West coast debate

Download 1.5 Mb.
Size1.5 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   48

West Coast

2012 Neg Handbook




Edited by Aaron Hardy and Jim Hanson

Researched by:

Brett Bricker, Jonah Feldman, Athena Murray, Greta Stahl, James Taylor, Alex Zendeh, Derek Ziegler
Articles by:

Jim Hanson and Aaron Hardy



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.

  • You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.

  • You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless you very substantially change each page that of material that you share.

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.
Visit our web page! www.wcdebate.com

Table Of Contents



Table Of Contents 3

Arguing Negative On The Space Topic 4

Topicality 7

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

Transportation Advantage Core Neg 21

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




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

Light Rail Neg 96

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

Elections DA 206

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 243

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

Private CP 275

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 Topic

Aaron 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.
Here are disadvantages you and others might prepare against increasing transportation infrastructure investment:
• Infrastructure Tradeoff disadvantage: increasing the amount of investment in transportation infrastructure may tradeoff with investment in other forms of critical infrastructure, such as the electricity grid or US water systems. Failure to make investments in those types of infrastructure might be more harmful than letting transportation languish – such as enabling a bioterror attack on US water supplies, or causing a power grid collapse that caused nuclear plants to meltdown.

• 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.
Here are counterplans on the Transportation topic:
• Private Sector counterplan: instead of involving the government in transportation investment, this counterplan carries out the mandates of the affirmative via the private sector. This could take the form of government provided incentives, or just fiat that another actor do the plan. This counterplan has the benefit of avoiding politics and spending disadvantages by not involving the government, and might argue that private companies would be better equipped to develop US transportation infrastructure.

• 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..

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.

Download 1.5 Mb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   48

The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2023
send message

    Main page