AT Dartmouth Pipeline Case VAGUENESS – 1NC Shell A.

Interpretation: The affirmative must specify the object of the plan text and the implementation method. In the context of this plan, the AFF must specify the pipeline name / location and the proposal for the loan guarantee. B. Violations: 1. The aff doesn’t specify the specifics of the deal that the US Export-Import guarantees. What propsed transaction (purchase or loan) does the Ex-Im Bank guarantee? We don’t even know if it’s a single deal or multiple deals. The aff must do more than fiat guarantees, they must specify what the guarantees are. 2. The aff doesn’t specify the pipeline project. There are hundreds of ongoing pipeline projects in the Middle East and an infinite list of geographical possibilities on how to link Azerbaijan to Iran. C. Standards 1. Brightline: The plan text should state some conditions for the guarantee by the US export-import bank. They talk about effects of their unexplained guarantee, and you end up making an arbitrary decision about whether their lack of a specific guarantee on loans is topical, which is unfair. We don’t even know if a guarantee is ever made. 2. Predictability: There are hundreds of pipeline projects in the middle east and even more possible ways to finance them. We cannot be expected to predict and have relevant arguments prepared for every possible pipeline within the middle east or even Iran. Identifying a specific pipeline and the details of the guarantee(s) ensures stable and predictable ground before and during the debate so that both teams can have ground and opportunities to debate. 3. More real world: The aff’s plan gives a vague and arbitrary guarantee. This isn’t how the government, specifically, the Export-Import Bank work. The bank approves or rejects specific proposals or implements specific guidance from the Executive branch; it doesn’t issue blanket and arbitrary guarantees to nameless companies. Our interpretation forces both teams to understand the methods and challenges of implementation. The Aff attempts to wish this all away with a vague plan text. D. Voters. Vagueness is a voting issue for the reasons above and to preserve competitive equity and increase education.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful