You are on page 1of 4

Generic Arguments

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

Generic Arguments
Table of Contents 1. TOPICALITY:...............................................................................................................................1 2. FEDERALISM INHERENCY POINT:.........................................................................................1 3. INHERENT BARRIER:................................................................................................................2 4. IF THIS IS SO GREAT, WHY HAVENT POLITICIANS PASSED IT?:.....................................2 5. QUANTITATIVE vs. QUALITATIVE SIGNIFICANCE:............................................................2 6. ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY:....................................................................................................3 7. INTERNATIONAL COUNTERBALANCES:.............................................................................3 8. INFRASTRUCTURE:...................................................................................................................3 9. UNTOLD/UN-CALCULATED/UNNOTICED COSTS:.............................................................3 10. SUPREME COURT/EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRIERS:.........................................................3 11. MINOR REPAIR :.......................................................................................................................3 12. JOBS:...........................................................................................................................................3 1. TOPICALITY: Environmental policy v. another type of policy. Is the case... Agricultural policy? - “A course of action adopted by government or some other organization that determines how to deal with matters involving the cultivation of land; raising crops; feeding, breeding and raising livestock or poultry; and other farming issues.” (The European Environment Agency (EEA) Energy policy? - “Energy policy is the manner in which a given entity (often governmental) has decided to address issues of energy development including energy production, distribution and consumption. The attributes of energy policy may include legislation, international treaties, incentives to investment, guidelines for energy conservation, taxation and other public policy techniques.” (State Master Encyclopedia - (a unique statistical database which allows you to research and compare a multitude of different data on US states. We have compiled information from various primary sources such as the US Census Bureau, the FBI, and the National Center for Educational Statistics. More than just a mere collection of various data, StateMaster goes beyond the numbers to provide you with visualization technology like pie charts, maps, graphs and scatterplots. We also have thousands of map and flag images, state profiles, and correlations.) Recycling policy? - “Recycling involves processing used materials into new products in order to prevent waste of potentially useful materials, reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduce energy usage, reduce air pollution (from incineration) and water pollution (from landfilling) by reducing the need for "conventional" waste disposal, and lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to virgin production.” InterconRecycling.net (A part of InterconSolutions, which is an electronics recycling company with no tolerance for wastefulness or irresponsibility. Through techniques that have taken years to develop, we’ve created a way to turn end-of-life electronic machines, scrap and equipment into the materials from which great things are made)

2. FEDERALISM INHERENCY POINT: (Note: This is especially applicable if the Aff case claims the states have tried/have this policy) We should not enact this policy Federally, but should allow the state to regulate this if they want to. The following piece of evidence enforces this point. Jonathan H. Adler (Professor of Law at Case Western University School of Law), “A New Environmental Federalism”, Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy Vol. 13, 1998, http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/federalism.html America is a broad and diverse country, and environmental concerns, preferences, and problems vary from place to place. The local and regional nature of many environmental problems means that local knowledge and expertise is necessary to develop proper solutions. Such localized knowledge is inevitably beyond the reach of even the most intrepid federal regulators. For example, the most effective and equitable strategy for controlling ozone precursors will vary from city to city depending upon the local mix of stationary and mobile sources, the relative age of the automobile fleet, and dominant weather conditions. As University of Kansas law professor Henry Butler and Cornell law professor Jonathan Macey noted in a recent study, "Federal regulators never have been and never will be able to acquire and assimilate the enormous amount of information necessary to make optimal regulatory judgments that reflect the technical requirements of particular locations and pollution sources."10 One-size-fits-all can very easily become one-size-fits-nobody. If this is really a good idea, and would be helpful to the states, they will enact it at a state level, and that it would be better that way, since states are the best equipped entities to handle their problems. 3. INHERENT BARRIER: Since this is such a wonderful idea, and it, as you say, could potentially benefit US environmental policy for the better....what keeps your plan from happening tomorrow? What is the Inherency barrier. This can lead to: 4. IF THIS IS SO GREAT, WHY HAVENT POLITICIANS PASSED IT?: If this case truly promises all these benefits, why hasn’t it been passed...if they say “politics”, you say....oh really? So, politicians are willing to vote against this case even though it would create (as you say) x million jobs, better the environment, and all this other stuff you claim in your advantages? Basically, ask these probing questions and see if you can get the speaker to admit the problems with his own case. 5. QUANTITATIVE vs. QUALITATIVE SIGNIFICANCE: Qualitative significance is proving harms via evidence that is somewhat “idea/theory” based. Quantitative significance is proving harms via evidence that “quantifies” the problem, it gives tangible numbers/statistics. You can push for quantitative significance on many cases. Often times, a team will provide Qualitative significance (otherwise known as sob-stories, or a particular story, and somehow claim that is reflectance upon the whole...a logical fallacy) without providing quantitative

Generic Arguments

Christos Dimoulis, Eveready

significance. Excellent example is the shoot-shovel-and shut up theory. It makes logical sense, but it fails to give you any actual tangible answers/numbers/statistics (because it cant). 6. ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY: Who is enforcing legislation? Are they reputable? Are they capable? Have they done anything like this before? For example, if the EPA now has to regulate Mercury, something that they do not do in the current system, or have never done in the past, how do we know they’ll be able to handle it under the Aff case? 7. INTERNATIONAL COUNTERBALANCES: Is this problem coming from other countries? Even if we did stop sending out e-waste, or even if we did stop coal pollution, or cut dead zone causing fertilizer, how do we know that other countries will take America’s place in the e-waste market, or China’s growing pollution trends will continue to pollute our air, or Canadian farmers on Canada’s West Coast will continue releasing fertilizers which will eventually flow down to US coasts through Pacific ocean currents? 8. INFRASTRUCTURE: Especially if this is a new idea, or if the Aff case is unbanning something, you can ask workability questions under infrastructure capacity. Can we lay a power grid on the ocean flow (ocean buoy power case)? Do we have industries that can take hemp and turn in into paper and clothing (Hemp legalization case)? 9. UNTOLD/UN-CALCULATED/UNNOTICED COSTS: See if you can think of any additional costs associated with a particular plan. I can think of two good examples: 1) Buoy power and 2) green roofs. With buoy power, the aff team probably did not factor in the cost of the upkeep costs associated with the buoys. Regarding the green roofs case, people would have to pay more for water, fertilizers, insurance, and might even need a new roof structure to support all that additional weight. 10. SUPREME COURT/EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRIERS: On some cases, you can argue that Supreme Court decisions or even executive orders could impede the Solvency of a particular case. (Although, I’d suggest that you study the Constitution and Executive orders a bit before you make a tenth amendment or commerce clause argument :) 11. MINOR REPAIR : Instead of enacting the Aff case, there are other ways that we might be able to solve the same problems in a very simple way. Make sure to run it correctly, otherwise, the aff might think you are running a counter plan...which would not be a good thing. 12. JOBS: If the Aff team claims job advantages, make sure, if they’re temporary jobs, that you point it out to the judge.