Round Reports
Quarterfinals Round Coppell High School Tournament
Affirmative: Greenhill
Negative: Grapevine
1AC
Greenhill argued that the United States federal government should include algae in the list of renewable fuels that receive a tax incentive and include it in the Renewable Fuels Standards. This change would increase the types of fuels that could be used to meet the minimum amount of renewable energy in gasoline. Algae can become the fuel of the future if it gets off the ground. The affirmative argued that incentivizing algae will lead to a decrease in ethanol use. Relying too heavily on ethanol leads to a monocrop. Monocrops destroy biodiversity and can lead to decreased food security. The affirmative claimed that we are one monocrop away from starvation. Algae also produces phosphorous. When we grown food we deplete phosphorous and need to replenish it. It would be catastrophic if we depleted phosphorous; it is as critical as water.
Negative Strategy
Solvency: Grapevine argued that the plan would fail because algae would not become cost competitive. Also, because the plan does not stop ethanol use completely, phosphorous would still be depleted so the affirmative cannot solve for their advantage. The affirmative countered that the plan would give a tax incentive to algae to make it profitable. Algae will renew the phosphorous.
Topicality: The negative argued that the word increase in the resolution means that plans must increase an existing program. They argue that this interpretation creates a more stable literature base for the negative. The affirmative gives a counter definition that increase is to make greater in number and does not mean they have to increase an existing program. They argue that the negative's interpretation kills negative ground for disadvantages. They also argue that they do increase alternative energy within an existing program-the Renewable Fuels Standard.
Counterplan: Grapevine runs a counterplan that the United States should ban all ethanol. They do not go for this argument. The affirmative perms the argument and also argues that algae is not cost competitive in the status quo so without the plan algae would not take off. If algae does not increase the counterplan cannot solve for the phosphorous advantage.
Discourse Critique: Grapevine said that the affirmative used language that made them sound like nuclear experts. They said that taking the role of defense intellectuals distorts the truth and incites violence. The affirmative argued that the negative also talked about nuclear war in one of their impact cards. The negative responded that conditionality is good. It leads to a fair division of ground. The affirmative had tons of time to write the affirmative plan. Conditionality allows the negative to look for the best option. They also argued that the perm checks abuse because it allows the affirmative to advocates multiple worlds also.
Global -Local Critique: The negative argued that the language of nationalism and sovereignty makes the state paramount and leads to violence. They argue that we should instead act within our own communities. Stop thinking of UN peacekeeping and start thinking of the neighborhood watch. They argue that their advocacy solves the case, not in the traditional way, but they solve for the world in which the impacts can happen. They concede that they do not solve for peak phosphorous, but that dehumanization outweighs it. They argue that utility is the ultimate evil and must be rejected at any cost. It is dehumanizing because it makes everyone into numbers. Asking which option will save the most people led to Hiroshima. It allows people to be extendible. Also, no one can foresee the future. The plan may have unintended consequences. In addition, people aren't reasonable actors. They are only slaves of the state. The state tells us lies and trumps up certain problems to keep its power. They argued that allowing their framework in debate increases philosophical education and forces the affirmative to defend their assumptions. The affirmative argued that the power of the state to embrace utility is good. We can only work from within the system to achieve any results. The only way to stop global atrocities is to recognize them and enact policies to stop them. They read a card that said resource wars are the worst form of dehumanization. They argued that the alternative does not stop the phosphorous depletion. Phosphorous is key to keep people alive. Don't forget about a billion people suffering because the negative wants to embrace a certain philosophy. They also permed the argument. The negative argued that their perm is abusive because it is either intrinsic or severance. The affirmative argued that their perm is not abusive because they do not go for it. It does not make them a moving target. The judges should reject the argument, not the team.
The negative won on a 3-0 decision.
2008 Greenhill Fall Classic
Affirmative: Kinkaid
Negative: Westminster
1AC
The affirmative team argued that current energy production hurts minority and poor communities. Minorities are exposed to a dangerous environment because energy plants are located close to their homes. The plan funds incentives for renewable energy in low income and minority areas. They argued that we have an obligation to act to decrease the suffering of minority and low income people in the status quo. They note that renewable energy will create 40 million jobs and benefit poor communities economically.
Negative Strategy
Topicality: The negative argued that the word "necessary" in the plan was too vague and made the affirmative a moving target. The affirmative responded that there is no resolutional basis for this argument. In addition, there are plenty of offensive arguments available for the negative.
ASPEC: The negative argued that the one key way to get change is to discuss the mechanisms and institutions that can affect change. They argued that the affirmative failed to do this. The affirmative said that this was an unpredictable burden. They also argued that it is infinitely regressive. The negative could always require them to be more specific. Debates about agents decrease education because we do not discuss the topic.
India Deal: The negative argued that the India Deal will pass in the status quo and that it is massively unpopular. If Bush passed the affirmative plan, he would not have enough political capital to pass the India Deal. The negative argued that the India Deal was key to United States-India relations. The affirmative read numerous cards that argued that the India Deal will not pass in the status quo.
Elections: The negative argued that Obama is currently ahead, but by a slim margin. The plan is popular and would allow McCain to capitalize on its success. Obama is key to a Middle East peace agreement. The affirmative read evidence that McCain will win in the November elections. They argued that their evidence is better because it is an aggregate of several polls. They also argued that Obama will not get a peace agreement in his term because of his other priorities.
Counterplan: The negative read a states counterplan. They argued that state policy making is good because it mobilizes people at a local level and increases democratic participation. Democratic participation is key to implementation and sustainability of the plan. They also argued that centralization of power in the federal government is harmful because it is too big. The affirmative made a plan flaw argument because the negative's plan used a comma instead of the word "and" between "low income" and "minority." They also argued that only congress can solve the problem. If the states implemented the plan, it would violate the commerce clause. Also, states would raise money by increasing the sales tax. Regressive taxes harm minorities.
The negative went for the counterplan.
The decision was a 3-0 for the affirmative.
The judges commented that they voted affirmative because the negative changed the text of their counterplan in the 2NC and became a moving target by clarifying that they would not raise sales taxes to pay for projects.