College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 07:54:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Energy Production and Use Topic - Topic Committee Working Groups  (Read 28779 times)
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2012, 12:12:07 AM »

Yes, we definitely disagree about the scope of ground the affs should have.  I actually think your post in many ways describes the interpretations of incentives i would like to exclude.  I have provided ample evidence that the incentives outlined in that paper capture the core of how governments approach mass commercialization of renewable energy, so I don't think we're missing out on much of the core of the debate. It's interpretations like fossil fuel regulations (I presume you mean fossil fuel mandates like cap and trade as incentives for renewable development) that should be excluded from the topic IF we are going to include nuclear power and/or fossil fuels. 

If the topic was only renewable energy, i'd be much more in favor of the broad wording-i've made no secret that i think things like cap and trade need to be in.  The inclusion of fossil fuel, renewable, and nuclear development (possibly even clean fossil fuel tech) makes the research burden pretty large.  You can't bank on the assumption that it's ok to go broad because 'not many teams will run fossil fuels affs' etc.  In stead, I think the approach should be "how can we create a concise topic given 3 distinct mechanisms."  And I DO think the mechanisms should be considered distinct even in situations where incentives might converge with both nuclear and renewables, because the ground is still going to be different for the neg. 

Lastly, I think it's cool we have a semi (quasi?) bidirectional (tridirectional?) direction for the topic, even if I'm not a fan of all the ideas.  It's an important step for us to start trying resolutions with more than one mechanism.  As someone else who supports this broad approach, I'd hope you could appreciate why it might be important to limit it.  If the topic becomes incredibly broad and unmanageable, no one will want a resolution with such diverse approaches again.  If it's too limited, we (might?) learn something and be encouraged to go broader in the future.  Regardless, the concern with limits when dealing with 3 distinct energy types is legitimate.
Logged
andreareed
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2012, 07:51:44 AM »

I haven't gotten to digest all of Malgor's paper yet, but I wanted to comment on one small point.  I don't think "reduce restrictions" captures the *good* potential fossil fuel affs that I've seen so far.  If "reduce restrictions" is the only mechanism, you leave the aff with mostly the "F the environment" affs.  From my research so far, the better FF affs will be those that attempt to set up FF to be a bridge to renewables (clean coal, CTL, nat gas vehicles, a range of conventional biofuels affs if we want to include them).  While there may be some restrictions relevant to these fuels/uses of fuels, we might not be giving the aff enough action to solve if they can't do incentives.  For example, reducing restrictions on natural gas production doesn't change the problems with developing a natural gas vehicle market (they aren't subsidized at the same level as electric vehicles, there aren't enough nat gas refueling stations, ect). 

All that said, if we only want the topic to be about "production" and not "use", then this is not as relevant since most of the FF incentives seem to be demand-side, not supply-side.  I keep flipping on whether or not "use" should be included.  It makes the topic a lot bigger, but includes more of the liberal affs that people seem to be clamoring for.  I am interested to see the wording paper work on this issue.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2012, 09:51:00 AM »

Yes, I did not read much into the ff side admittedly.  I was just basing it off of aff cards presented in your wording paper.  If "incentives" is the better part of FF, then the committee could flip my suggestion and do incentives instead of restriction removal.  I do think the default should be to keep the legs separate unless there is very compelling evidence that terms of art all converge across fuels. 

My perception was just that the 'rollback regs' part of the ff was big as per my discussions on the forums and the number of cards in the paper that focus on that issue.
Logged
gabemurillo
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2012, 04:05:34 PM »

Bruce -

I think that the beauty of the topic paper is in the eye of the beholder - different people voted for energy for different reasons - some excited about the fossil fuel affs, some renewables, maybe someone even likes nuclear power, I think that's the argument to include all of the types of energy - it allows each team to get what they wanted out of the topic. I think your concern (that renewables are a better aff) is not a reason to dramatically change the topic from what other people were voting for when they voted for the energy topic. Also, if the bridge fuel literature is vibrant enough to sustain all of a topic then certainly it should be sufficient to produce a myriad of CPs and case arguments to be read against these RPS affs anyways so it seems that inclusion of renewables does not for us to "lose" our opportunity to debate bridge fuels, as an aff and as a pretty good basis for a negative strategy against renewables affs. Strangely, if your argument is correct that a renewables only strategy is more debate-strategic, then the topic you've proposed would never lead to actual debates about renewables - if a team endorses a bridge fuel + RPS then negatives would just CP to do RPS + bridge fuel bad or CP to do RPS with an alternate bridge fuel. Even in the expansive version of the topic (at least...) there's no incentive to debate renewables.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #64 on: May 30, 2012, 12:03:51 AM »

where all these papers that were due at?  I been looking forward to book learnin' all day.  if we don't have deadlines, what do we have?

Logged
Daniel Stout
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #65 on: May 30, 2012, 01:01:53 AM »

Wasn't sure how to do this, if I should do this, was allowed to this, or what to do with this. This discussion also seems a little off topic at the moment. But, I didn't want everyone to forget about nuclear power. So I wrote this and it deals with the possible interaction between removal of restrictions and nuclear power.

* Remove Restrictions & Nuclear Power.doc (50 KB - downloaded 1166 times.)
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 01:03:46 AM by d_stout » Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #66 on: May 30, 2012, 01:08:20 PM »

If you've been cutting solvency cards for the energy topic, and are willing to share, please do so here or backchannel. I want to make a list of cases people "assume" may be topical as a guide to help test wordings during the TC meetings, and sometimes reading the actual cards is more helpful than speaking from general knowledge.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #67 on: May 30, 2012, 11:07:31 PM »

are the papers from the 3 working groups going to be posted, or is it a work-in-progress that will be flushed out at the topic meeting?

also, please don't construct the topic by looking at affs you think should be in and working your way backwards.  I don't think that's what ermo is actually suggesting, but the thought is still a little scary.  IMO it's much better to follow the literature itself-what do the experts and researchers think are the core policy areas in domestic production of energy?  Many times the affs we think 'should be in' are not really large parts of the literature, or they are large parts but conceptually and in-practice distinct from broader topic questions. 
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #68 on: May 30, 2012, 11:34:34 PM »

wording paper from group 2 attached.  there may be an updated version or simply a supplemental document.  comments and feedback welcome.

* Energy_Group_2_Wording_May-30-12.pdf (1240.14 KB - downloaded 862 times.)
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2012, 07:26:47 AM »

This is WAVE 1 of the Energy Committee's reports. There will be additional waves later today (still doing some editing).

There will also be a summary document with the summaries/recommendations compiled in one place.

[Note - if you want to save time, skip Rare Earth Minerals - it's not a thing]

* Nuclear - Energy Committee Report - 5-31-12.doc (124.5 KB - downloaded 436 times.)
* Natural Gas-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (200 KB - downloaded 1618 times.)
* Oil-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (344 KB - downloaded 744 times.)
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2012, 07:36:07 AM »

This is Wave 2 of the Energy Committee Reports

Rare Earth Minerals
Solar
Tidal
Wind


* Solar-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (284.5 KB - downloaded 701 times.)
* Rare Earth Minerals-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (125 KB - downloaded 457 times.)
* Tidal-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (66 KB - downloaded 1002 times.)
* Wind-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (161.5 KB - downloaded 627 times.)
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2012, 07:40:14 AM »



Wave 3 - Energy Committee Reports

Biomass
Hydro

* Biomass-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (51.5 KB - downloaded 299 times.)
* Hydro-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (41 KB - downloaded 779 times.)
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2012, 10:04:22 AM »

Wave 4 -

Coal & Geothermal.

Also, seriously - don't read Rare Earth Minerals paper - it may be interesting, but it is irrelevant - it is a waste of your time - why is that the most downloaded?Huh


* Coal-Energy Committee Report-5-31-12.doc (156.5 KB - downloaded 595 times.)
* Geothermal-Energy Committee Report-6-1-12.doc (181 KB - downloaded 436 times.)
Logged
izak
Newbie
*
Posts: 32



WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2012, 03:16:53 PM »

WE JUST CAN'T STAY AWAY FROM THE FORBIDDEN MYSTERY PAPER OF DOOM
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2012, 07:58:19 PM »


Wave 5 -

Geothermal Supplement

Wave 6 with generic energy and summaries coming soon.


Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!