Negative Evidence Packet



Download 347.52 Kb.
Page1/7
Date10.08.2017
Size347.52 Kb.
#30094
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

AUDL 2012 NEGATIVE www.atlantadebate.org



Negative Evidence Packet

\\eu.emory.edu\campuslifeuserhome\wnewnam\old-pc\desktop\infrastructure topic\infrastructure topic\trg articles\walking skeletons.jpgTransportation Infrastructure





Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

Contents


Case Negative 3

1NC Inherency 4

1NC Inherency 5

1NC Social Justice Answers 6

1NC Social Justice Answers 8

1NC No Health Harms 9

1NC No Health Harms 10

AT: Military Readiness 11

AT: Global Warming 12

AT: Global Warming 13

AT: Global Warming 14

1NC Solvency Social Justice 16

1NC Solvency Social Justice 17

Solvency Extensions Social Justice 18

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 19

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 21

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 22

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 23

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 24

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 25

1NC No Active Transit Solvency 26

Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency 27

1NC No Planning Solvency 30

1NC No Planning Solvency 32

Highway Trade-off Disadvantage 34

1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3 35

1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 2/3 36

1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 3/3 37

Uniqueness Extensions—Funding to Highways Now 38

Uniqueness Extensions—US Infrastructure Good Now 39

Link Extensions—Less Money for Highways 40

Link Extensions—Highways Key to Growth 42

AT: China will decline 45

China Impact Extensions 47

Impact Extension: US Economic Hegemony 48

Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war 50

Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war 52

Budget Disadvantage 53

1NC Budget Disadvantage 1/3 54

Uniqueness Fiscal Discipline Now: 2NC 57

Uniqueness AT: Debt Limit after Election: 2NC 58

Uniqueness AT: Defense Authorization: 2NC 60

A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC 61

2NC 64


Impact Calculus – 2NC 65

Impact Extensions 2NC 66

Budget Disadvantage--Food Prices Link 68

Food Prices Impact 69

Food Prices Impact extensions 71




Case Negative

There are several arguments that are included here as direct attacks on the case.


Inherency. Several existing federal statutes provide federal assistance to solve social equity, fund bike and walking paths, solve inequity in environmental implications of highways.
Harm Answers. There are several arguments for why social justice and health care are not substantial problems.
Solvency Answers. There are specific arguments for each solvency area. There are arguments that there is no solvency for social equity, that a number of factors will decrease the effectiveness of the plan on public health and generally that it is hard to develop clear and usable plans for solving social inequities.

1NC Inherency

Federal and local programs are being adopted now



Lindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) “Combating childhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children”, Review of Environment and Health 2011
From the federal government and major corporations down to grass-roots organizations many are working to implement policies that will influence the communities we live in for the better. The First Lady is drawing a lot of public attention to the issue with her “Let’s Move” campaign, and the President is committed to funding programs, such as Complete Streets, Safe Routes to School, and Fresh Food Financing Initiatives, which have been proven to be successful at the local and state levels. In addition, childhood obesity is a major news issue, with new stories tracking both the epidemic and new initiatives to fight it appearing in major news sources almost on a daily basis. Finally, as scientific studies establish stronger links between individual built-environment factors and childhood obesity policy makers will have better information to shape potent interventions.

Many cycling programs exist now



Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”,

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740
As issues of traffic congestion, obesity, and climate change garner increased attention both globally and in the US, focus turns to the role of walking and cycling in mitigating such concerns. One is hard pressed to find any community not looking to spur walking and cycling activity through planning activities. This enthusiasm has created a need for evidence on the degree to which different policies have succeeded in increasing walking and cycling travel and producing other benefits for the community. Did the sidewalk encourage more people to become physically active? Did showers and locker rooms at the worksite spur cycling to work? Did the improved intersection increase rates of walking? How much fuel was saved by constructing the bicycle trail? Answers to such questions could influence future policy decisions.

Evidence so far is sparse but may soon be growing. In the US the 2005 federal transportation authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU (safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation equity act: a legacy for users), provides more than $500 million to communities to construct nonmotorized transportation facilities and promote use of these facilities. The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) specifically included $100 million for pilot programs in four communities to increase levels of walking and cycling. Such `interventions' provide a living laboratory often called for but rarely exploited in the transportation planning field. Thus, the NTPP also required an evaluation of the efficacy of these programs under the logic that documenting benefits in one community provides a basis for judging the potential benefits of proposed policies in other communities.



Download 347.52 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page