West coast debate
Download 1.5 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- WEST COAST DEBATE
- Table Of Contents
- Arguing Negative On The Space Topic
WEST COAST DEBATETRANSPORTATION 2012-2013 NEGATIVE HANDBOOK Edited by Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson Researched by: Brett Bricker, Jonah Feldman, Athena Murray, Greta Stahl, James Taylor, Alex Zendeh, Derek Ziegler
Jim Hanson and Aaron Hardy WEST COAST DEBATETRANSPORTATION 2011-2012 NEGATIVE HANDBOOK Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. Finding Arguments in this Handbook Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible. You’ll find affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks listed alphabetically in their categories. Using the arguments in this Handbook We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches. Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater. Copying West Coast Evidence Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at wcdebate@hotmail.com and seek our consent. Ordering West Coast Materials 1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com 2. E-mail us at wcdebate@hotmail.com You can also call us at 888-255-9133; fax us at 877-781-5058; or write to West Coast Publishing; 2344 Hawk Drive; Walla Walla WA 99362 Copyright 2012. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
WEST COAST DEBATE 1 WEST COAST DEBATE 2 Table Of Contents 3 Arguing Negative On The Space Topic 4
The 8
United States 9 Federal Government 10 Should 11 Substantially 12 Increase 13 Its 14
Transportation Infrastructure 15 Transportation 16 Infrastructure 17 Investment 18 In 19
Uniqueness – Competitiveness Will Increase 22 Uniqueness – AT: China Surpassing the US 24 No Solvency – Alternative Causes 25 No Impact – Competitiveness Resilient 27 No Impact – Economy 28 No Impact – Heg 30 No I/L – Decoupling 32 No Impact – Economy Resilient 33 No impact – Conflict 34 No impact – China 35 No impact – Radicalism/Authoritarianism 37 Uniqueness – Heg High Now 38 No Solvency – Decline Inevitable 40 No Solvency – Decline Inevitable 41 No Impact – Hegemony Resilient 42 No Impact – Hegemony Not Key to Solve 44 Impact Turn – China 46 Impact Turn – China 47 Impact Turn – Proliferation 48 Highways Neg 50 AT: IHS Deterioration 51 AT: Solvency – Federal Funding Fails 52 AT: Solvency – Federal Funding Fails 53 AT: Solvency – Federal Funding Fails 54 AT: Solvency – Federal Funding Fails 55 AT: Solvency – Federal Funding Fails 57 AT: Congestion 58 AT: Solvency - Congestion 59 AT: Solvency - Congestion 60 Politics Links - Congress 61 Politics Links - Public 62 Spending Links 63 Spending Links 64 States CP 65 Privatization CP 67 Privatization CP 68 VMF CP 69 VMF CP 70 VMF CP 71 Space Elevator Neg 72 Inherency – NASA Space Elevator Now 73 Inherency – Others Building Space Elevator Now 74 AT: Colonization Advantage – No Asteroids 75 AT: Colonization Advantage – Colonization Impossible 76 AT: Stimulus Advantage – Stimulus Fails 78 AT: Stimulus Advantage – Stimulus Fails 79 AT: Stimulus Advantage – Stimulus Hurts Growth 80 AT: Stimulus Advantage – Stimulus Hurts Growth 82 AT: Launches Advantage – Launches Don’t Hurt Ozone 83 AT: Launches Advantage – Ozone Alt-Causes 84 AT: Launches Advantage – SQ Solves Debris 85 AT: Launches Advantage – Debris Inevitable 86 Solvency – Space Elevator Fails 87 Solvency – NASA Fails 88 Politics Link – Plan Costs Political Capital 89 Elections Link – Plan Unpopular With Public 90 Private CP Solves – General 92 Private CP Solves – Tax Incentives 93 Private CP Solves – Tax Incentives 94 Japan CP Solves 95
AT: Inherency – Frontline 97 AT: Solvency – Frontline 99 AT: Solvency – Frontline 100 AT: Solvency – Alt Causes – 2NC/1NR 101 AT: Solvency – Alt-Causes – 2NC/1NR 102 AT: Solvency – AT: Country Models 103 AT: Solvency – AT: Country Models 104 AT: Growth – Frontline 105 AT: Growth – Frontline 106 AT: Environment – Frontline 107 AT: Environment – Frontline 108 T – Investment – 1NC 109 T – Investment – HSR Links 110 T – Investment - HSR Links 111 Kill HSR CP – 1NC 112 Kill HSR CP – Solvency – General 113 Kill HSR CP – Solvency – General 114 Private Investment CP – Solvency 115 Private Investment CP – Solvency 116 States CP – Solvency 117 States CP – Solvency 118 Freight DA – 1NC 119 Politics DA – Plan Unpopular – Republicans 121 Politics DA – Plan Unpopular – Funding Battles 123 Spending DA – Links 125 Spending DA – Links 127 Spending DA – Link Magnifiers 128 Green Stimulus Neg 130 1NC States Counterplan – Highways 131 States Solve Environmental Policy 132 The Plan is Popular 133 The Plan is Not Popular 134 The Status Quo Solves 135 The Affirmative’s Harms Are Solved Now 136 The Economy is Strong Now 137 New Spending Hurts the Economy 138 Public Spending Trades off with Private Productivity 139 Government Spending Can’t Help the Economy 140 Plan is not Proven 141 The Plan Doesn’t Solve Globally 142 The Plan Hurts the Environment 143 Other Things are Causing Environmental Destruction 144 No Impact to Global Warming 145 The World is Cooling 146 Economic Growth Hurts the Environment 147 Sequestration DA 148 Sequestration DA 1NC 1/3 149 Sequestration DA 1NC 2/3 150 Sequestration DA 1NC 3/3 152 Yes Sequestration – General 153 Yes Sequestration – Obama Veto 154 No Spending – AT: Foreign Aid Now 155 Link – Sacred Cow 156 Link – Chopping Block 157 Link – Earmarks 158 Spending Ratings Downgrade 160 Debt Reduction Key To Rating 161 Sequestration Key Rating 162 Credit Downgrade Hurts Economy 163 Credit Downgrade Hurts Economy 164 AT: Econ Resilient 165 AT: S&P Already Downgraded US 167 Ratings Decrease Bad – Dollar Impact 168 Ratings Decrease Bad – Chinese Currency Impact 170 Chinese Revaluation Bad – Unrest 171 Chinese Revaluation Bad – Oil Prices Impact 172 High Oil Prices Bad – Poverty Impact 174 Jackson-Vanik DA 176 1NC Jackson-Vanik DA 1/3 177 1NC Jackson-Vanik DA 2/3 178 1NC Jackson-Vanik DA 3/3 180 Yes JV Repeal – Momentum 181 Yes JV Repeal – Laundry List 182 JV = Top Of Docket 184 Obama Pushing JV Repeal 185 AT: Magnitsky Bill 186 AT: Non-Obama Push Thumpers 188 AT: Law of the Sea Thumper 189 Politics Link – Transportation Spending Unpopular 190 Politics Link – Highway Funding Unpopular 191 Politics Links – Highway Funding Unpopular 192 Politics Link – High Speed Rail Unpopular 193 Politics Link – Space Transportation Unpopular 195 Political Capital Key To Jackson-Vanik 196 AT: Winners Win 197 AT: Relations Resilient 198 AT: Relations Resilient 199 JV Bad – Relations 200 JV Bad – Relations 201 Relations Good – Everything 202 Relations Good – Everything 203 AT: Putin Dooms Relations 205
1NC Elections DA 1/2 207 1NC Elections DA 2/2 208 Yes Obama 2012 209 Yes Obama 2012 210 Yes Obama 2012 – AT: Economy 211 Yes Obama 2012 – AT: Economy 212 Yes Obama 2012 – AT: Economy 213 AT: Too Far Off to Predict 214 AT: Too Far Off To Predict 215 Elections Link – Spending Unpopular 216 Elections Link – Highway Funding Unpopular 218 Elections Link – High Speed Rail Unpopular 220 Elections Link – Space Transportation Unpopular 221 Florida Key To Election 222 Obama Good – Turns Case – Heg/Econ 223 Obama Good – Turns Case – Heg/Econ 224 Obama Good – Russia Relations 2NC 225 Obama Good – Russia Relations 2NC 226 Obama Good – US-Russia Relations 227 Obama Good – China 2NC 229 Obama Good – China 2NC 230 Obama Good – US-China Relations 231 Obama Good – US-China Relations 232 Obama Good – Iran War 233 Obama Good – Iran War 234 Obama Good – EPA 235 Obama Good – EPA 236 Obama Good – Health Care 237 Obama Good – Health Care 239 Health Care Good – Economy 240 Health Care Good – Space 241 Health Care Good – Space 242
Federalism DA Shell 1/2 244 Federalism DA Shell 2/2 246 Uniqueness – US federalism strong now 248 Uniqueness – AT: Obama legislation hurt federalism 250 Link – Transportation Investments 252 Link – Federal Spending 253 Internal Link – Federalism is zero-sum 254 Internal Link – US federalism gets modeled 255 Federalism DA Turns the Case 257 Impact – Democracy 258 Impact – Economy 260 Impact – Conflict 262 Impact – Counter-terrorism 263 Impact – Africa 264 Impact – Afghanistan 266 Impact – Iraq 268 Impact – Libya 269 Impact – Russia 270 AT: Impact Turn – Environment 272 AT: Impact Turn – Racism 273
1NC Private CP Shell 276 1NC Private CP Shell 277 AT: Permutation – Do Both 278 Net Benefit – Politics 279 Solvency – Transportation Infrastructure 280 Solvency – Transportation Infrastructure 281 Solvency - Highways 282 Solvency - Highways 283 Net Benefit – Accidents 284 Net Benefit – Accidents 286 Accidents Impact – Hazmat 287 Accidents Impact – Economy 289 Solvency – Railroads 290 Solvency – Railroads 291 Solvency – High Speed Rail 292 Solvency – Maritime Ports 293 Solvency - Airports 294 Solvency – Space 295 Solvency – Space 296 States CP 297 States Counterplan (1/2) 298 States Counterplan (2/2) 299 States Solve--Innovation 300 States Solve--Efficiency 301 States Solve--Flexibility 302 States Solve Transportation Infrastructure 303 Federal Government Doesn’t Solve Infrastructure 304 States Solve Infrastructure Comparatively Better 305 States Race to the Top 306 AT: Crosses State Lines 308 AT: States Have No Money 309 AT: States Spending DA 310 AT: Permutation 311 AT: States CP Bad Theory 312 Federalism Links 314 Politics Links 315 Spending Links 316 State Development K 317 1NC State Development Kritik 318 Link – State Solutions 320 Link – Experts 322 AT: Perm 323 Cap Bad – General 324 Cap Bad – War 325 Cap Bad – Resource Wars 326 Cap Bad – Environment 327 Cap Bad – Environment 328 Cap Bad – Warming 330 Cap Bad – Genocide 331 AT: Cap Good 332 Collapse Inevitable 333 Collapse Inevitable 334 Alt Solvency 335 Alt Solvency 336 AT: Cede the Political 337 Ideology K 338 1NC Ideology Kritik 1/2 339 1NC Ideology Kritik 2/2 341 Ideology Link – Transportation 342 Ideology Link – Law 344 Ideology Link – Hegemony 346 Impact – Nuclear War 347 Impact – War 349 Impact – Genocide 351 Impact – Environment 352 Capitalism = Root Cause Of Environment 354 Capitalism = Root Cause Of Racism 355 AT: Capitalism Key Space 356 Alternative Solves – General 357 Alternative Solves – Withdrawing 358 AT: Permutation 360 AT: Capitalism Inevitable 362 AT: Gibson Graham 364 Arguing Negative On The Space TopicAaron Hardy and Jim Hanson, Whitman College Below you will find a general overview of the negative side of the 2012-2013 Transportation topic, as well as specific descriptions of responses to affirmative cases, disadvantages, counterplans, and critiques. You can argue that current plans to develop US infrastructure are sufficient and should not be expanded. You can argue that increases in investment are actively harmful and would actually make problems worse. You can argue that the disadvantages of increasing investment, such as the cost or the political backlash would outweigh the benefits of the affirmative plan. You can argue that different agents could better implement plans. Use this topic overview as a starting point for your research into the negative side of the Transportation topic. Case Responses Be prepared to defend the present system of US transportation infrastructure. Research evidence and arguments that refute the harms that affirmatives are likely to present. Use the affirmative topic analysis included in this handbook to prepare for likely affirmative cases and research attacks against their solvency. Here are some of the many possible negative responses you can make to affirmative cases: • Current plans for US transportation investment are adequate – the Obama administration is refocusing efforts on improving US transportation infrastructure, and state government are also aware of problems and bottlenecks in the current system. The negative could also argue that private industry will ensure solving the affirmative harms in the future, for example by investing in airports and high-speed rail to make a profit. • Focusing on transportation is the wrong focus – there are many problems with the US economy and competitiveness, and time and resources devoted to transportation infrastructure may take decades to see effects. Those resources may be better spent on other forms of stimulus or taking steps to improve US competitiveness in other areas. • Be prepared to really go after the solvency of affirmative plans. Remember, the topic only allows affirmatives to increase investment – not guarantee that the results of that investment will be productive. The affirmative must defend that their plan will actually work or succeed at reducing the harms. To win that they solve many of the largest impacts, this will require the affirmative to win that many new technologies are developed, that the economics will work out in favor of their program, and that it is even possible to catch up to other countries transportation investments. If any of these programs were simple or guaranteed, we likely would have done them by now. This also means that many of the problems with current transportation policy are also potential solvency attacks against affirmative plans. Failed past projects and things which politicians have failed to support as too “pie-in-the-sky” are just two examples of the types of evidence you can use to support your solvency arguments. Remember, you should both show why the affirmative proposal won’t work and why it will make things worse. This will make your solvency arguments as strong as possible. As the year progresses, new affirmatives will emerge and you will need to research and strategize to defeat them. Use the arguments presented here to jumpstart your research. Against any new affirmative, be sure to defend the status quo, attack the significance of the affirmative’s harms, and attack the affirmative’s solvency. This strategy is sure to put you in a good position to win a debate over the affirmative’s case.
• Politics disadvantage: The plan could be argued to either help or hurt Obama’s political agenda. Transportation policies are frequently unpopular because they are perceived as too expensive, or because they spread the cost to many while only benefiting a few. On the other hand, transportation programs can be very popular when they benefit specific constituencies, or when they are perceived as very necessary. Passing popular or unpopular programs could give President Obama increased or decreased ability to pursue other, potentially harmful policies. • Elections disadvantage: The 2012 presidential elections are shaping up to be extremely important politically, as they could impact whether the country maintains course with Obama’s policies for the next four years. For many of the same reasons mentioned above, the plan could have important political effects in how the electorate views Obama and the Democrats more broadly. • Spending disadvantage: Almost all forms of transportation investment are extremely costly. Programs to fix US highways (much less build a space elevator) could cost billions of dollars. The US is already running huge fiscal deficits – and spending a great deal of money which the US doesn’t currently have could have negative effects on the US economy. • Federalism disadvantage: Investments in local infrastructure could be considered the domain of state governments, rather than the target of federal investment. Taking over functions normally reserved by the constitutions for the states might harm the balance of state and federal power. This could in turn damage the power of the US model to other countries, resulting in government collapse or wars.
• States counterplan: Many affirmatives will lack a good reason why only the federal government can enact the plan. This counterplan argues instead that all 50 states should implement the plan in their respective states. This has the advantage of avoiding downsides to federal action, such as the federalism disadvantage or politics disadvantage. This is likely to be one of the most popular counterplans on the topic, due to its general applicability. • Advantage counterplans: since so many affirmatives on the topic share the same goals – improving the US economy and competitiveness, for example, there will be many affirmative ideas which could be re-used as counterplans when debating a different case. For example, against a case which improved US highways, the negative might read a counterplan to build high-speed rail instead, and argue that highway investments would be detrimental. • Plan-inclusive counterplans: this is an entire category of counterplans, rather than one specific plan. These counterplans advocate part of the affirmative plan, while excluding the rest and claiming the benefit of excluding the parts of the plan that link to disadvantages. For example, a plan-inclusive counterplan against an affirmative which invested in US roads and highways could advocate only investing in US roads, and claim that investing in highways would detract from investments in better forms of long-distance transportation, such as airports or high-speed rail.. Kritiks What kinds of kritiks may be run on this year’s topic? Here goes: • Security kritik: this kritik argues that affirmative plans which attempt to avoid “security” impacts such as wars by improving the US economy and position of leadership in the world lead to a cycle of insecurity through threat construction. This might extend to criticizing representations of conflicts or security concerns. The kritik rejects this way of describing the world and says we should instead use more positive representations or discourse. • Speed kritik: this kritik argues that US transportation infrastructure is built around a concept of technological sophistication which emphasizes the increasing speed at which people can travel and experience the world. This, in turn, causes people to relate to the world in negative ways, and do things like destroy the environment or rely on technology too much. The kritik would reject this way of thinking and avoid using modern transportation infrastructure. • Capitalism kritik: this kritik argues that the root cause of problems on Earth is the existence of capitalism. It argues that policy proposals which attempt to develop US infrastructure and the economy without dealing with the core problem will simply result in replicated the problems of Capitalism, and that the only way to truly solve is to reject the whole capitalist system. • Race kritik: this kritik will argue that the impacts of US transportation investments are not experienced equitably by people of different races. For example, investments in US highways only benefit people who have a car – while ignoring the impact of higher taxes on the urban poor. This kritik will argue that these racist assumptions should be rejected. • Coercion kritik: this kritik will argue that the only legitimate function of government is to provide for the common defense and protect private property – and that things like US transportation infrastructure should be provided by private enterprise. The kritik will argue that it is immoral for the government to tax people in order to fund public works projects like transportation, and that this form of government coercion should be resisted at all costs.
Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 1.5 Mb. Share with your friends:
|