College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 11:41:06 PM *
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 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
Author Topic: Energy Production and Use Topic - Topic Committee Working Groups  (Read 28809 times)
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2012, 08:27:43 PM »


Wave 6

-Generic Terms

-Summaries and Recommendations [This includes all the summary/recs from the individual reports]

This is it. No more from us...


Logged
andreareed
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2012, 09:01:37 PM »

A couple of us have started compiling this matrix of affirmatives to help see which mechanisms produce which affirmatives.  Thanks to the fuels group (Adrienne, Jim, Tay, et al) for helping me populate this.  Hopefully this will help us keep track of affs as we explore different mechanisms. Feel free to email me stuff to add and we will try to keep updating it over the course of the weekend.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cpoK9WagRazsp5hcfsx4-3eCTD38-r2T8xYhX55o4xQ/edit


Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2012, 09:31:15 PM »

I'm curious as to why the Summaries and Conclusion for the Energy sources report has FF only options but no renewable only options. Similarly, the paper characterizes some of the lists as "Renewable-ish without abandoning controversy paper" when Renewables are clearly part of the topic paper:

"Concerns regarding overlap with the high school topic (which are also addressed in the “wording” and “frequently asked” section of the paper) can be addressed by either a) choosing to exclude renewable sources from the resolution (which Dylan and I would argue against) or b) understanding that the overall mechanism of the resolution is very different from the high school topic that mandated increased incentives for alternative energy development. This topic, but including non-renewable sources as stable affirmative ground changes the direction of the topic. Finally, c) a compromise could be a “list” version of potential energy sources that includes some (but not all) renewable sources. I will specifically focus on reasons to include wind, solar, and biofuels in the topic."

I think we're definitely running afoul of the topic paper if we're posting ballot options that have no renewables or no FF. We're also running afoul of the broad base of literature about increasing domestic energy - FF are an option, but they are by no means the primary option in the lit.

I appreciate the desire to limit the topic, but this is clearly framing the issue as "FF are for sure in, letting renewables in would make it really broad." When, in reality, the topic paper calls for both FF and renewables and explicitly advocates not limiting out renewables. There is no literature based reason that we should be defaulting to the position that FF are in, other stuff is in as long as the limits are fine.

The last thing I'll say about this is the community historically votes for narrow topics. If a FF only option shows up there, people are going to vote for it. I strongly urge the committee to reject FF only topics, this is NOT what the community voted for. It's a VERY narrow slice of the topic paper. Moreover, this paper was not written like Immigration  a couple years ago - they did not explicitly segment the fuel sources and suggest that they be partitioned off, so the reduction of Immigration to Visas only is not an appropriate analogy.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2012, 05:17:54 AM »

Still working through all the readings but I agree with Adam's post.  Well-reasoned. 

If folks want to debate climate change (at least on the aff), we should have both types of energy sources represented.

I also hope that if a ballot option does not list the specific types (and hopefully multiple ballot options simply stop at "energy sources"), that the narrow topic wordings do not win the community vote through default.

If we leave the "energy sources" open and available for a topicality debate, it looks like the "Types Group" has come up with a good line.  It is a debate for sure, but it is not over 30 types and has a good line for what is in and what could be argued as out.  This is on page 6---Heisenberg I think is the author.  It's not too frightening I don't think...at least not for college debate:

Oil
Coal
Natural gas
Hydropower
Nuclear
Biomass
Wind power
Solar photovoltaics
Active concentrating solar thermal
Passive solar
Geothermal
Energy from waste
Ethanol
Biodiesel
Tar sands
Oil shale
Tidal power
Wave energy
Logged
Kathryn Rubino
Newbie
*
Posts: 45


« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2012, 07:04:55 AM »

Hey all,
Attached and at the link is the work from group 3 on electricity generation and other sector work

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O8TCApnxxylliKLNbfc5shV2mvrDVooObB8vKLTUy3g/edit?pli=1

thanks!
Kathryn

* Electricity Generation and Sector Work.html (89.39 KB - downloaded 3279 times.)
Logged
Adri
Full Member
***
Posts: 125


« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2012, 07:05:26 AM »

Obviously, this will be a discussion today.

But to clarify, the beginning of the line Adam bolded says:

Concerns regarding overlap with the high school topic (which are also addressed in the “wording” and “frequently asked” section of the paper) can be addressed by either a)...


Hence the option of one without renewables. In order for the "referendum" on including renewables, there needs to be an option without renewables.

At no point does the paper claim there should be a referendum on fossil fuels, hence why each includes some.

More later,
Adri


Logged
Adam Symonds
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 349


« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2012, 08:37:57 AM »

Thanks for the reply.

I guess we have different views about how to read that sentence, given that they finish by saying don't do this.

Setting that aside, the paper literally says there should be a referendum IF we are worried about overlap with the HS topic 5 years ago. That suggests that if there is not a well established fear of overlap, this clause wouldn't kick in. So I would suggest construing this narrowly. This would mean that fears of an unlimited topic would not, in fact, be a reason to take out renewables if one wanted to maintain fidelity to the controversy paper.

In addition, I don't think this concern is well founded enough to even kick in ballot options without renewables. We have tons of overlap on a year to year basis in terms of the advantages (trade, leadership, economic competitiveness anyone?), disadvantages (SKFTA!), we've even had warming show up as a regular impact (although clearly not in depth), and CPs don't change significantly on an energy topic with or without overlap with that topic.

I'm not even sure what the fear would be - do we think that experience 5 years ago will trump development of better debate skills in the intervening years? Doesn't seem like a worry that should be used to justify eliminating large segments (many would say the core) of the domestic energy literature.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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!