- More value pushing. Integrate stronger for stronger case.

- Mumbling! Keep the speech the speech, do not mention anything else.
- Mention contentions!
- Organize points.
- Stop ranting!!
- Stop ranting in crossex! (just answer the question.)
- Don’t start reciting your points in crossex. (just ask the question. It’s a clarification ection, don’t
spearhead questions excessively)
- Know when to stop.
- Slow down. better to have 5 good points, than an avalanche of facts.
- Put more citations / evidence in work.
- Stick harder bla bla bla
Y00s ur prep time m8. Don’t rant. Write down time. FLow, Read your shit m8

https://openev.debatecoaches.org/
DEFS:
The united states OUGHT to ELIMINATE SUBSIDIES for FOSSIL FUELS.
OUGHT
used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

ELIMINATE
Put an end to, get rid of it. (favor NEG)
exclude (someone or something) from consideration. (favor AFF)

SUBSIDIES
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so
that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. (favor NEG)
a grant or gift of money. (favor AFF)
AFF: Talk about the FOSSIL FUELS. Subsidies-trick, refer to it only.
NEG: Talk about the SUBSIDIES.
Contra Bontra
Blue = FAVOR Resolution
Purple = DISFAVOR Resolution
AFF:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on
-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#3e9e26154473
To remove free money for fossil fuel companies
Subsidies = $649 billion
It’s way too much; redirection args.
599 billion pentagon.
EU collective = 289 BILL. Comparison, EU cheaper than US ridiculous.
10x fossil fuels, education.
It could instead go into education, paying off student loans.
More PUB spending for hospitals / education.
EVID:Budget OF subsidies = ​649 billion… (Paid off in 1.33 years)
Student debt = $864 billion (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)
Divided among 44.7 million people.
LARGEST Brackets.
$100,000 - 150,000 = 1347400 people
$150000 - 200000 = 604900 ppl
$200,000+ = 609800 (Forbes, intermediary)
Crashing the economy would result in even less repayment.
It could instead go into infrastructure, it is in bad shape.
but roads? 90% fail safety. What happens when no roads / bridges?
The subsidizing of the fossil fuels are causing DEATH, CLIMATE CHANGE, and GREAT
EXPENSE. (because of the other two, pollution / death costs)
EVID:If fuel prices had been set at fully efficient levels in 2015, estimated global CO2
emissions would have been 28 percent lower, fossil fuel air pollution deaths 46 percent lower,
(IMF)
Subsidies help poor people afford energy, blaming subsidies doesn’t help us on an
individual level of environmental BS, global warming truthism, subsidies will crash the economy
and lead to a greater disaster.
Direct: Point out science pointed out disaster, several times.
If extinction is inevitable, then well then why get rid of subsidies.
A lack of subsidy would reduce this expense, and ​encourage innovation in more “clean”
energy forms.
The carbon footprint for one elec car battery. More than an 11 year old SUV. The
batteries can’t be recycled.
Test EVID
Fossil Fuels will eventually be consumed.
Save the dinosaurs
They are already dead. If we don’t take those fuels, we will die.
Remembering where we came from, and since we have come out on top, and so
we have triumphed, burn the fuels.
aaa
Removing them will be costly, clean energy will naturally replace in due time.
Fossil fuel companies have an adequate income. They do not have a need for additional
subsidies.
EVID:
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-bre
aks-and-societal-costs
“Today, the domestic fossil fuel industries (namely, coal, oil and natural gas) are
mature and generally highly profitable.”
Keep-it-in-the-ground
as if oil in nature is better than oil in use.

Subsidies = bad economics

Subsidies increase rate of consumption, set likelihood of fuel crash, economic failure.
Neg:
Neg can say that money could be redirected. Aff can’t, as it clearly states, NO redirection. Kill
subsidies. Most won’t catch!
Put burden of proof on the AFF, make them prove that cutting subsidies, specifically, will do
good things.
1) Evidence that Eliminating subsidies not that redirects it to other things.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/05/20/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-th
e-environment/#5d8e691076d2
Economics
Making consumers pay would cripple economy. Paying for it either way. (taxes, or
higher gas prices)
Ecuadorian riots; people are rioting because the gov cut subsidies and now
people can’t afford gas.
But a price increase would not necessarily affect this.

Neg: Technology advancement. Fossil fuels = tech advancement; remove subsidies than less
innovation.
Fossil fuel = green technology, creates more of it. Doesn’t necessarily mean adaptation
to better gas-practices.
Subsidies allow more development of ecological vehicles

Real problem is ​consumption​, not the subsidies for creating supply. Plus, not just fossil fuels.
When no evidence that proves eliminating subsidies, and you have evidence 4 subsidies
good, then good!
Imply people are idiots, gov must be involved.

Subsidies = status quo. ​since you have to cut it, you cannot imply that green energy
spending should be increased.
You cannot make more money come to green energy by cutting fossil fuel subsidies
Fight over semantics; point out elimination doesn’t mean they won’t be spent in
some fashion. Imply eliminating this money means it will be spent in a better
fashion because government.
Look there is no political will. If it is redirected, then it won’t be good.
(Trump) military, bla bla
Do you have evidence laundered that SPECIFICALLY states that CUTTING subsidies
will help? You seem to assume that the funds are redirected. Incorrectly!

Job-creator​: supports breadwinners and American families. 37 years, cite coach’s father.
Love is more important than money, but have you ever paid bills with a hug.
But a price increase would not necessarily affect this.
Subsidies are necessary; oil industries are more profitable than ever.
 EVID:​https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2016/02/26/industry-critics-fall-silent-on
-oil-profits/#10fde64d5e1c
Peak Oil; cutting oil subsidies would lead ti it more quickly, and more violently.

To which energy philosopher Alex Epstein rejoins: "If good and evil are measured by the
standard of human well-being and human progress, we must conclude that the fossil fuel
industry is not a necessary evil to be restricted but a superior good to be liberated."

Notes
Setup
Before debate, write your args. Create “game” sheet.
Pre-write your arguments, far-left row. Few dividing lines / symbols. Write opponent / self
counter args in subsequent rows. Second sheet like it for opponent args.

Way of thinking
What’s the difference between my and your argument? Why’s that important?
What’s the most important issue? Why? (find that) Evidence, earlier.
Last speech, valc, strongest point, evidence.
This is bad - evidence, if not than not most important.
Make last part of last speech the reiteration of strongest points, the arg, why’s it
important.
Preparing last speech, flow of speech.
The details matter; be able to talk a lot.
Crossex - Win debates. Good questions break down problems in opposing speech.
Focus on differences. This saves time that would otherwise be used in rebuttal.
Good Speech design
Moral imperative. If you can frame to fit into a criteria of moral imperative, and evidence
that says, stronk.
Vals, valCs, can be directly tied. Talk mainly of the valCs, tied in with conts and
evidence.
If the opponent has a strong point, try attacking the val criterion.
Pay attention to their val criterion; more effective counter when you use their VC against
them.
Don’t get too big. Keep it in the main area. If you have many points, then this creates
weaknesses and bickering over trivialities.
Need Evidence. Find in sources, “Outweighs, most important, crucial, bla”
Compare evidence, show off how your evidence is more relevant, right, extensive.
Strategically positioning, so that you can ignore arguments by calling out purposeful
errors. (?)
Debaters are terrible listeners. Listen well. Then clearly point out how they are wrong.
In Later Speeches
 What judges look for is identify argument, and refute it. Have a lot of arguments, and
refute them.
In response, restate arguments, point out missed points, talk about replies. Go down the
paper. Point out missed points. That’s a winner in rigs. Say “You didn’t address, I win” in
technical terms.
Stagger points. Have several different points, and use some in the first, some in laters.
Less response ability.
Last speech: Mention your authors of your source. Authority appeal.

Appearance
The debate does not matter, except how you look. FOCUS ON IMPORTANT POINTS,
Google up evidence, basically just type in resolution.
Look good, win good. Speak well, pay attention, be / act busy. Remain composed, do
not anger. Do not gay very important

Misc Points
Write down opponent args, and write down judge complaints. Listen carefully. When you can
listen you win by restating in context of response.

Policy debate doesn’t equal value debate, therefore you must fight on both fronts.

Google up evidence, basically just type in resolution.

Subsidies, fossil fuels, = defensive. Add offense, say subsidies specific evidence, ​accel
consumption​, or ​accel green tech​, replacing tech, / economy

STRONG ONES

SUBSIDIES bad, versus fuels, can be considered heavily different.

Before debate, write your args.

In response, restate arguments, point out missed points, talk about replies. Go down the paper.
Point out missed points. That’s a winner in rigs. Say “You didn’t address, I win” in technical
terms.
Debaters are terriblie listeners. Listen well

NEG = Util
- Economy dies
AFF = Util
- Life is good, not dying is good, global warming creates dying
Game board. Table.
Practice reading case. Time yourself.