College Policy Debate Forums
November 21, 2017, 06:08:45 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: the dirty bridge  (Read 2817 times)
SteveMancuso
Newbie
*
Posts: 9


« on: June 02, 2012, 04:58:08 PM »

(I'm about to do what I hated for people to do when I was on the TC, post something from the position of uninformed bystander. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to catch any of today's meeting. What I'm about to suggest may have already been thoroughly discussed at the meeting and rejected for perfectly valid reasons. But, my two cents as an outsider...)

The "dirty bridge" resolution is the best bet for great debates about energy production.

That is now resolution 5A on the white board. Letting the affirmative do RE just isn't controversial enough. Neg strategies will go left or process CP. The straight up refutation of the climate change aff is tougher than it's ever been. If you write resolutions about RE, you'll be debating the climate aff and other environmental impacts. There's nothing wrong with that, but the problem area that seemed so provocative in the controversy paper was about the choices confronting the US about energy production. (I realize with the dirty bridge, the negative will inherit the 'climate change' issue many rounds. But at least the aff. can offset that with a short term economic advantage. If the aff. gets RE and climate change, the CP/NB of dirty energy and short term economic impact isn't competitive.)

So I like the idea of making the affirmative say - yes, renewables are out in the future, but we need to get there. We need a bridge of short term increases in less-than-ideal energy sources available domestically, otherwise we're not going to have enough cheap, reliable energy to support our standard of living. Make the affirmative defend increasing production of coal, oil, NG or nuclear. Let them do that the best way they can. RE will be robust negative ground. Here's a suggested version of 5A that I think is balanced and fewer working parts:

The USFG should substantially increase the production of domestic energy from crude oil, natural gas, coal and/or nuclear energy.


You don't need the mechanism specification when you're forcing the aff on the dirty bridge. It's already plenty hard. I don't think you need to say "energy policy" if you are dealing with production and not also use.

Good luck tomorrow!
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 05:01:32 PM by SteveMancuso » Logged
Pages: [1]
  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!