Greetings all. Thanks to everyone who wrote controversy papers for providing us with such a wonderful set of options. We are very fortunate to have so much great community input.
We are now proceeding with wording work for the energy topic. I know there was some confusion last year, so I want to be very clear about what happens next.
We have a winning controversy paper which is the guding document for our work. We will work to answer questions it left unresolved and try to review its approaches. We are not, however , revisiting its fundamental conclusion that the goal of the topic should be to encourage affirmative teams to advocate for an increase in the production and/or use of domestic energy resources.
We on the topic wording committee are very much open to any wording papers from anyone in the community that provide suggestions on how to frame that controversy. There is real, meaningful choice about how we proceed and we are very eager for your input in what ballot options are presented to the community for the next vote.
We will place any wording papers on our agenda for the Lexington meeting that are received by Tuesday 5/29.
We also recognize that the topic selection committee possesses an important responsibility to ensure that there is a slate of options. We have decided to organize into three working groups. Each group needs community input and research support. I will outline the groups, their basic charge, and the committee members helping to coordinate work. If you are interested in helping, please either reply to this thread or contact these folks individually.
Again, we are open to other work and other approaches. This is just the minimum we feel the committee should explore in order to be ready to frame a slate of wordings when we meet in Lexington.
Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or comments. Thanks!
Group 1 - What type of domestic energy resources?
Coordinated by Heather Walters & Adrienne Brovero
Questions:
- Should the resources be individually listed or grouped using unifying terms (fossil fuel, renewable, etc.)
- If they are listed individually, are they better terms (petroleum, bio-fuels, seem to have some minor wording questions).
- Are there concerns about including any of the types?
- Should the topic include both fossil fuels and renewables?
Group 2 - How should production and / or use be increased?
Coordinated by Kevin Kuswa and Eric Morris
Questions:
- Assess the utility of the term "production"
- Assess the utility of the term "use"
- Assess the utility of the term "development"
- Do we believe reducing regulations should be included?
- Is a broader change with a minimal action/floor (e.g. "including reducing restrictions") good/viable/true to lit?
- Production/use/development terms need to take into consideration the T discussion in the CEDA-F thread - i.e. can the aff enact change that *might but won't necessarily* increase production, etc. ??
Group 3 - What sector of energy production or use?
(i.e, the "for transportation and / or electricity generation" phrase)
Coordinated by Kathryn Rubino and Gordon Stables
- Are these sector limits effective to allow for the type of debates suggested in the paper?
- If these sectors are deemed useful, are these phrases optimal?
- Does "establish a policy" provide any assistance here?
- Is there a way to suggest that the energy should be use-able by the general public? (not the USFG or DOD only)
I do think there will be other smaller work, but I think focusing on these three areas is optimal.
Other important questions:
- The benefit of finding a better way to deal with the "substantially" issue