FILE NAME

DDI 2008 <CM>

Your Name

CM T Violations
CM T Violations.....................................................................................................................................................1
1NC T – Incentive Must Directly Apply to AE....................................................................................................2
1NC T – Incentives Can’t Go to Government Agencies.....................................................................................3
T – Incentives Must be Financial..........................................................................................................................4
1NC T – Must Be Positive Incentives...................................................................................................................5
1NC T – ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Excludes Nuclear.....................................................................................6
1NC T – Can’t Include Non-Renewable Energy.................................................................................................7
1NC T – Alternative Energy Must Be Preferable To Current Use....................................................................8
1NC T – In the United States................................................................................................................................9
1NC T-Substantial................................................................................................................................................10
Substantial - 2NC Ground Bomb........................................................................................................................11
Substantial – 2NC Limits Bomb.........................................................................................................................12
Substantial – 2NC Specialization .......................................................................................................................13
1NC - Must Specify Incentives............................................................................................................................14
2NC AT: We Meet—Regulations= Incentives....................................................................................................15
2NC AT: C/I—Regulations = Incentives............................................................................................................16
2NC AT: Reasonablity.........................................................................................................................................17
2NC Limits Outweigh..........................................................................................................................................18
1NC T - In Means Inside of.................................................................................................................................19

1
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – Incentive Must Directly Apply to AE

A. Interpretation- an incentive must be an reward offered that can be accepted or rejected
Random House, Inc. 2006
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,.
in·cen·tive –noun
something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.

Random House, Inc. 2006, dictionary.reference.com/browse/offer

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
of·fer –verb (used with object)
to present for acceptance or rejection: He offered me a cigarette.

B. Violation – plan itself does not OFFER an incentive to increase alternative energy - cap-and-trade is a
regulatory program, AND the trading permits that the affirmative advocates is a effectual award not
fiated through the plan, AND the plan offers awards to non alternative energy

C. Vote Neg
1. Predictability – We can only predict cases to research for that reward the use of alternative energy in
the plan, not the millions that do so through solvency
2. Limits- the possibility of effectual cases as topical, opens the floodgates on what we have to prepare for
preventing clash, and the unique education held within it
3. Bright Line: Affirmative allows a blur between the responsibilities of the Affirmative and Negative
through its advocacy of regulations that spillovers to cause infinitely regressive abuse

2
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – Incentives Can’t Go to Government Agencies

A. Interpretation – government incentives are limited to tax incentives –
Facilities Net 95
“Alternative Energy: Green Incentives and Options on the Rise,” http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id=3177

In addition to finding that projecting an environmental image helps win customers, facility executives who use alternative
power technologies discover the cost can be less than expected. A bevy of financial incentives exist to help organizations
take some of the burn out of purchasing wind, solar and other alternative power technologies. Utilities offer rebates. States
offer grants. The federal government offers tax incentives.

B. Violation – The plan doesn’t give tax incentives – federal government

agencies don’t pay taxes

C. Standards
1. Brightline – our interp provides a clear brightline, either something is a tax
break or it’s not

2. Contextuality – our evidence has the intent to define, it’s from an article
detailing government policies on alternative energy

3. Limits – their interpretation allows anything that is an incentive, allowing

affs that use virtually any solvency mechanism – our interp limits down to one
incentive while still allowing different kinds of alt energy – and you evaluate
limits first; limits are the key internal link into predictability and fairness

D. topicality is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education

3
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

T – Incentives Must be Financial

A. Interpretation: Incentives are Financial
North Carolina Department of Revenue, ‘7
[“Guidelines for Determining Tax Credits for Investing in Renewable Energy”
http://www.dor.state.nc.us/practitioner/individual/directives/renewableenergyguide
lines.html]

To promote and encourage the conservation of non-renewable energy through the increased use of
renewable energy, the 1977 session of the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation
that provided tax incentives in the form of a tax credit for the construction or installation of a
solar energy system to heat, cool, or provide hot water to a building in North
Carolina. Throughout the years, other tax credits encouraging investment in renewable energy
sources were enacted. These included installation of a hydroelectric generator,
installation of solar energy equipment for the production of heat or electricity in
manufacturing or service processes of a person's business, installation of a wind
energy device, and construction of a methanol gas facility. These credits were
statutorily provided in both the corporation and individual income tax laws and
had different calculation methods and maximum credit amounts.

B. Violation: The Affirmative fails to give financial incentives, they only legalize hemp
C. Standards
Limits – Our interpretation limits down the topic to those that give financial incentives, which is good for
education because it increases clash

Ground – Financial incentives are key to neg ground because of arguments such as the spending DA.
Ground is key to fairness because it is essential that both sides have equal ground for fairness.

Predictability – The Affirmative is completely unpredictable because all they do is legalize hemp. They
could literally change any law and by their interpretation.

FX – The Affirmative only changes a law and then farmers can grow hemp making them effectually
topical

D. T is a Voter for Fairness and Education

4
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – Must Be Positive Incentives

1. Interpretation:

Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to
be an alternative energy incentive

Geoff Thale, associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 1998
(ch 7, Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE, Edited by David Cortright
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)

The Nature of Incentives

It is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of
incentives that are being offered and the context in which they are offered. In its simplest form, an incentive is an offer
by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if the recipient engages in some specified behavior. Another
more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers a good directly related to the desired
outcome--when, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient
design and implement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire,
the ''good'' being offered, but may engage in the desired behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will
greatly influence the strength of the recipient's commitment to carry out the desired behavior when the inevitable
problems and complications occur.

2. Violation: The Aff mandates a desired outcome, and manadates are not incentives.
Standards

3. Predictable Limits – The aff under-limits and allows for any case to be topical. If allowed, the fed can mandate
anything for alt energy incentives. This explodes the neg burden of researching and developing a coherent strategy. The
neg’s interpretation limits the aff cases and allows for a more coherent debate

4. Bright Line – The aff’s interpretation is vague and this blurs the fine line between topical and un-topical cases. The aff
can claim that pre-empting the current state programs for a fed program is an incentive inasmuch providing subsidies to
companies for increase alt energy use. The neg’s interpretation makes a clear distinction of what an incentive is.

5. Ground – The aff steals negative ground. The aff ‘s plan is essentially the neg’s counter plan. The neg expects the aff
to provide incentives while the aff mandates. Consequently, the aff’s interpretation disallows for and even avoids any
arguments that the neg comes up with for incentive based plans

6. T is a voter for fairness because you cannot promote unfair treatment of the neg
And Education because neg cant possibly prepare and debate effectively for an untopical case undermining the and
impeding educational value of a round
And Predictabilityas the the affs interpretation forces the negative to debate cases that it is not prepared for

5
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Excludes Nuclear

A. INTERPRETATION – ALTERNATIVE ENERGY MEANS ONLY NUCLEAR, WIND, OR

SOLAR
Dictionary.com Unabridged, 2006, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative%20energy

alternative energy
–noun
energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil-fuel sources, as coal, oil, and natural
gas..

B. VIOLATION – THE AFF INCREASES NUCLEAR POWER

C. STANDARDS
1. LIMITS – OUR INTERPRETATION IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO LIMIT THE TOPIC
– ALLOWS FOR PREDICTABLE CASES WHILE STILL ALLOWING AFF
CREATIVITY WITH PLAN MECHANISM
2. EDUCATION – MEANS IN-DEPTH DEBATES ABOUT THREE TYPES OF A.E.
AND VARIOUS SOLVENCY MECHANISMS
3. PREDICTABLITY – WITHOUT LIMITING THE TOPIC TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
A.E. NEGS CAN’T PREDICT ANY AFFS – AND, PREDICTABILITY IS THE KEY
INTERNAL TO EDUCATION, IF NEGS CAN’T PREDICT ANY CASES THEY’LL
DO NO RESEARCH MEANING WE WON’T GET ANYTHING OUT OF DEBATE

D. T IS A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION

6
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – Can’t Include Non-Renewable Energy

A. Interpretation
The chambers Dictionary 200610th edition, Chambers harrap Publishers pg 40
Alternative energy n energy derived from renewable sources
B. The affirmative includes a mixture of both renewable and non renewable energy .
C. standards:
1) Limits – The aff is unlimited, as long as they do some renewable energy they can do anything like do plan and give peter Wang a
case of vitamin water. That destroys clash because we cant possibly predict such random affs

2) Ground – they destroy ground because can get out of all our DAs and net benefits by adding planks to plan that solve our impact.
This makes winning offense against the aff impossible.

d. T is a voter for fairness and education.

7
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – Alternative Energy Must Be Preferable To Current Use

A. Interpretation—alternative energy must be better than the current option

OED, 89, www.oed.com
Purporting to represent a preferable or equally acceptable alternative to that in
general use or sanctioned by the establishment, as alternative (i.e. non-nuclear)
energy, medicine, radio, etc.; alternative society: see SOCIETY 3e. Cf. FRINGE n.
2b, UNDERGROUND a. 4d.

B. Violation—OTEC is far more expensive than current options, it’s not a preferable option
Becca Friedman, staff writer, 2/26/06, “An Alternative Source
Heats Up: Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion,” Harvard Political Review Online
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be
developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier.
Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific
International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary
presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80
to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology
Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost
and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents
over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk,
and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could
produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.

C. Standards
Limits—this interpretation is key to limiting the topic to what the USFG should do. If we are not
debating the best course of action, the aff has destroyed policy debate.
Predictability—the neg can’t predict the aff increasing a form of energy that is not better than the
current alternative
D. T is a voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction.

8
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T – In the United States

A. Interpretation—United States is the area over which the

USFG has exclusive authority

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department

of Defence 2005.
Includes the land area, internal waters, territorial sea, and airspace of the United
States, including the following: a. US territories, possessions, and
commonwealths; and b. Other areas over which the US Government has complete
jurisdiction and control or has exclusive authority or defense responsibility.

B. Violation—the plan increases incentives for alternative

energy in waters over which the USFG does not have
exclusive authority

C. Standards—

1. Predictable limits—they allow affs to increase

alternative energy outside of the USFG’s jurisdiction,
which allows for unpredictable cases such as increasing
alternative energy to embassies and offshore military
bases.

2. Brightline—it’s either within the USFG’s jurisdiction

or it’s not

D. Topicality is a voter for fairness, education, and

jurisdiction.

9
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <CM>
Your Name

1NC T-Substantial
A. Substantially means 70 million dollars of funding
U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Global Climate Change Policy Book, 2/14/02
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/gcinitiative2002/gccstorybook.htm

Fully Funding the Global Environmental Facility. The Administration's FY '03 budget request of $178 million for
the GEF is more than $77 million above this year's funding and includes a substantial $70 million payment for
arrears incurred during the prior administration. The GEF is the primary international institution for transferring
energy and sequestration technologies to the developing world under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
B. The affirmative does not substantially increase incentives because the production tax credits
they give are only 2 cents per kilowatt hour, that’s not large.

C. Standards
1. Limits: The aff makes t the topic limitless by allowing for thousands of affs that give only a
small incentives which justifies giving 5 dollars to build a wind turbine or giving a one dollar
incentive to grow an acre of biofuel to the Amish in Pennsylvania killing fairness because it
becomes impossible to prepare for or predict all of the millions of possible unsubstantial affs.

2. Ground – And this kills also ground, Negatives require large mechanisms to gain links.
Allowing small affs means the scope of the plan mechanism is too insignificant to allow our
disads. This kills clash and education because we have no way to debate due to a lack of
evidence to argue with and therefore learn nothing.

3. Specialization – Focus on small alternative energy improvements detracts the debate away
from overarching problems to problems relevant only to insignificant energy problems and
detracts from building knowledge about alternative energy as a whole.

D. Topicality is a voter for fairness, predictability and education.

10
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

Substantial - 2NC Ground Bomb

The affirmative destroys negative ground by allowing cases that do not substantially increase incentives.
All of our perception links are predicated off of a substantial increase in alternative energy incentives.
There is no literature that says that an insubstantial increase in incentives would be enough to affect the
election or that it could push the economy over the brink – this means that we’ll be forced to run generic
strategies and that their link turns will always be more specific than our links – meaning that we’ll
always lose on substance. This is uniquely bad for debate because it destroys clash and makes every
debate round the same, destroying the critical thinking aspect of the activity. Only forcing the
affirmative to defend a substantial increase in incentives gives us access to the core of the literature base
which allows us to gain the topic-specific education which is the reason to debate.

11
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

Substantial – 2NC Limits Bomb

The affirmative massively unlimits the topic by allowing insubstantial increases in alternative energy
incentives – under their interpretation we’ll be debating a different squirrely aff every round because the
aff won’t have to defend a substantial increase in incentives. This is bad for predictability because even
with information sharing teams will be able to break new affs that we’re not prepared for. In the words
of the great Kade Olsen, “If you learn something during the debate, you’re doing something wrong.”
Predictability is the internal link to education because the out-of-round education gained through
research is the most valuable part of the activity. The aff destroys this by blowing the lid off the topic and
opening the floodgates of research. With the increased research burden we’ll never be able to get in-
depth knowledge on any issue which turns back of their in-round impacts. Without some standard of
predictability no one will debate because their work would be meaningless. We control the terminal
impacts in this round by providing the most limiting definition. We allow for cases such as SPS, Wind
power, military cases, and nuclear power, all of which are at the core of the topic.

12
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

Substantial – 2NC Specialization

We provide for the best topic-specific education – our interpretation allows for clash over the overarching
problems associated with alternative energy in the 21st century and not the insignificant plan. Debate
under our interpretation focuses on the real-world implications of substantial incentives and not the
minutiae of the affirmative. Only debating about cases that give substantial incentives allows us to focus
in on the core of the topic. This gives us access to the terminal impact of topic-specific education.

13
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

1NC - Must Specify Incentives

Incentives – must motivate or stimulate people to act

Knowler, 99 - UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D., “Incentive Systems for Natural Resource Management: The Role of
Indirect Incentives”, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf)

1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996). What is important
about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active nature. In the former case, we can
think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence decision-making about farming practices, whether
intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, being remote from the producer and targeted at objectives other than promoting
sustainable farming practices, would fit into this category. In contrast, the notion of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually
design or modify policies with a desire to bring about certain conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to this
concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any inducement which is specifically intended to incite or motivate governments,
local people, and international organizations” (p.38-39). We draw this distinction because of the need to consider both active and
passive aspects when assessing the importance of incentives for NRM. While governments may be most concerned with the design of
good policies aimed at improving NRM, they need to be cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor
incentive structure, in the passive sense.

Violation – The aff fails to specify which incentives they will use and the outcome of the
negotiations

Standards –

0Vagueness – we can’t get any sort of solvency takeouts because the plan doesn’t indicate its method of incentives.
Legitimizes people running the resolution as a plan text.
1Future fiat – the affirmative specifies the time table for solvency without indicating a single policy legitimizes future
fiat. Allows the aff to spike out of our DA’s by claiming to initiate action that solves the DA. We can’t make solvency
takeouts because they will just claim to have a second policy.
2Predictable Limits- We can’t predict the result of the consultation, this means we can’t do research, this kills education
and knowing the out come is key to ground because otherwise they can just fiat away our links, which kills clash and is
key to fairness
3FX-T—The Affirmative only effectually establishes incentives as a result of the consultation. This is an independent
voting issue for fairness and education: a. No bright line – once one step is allowed there is no resolutional
limit on the aff, any other interpretation is arbitrary.
b. Explodes limits– the aff can literally fund al-Qaeda and claim a terror attack increases alternative energy
c. Education – a loss of clash decreases education. Additionally topic specific education is the focal point of
debate -f/x allows the aff to dodge the core of the topic.
d. Fairness – the aff can choose to defend or not defend any policy an infinite number of steps away from
the topic, creating so much advantage ground the negative can never be prepared to respond.

T is a Voting Issue for the reasons of Fairness and Education:

14
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

2NC AT: We Meet—Regulations= Incentives

1. Regulations are just incentives for business to participate in the reg neg,
you still don’t specify the incentives for alternative energy
2. Plan Text Says that regulatory negotiatons are held to determine the
implementation of “revenue neutral incentives”, meaning the incentives
your plan uses can’t be determined pre-plan.

15
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

2NC AT: C/I—Regulations = Incentives

1. There interpretation isn’t competitive with our violation, they still don’t
specify the incentives they increase, regulations are just incentives for
business to participate in the reg neg.
2. Their interpretation isn’t mutually exclusive with ours, so all of their
standards are solved back by our violation.

16
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

2NC AT: Reasonablity

1. Abitrary – the lack of an objective standard for reasonable mandates
judge intervention
2. Gut check – they wouldn’t make this arg if they were topical

17
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

2NC Limits Outweigh

1. Limits o/w ground – they are the key to ground: there can’t be specific strats
with the thousands of cases they allow because we can’t predict any aff.

2. Limits are a precursor to fairness – limited resolution is key to leveling the

playing field. Without it we are always one step behind.

18
Topicality
DDI 2008 Clark/Martin

1NC T - In Means Inside of

1. Interpretation –

A. In means inside of – Merriam Websters Dictionary 08

Main Entry: 3in Pronunciation: \ˈin\ Function:adjective Date: 1599
1 a: that is located inside or within <the in part> b: that is in position, operation, or power <the in party> c: inside
22: that is directed or bound inward : incoming <the in train>3 a: extremely fashionable <the in thing to do> b: keenly
aware of and responsive to what is new and fashionable <the in crowd>

B. United States is the 50 states

2. Violation – The affirmative increases alternative energy outside of the

United States by placing satellites in space

3. Standards

A. Limits – The aff underlimits the topic because their interpretation

justifies plans to increase alternative energy anywhere on Earth. This
destroys predictability, which is key to fairness and education.

B. Predictability – it is impossible to prepare for a case without knowing

where the alternative energy would be since the aff becomes a moving
target. This destroys topic specific education.

C. Brightline – alternative energy is either in the United States or it’s

not. The aff blurs this by increasing U.S. incentives for alternative
energy but having the alternative energy placed outside the U.S.
Brightline is key to determining limits and ground because it is the
internal link to fairness

4. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness, education, and predictability

19