from air strikes.20 Iran could also build smaller uranium-
- 38 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
conversion facilities elsewhere, if it has not already done so. The above-ground pilot enrichment plant at Natanz, with
its 360 installed centrifuges, is also vulnerable. Bombing Natanz, however, would not destroy Iran's
other centrifuges and centrifuge components. Iran may already have up to 2,000
centrifuges stockpiled in unknown locations.21 By accelerating to round-the-clock production, Iran
could conceivably triple the 70-100 per month centrifuge production rate at which it was known to have operated two
years ago, and replace the 360 centrifuges at Natanz within two months. Iran would also have to build a new facility
and equip it with replacements for the autoclaves, piping and other equipment in the Natanz plant, but it is prudent to
assume that Iran already has a replacement facility being readied. Above all, short of commando operations to target
scientists and engineers, bombing would not destroy the knowledge in nuclear and related
sciences and engineering skills that Iran has amassed to date.
- 39 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
LOST EXT (AT: CRUSHES ECONOMY, HEG, POWER

PROJECTION, ETC.)
US ratification key to preventing conflict
Hamilton ’07 (Lee, Director Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center and Former Representative, indystar.com,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINION/708270327/-1/LOCAL17
The arguments in favor of ratification are overwhelming. First, the treaty is critical to our national security. The U.S.
military depends upon freedom of movement on the high seas so that our navy can have right of
passage, and so we can transport military forces and equipment. The Convention guarantees that freedom, doing
away with burdensome and varying rules from coastal nations, and ensuring that we
need not seek a permission slip to pass through territorial seas. In addition to simplifying
operations, this also helps America – and the world – avert conflict.
US ratification key to heg
Watkins ’07 (James, Former Chief of Naval Operations, San Diego Union Tribune)
The Law of the Sea Convention will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United
States is a party. If we fail to ratify this treaty, we will continue to place the United States in a
position of self-imposed weakness, relinquishing a seat at the table as other nations
potentially negotiate amendments to the convention, or, as Russia is doing now in the Arctic, seek excessive
claims to areas beyond recognized national boundaries. As we navigate through an unsettled period in global
geopolitics, senior military and civilian national security leaders have advised that U.S. accession to the convention
would significantly enhance the protection of our national security interests. Support for the convention is shared
broadly by leaders in the economic and environmental communities. The stakes are too high, and the cost too
great, for the U.S. Senate to remain hamstrung because of the ideological opposition of a handful of
senators. We strongly urge the Senate to take action on the convention before the conclusion of this session of
Congress.
- 40 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
LOST EXT (AT: LEADS TO PROLIF, TERRORISM, ETC.)

1) LOST is key to war on terror
Schultz ’07 (George, Former Sec State, WSJ, http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/10033781.html)

Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention
assures maximum maritime naval and air mobility, which is essential for our military
forces to operate effectively. It provides the stability and framework for our forces, weapons
and materials to be deployed without hindrance -- ensuring our ability to navigate past critical choke
points throughout the world.
2) US Ratification key to Heg, Global Power Projection and Success of War on Terrorism
Clark ‘07
<Obama Good – LOST, p. 21>
- 41 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
LOST EXT (AT: ARCTIC, OIL, ETC.)

1) US ratification key to arctic claim and oil development
Eaton and Newton ’07 (Sam, Marketplace Morning Report Editor, George, Former Head US Arctic Research
Commission, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/sea_law/)
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a second round of hearings on a U.N. treaty called the Law of the
Sea. The U.S. is the only Arctic nation that hasn't yet ratified the 10-year-old treaty.
Supporters say that means the U.S. doesn't have a seat at the table when it comes to negotiating
offshore uses of the sea -- and with the Arctic ice cap melting at a record pace, those
uses have gained new relevance.
GEORGE NEWTON: The basic essence is oil.
George Newton is the former head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. The U.S. government estimates that
the Arctic seabed could hold about a quarter of the world's untapped oil reserves. But
Newton says as long as the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty, it's giving other arctic nations like
Russia and Denmark a head start.
NEWTON: What countries want, and oil companies want, before they begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean is an element
of certainty.
2) No Turns – International Recognition of Our Territorial Claims Crucial to Legal

Certainty and Key to Investment
Negroponte ‘07
<Obama Good – LOST file, p. 23>
GLOBAL WARMING LINK TURN ANSWERS
- 42 -
SDI 2008 __/__
STP Supplement
All of there biopact 07 evidence is not credible. The Biopact is a trade organization between
Europe and Africa. They are talking about it’s success in Europe. Europe has limited space and
don’t have the capacity to produce biofuels. However we have the capability to make it because
we have vast amounts of unused land in the desert that we could use. They are also a bit bias
because they invest in promoting in biomass. Extend my freedman in 07 card that says that algae
biodiesel solves for global warming and can support the entire transportation sector in the U.S. .
Also extend my Emerging Markets online 08 evidence that says that government incentives
would effectively spur the transition to algae biodiesel.
- 43 -

Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2008 __/__

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 1NC

D. Topicality is a voting issue

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS 2NC/1NR

AT: NO IR ABUSE/NO POTENTIAL ABUSE

AT: FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS

AT: EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS

CTL SPECIFIC T AE ≠ FOSSIL FUELS MORE

( ) Coal to liquid is a fossil fuel

( ) Coal to liquid qualifies as a fossil fuels

UPI Energy, June 6, 2008, Lexis Nexis

T FLEX-FUEL INCENTIVE ≠ MANDATE 2NC/1NR

Steals aff ground

Focuses debate on trivial issues

Neg can test parts of plan without using all of it

Best policy option

Small Focus Good

More real world

Reduces Aff ground

Neg can read artificial net benefits to other planks

Straight turning the CP saves a lot of time in Aff speeches

Time skews and strat. skews are inevitable

Best Policy Option

Best policy option

Most real world

Turn checks abuse

Time/strat skew inevitable

C/I-neg gets one dispositional CP

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD

Best Policy Option

FLOATING PICS BAD

They force the aff. to argue against themselves.

Steals AFF ground

FLOATING PICS GOOD

Best policy option

SEVERANCE PERMS BAD

Kills predictable negative

SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD

Best policy option

INTRINSIC PERMS BAD

Kills neg ground

INTRINSIC PERMS GOOD

Best policy option

INTERNATIONAL ACTORS GOOD

Best policy option

INTERNATIONAL ACTORS BAD

It decreases topic specific education

It is non reciprocal because other countries pass laws in a different

MULTI- ACTOR GOOD

USFG has several actors in it and there’s no difference in using a

The standard destroys CPs

They have to defend the whole plan

Best policy option

Encourages better plan writing for the aff

MULTI – ACTOR BAD

Steals aff ground

Net benefits don’t check abuse.

UTOPIAN FIAT BAD

Not real world

Destroys aff. ground:

UTOPIAN FIAT GOOD

- Increases real world personal education.

SDI 2008 /