Chicken Dung=Alternative Energy

Thanks and good luck! OBSERVATION 1: TOPICALITIES =================== I: Energy-"Any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation." A. Standards- 1) Affirmative must increase ENERGY (incentives) that is a source of usable power. 2) Affirmative must guarantee that energy incentives are increased. B. Violations- 1) Affirmative's plan action removes a non-energy substance. 2) Affirmative has one weak evidence card that says this COULD equal energy but gives NO definite yes or no answer. C. Voters- 1) Ground -Affirmative could literally have any plan that COULD have to do with energy SOMETIME (like vegetable oil in restaurants). This makes ground for negative too wide. 2) Fairness -The resolution specifies an increase in energy (incentives) but affirmative looks to something that has nothing to do with energy. This takes away from framers intent and makes a burden of research unrealistic to the resolution =================== II: Substantial- "Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc" A. Standard- Affirmative must increase energy incentives in a great amount. B. Violation- There is no "substantial" change in ANY energy incentives C. Voters- 1) Ground -Affirmative could increase a random energy incentive with no significant change giving too much ground to Affirmative and virtually none for Negative to argue disadvantages, etc. 2) Fairness -In order for an equal opportunity to be given to both sides, you must ensure that we change status quo in by a great amount to see the realistic benefits and/or costs. =================== III: Increase- "A quantity that is added" A. Standards: 1) The Affirmative plan must take something and make it greater. 2) The Affirmative plan must increase energy incentives 3) The incentives must permanently be increased. B. Violations: 1) The Affirmative plan takes something and eliminates it. 2) The Affirmative plan eliminates something that has nothing to do with energy. This not only fails to increase, but actually DECREASES an object. There is no proof that any sort of incentive is increase only that it could be. 3) The Affirmative plan doesn't increase energy incentives, he makes the incentives safer. Flow through the ‘C' card on inherency where all it talks about is how it could be an energy incentive but it needs to be safe. Decreasing the harm possibility does not increase an incentive and FOR SURE does not do it substantially. 4) The Affirmative plan only gives a 5 year tax break. C. Voters 1) Framers Intent -The resolution asks for incentives in energy to be increased. The intent of the Affirmative plan is to gain an advantage in health risks and has nothing to do with energy incentives. 2) Ground and Fairness -In order for debate to be equal and fair, the Affirmative must increase something. He only decreases. Changing this makes the ground for the debate unlimited. All of my definitions are from dictionary.com ==================== OVSERVATION 2: ECONOMIC KRITIK A. Standard: The Affirmative plan must: 1) Specify where the money is coming from 2) Specify how much it will cost B. Violation: 1) The Affirmative plan "Cover(s) 50% of building costs in tax breaks for companies for 5 years who invest in chicken dung", but yet fails to show where this money will come from. I can say that I will give you a million dollars but it would be useless and would achieve nothing if I didn't say how or if I didn't proactively do it. The Affirmative plan does neither. 2) In order to give any chance for negative, for purpose of economic and/or funding disadvantages, there must be proof of how much money will be spent. Affirmative doesn't even give as much as an estimate let alone how much money will be spent or at least how much COULD be spent. C. Voters: 1) Fairness -There must be as much necessary information as possible given about the affirmative case in order for us to know the advantages as well as the disadvantages. It is unfair for the Affirmative to only give what is good about the plan. 2) Ground -The Affirmative could literally say they spend the perfect amount of money for the perfect advantage, but this makes it unrealistic and impossible to argue in a pragmatic and fair-grounded form. =================== OBSERVATION 3: DEATH COUNTER-PLAN A. Plan-text: The Unites States Federal Government will mandate 1) A minimum of arsenic to be placed in chicken to be above current levels. 2) Increase a curable disease, that is not contagious, and withhold the cure. 3) Make birth-control a requirement. 4) Nuke less advantaged countries. 5) Once the population of the United States is below 150,000,000, mandates 1, 2, and 3 will be lifted. 6) Once the world population is below 2 Billion, mandate 4 will be lifted. 7) All decisions of who dies and how will be determined by a committee established by Congress. 8) I reserve the right to clarify. 9) This plan will be funded by normal means and will be paid back through monetary increase from advantageous effects. 10) Kill everyone through means of injection, of anyone over the age of 75 (let them have one last party at their 75th birthday) 11) Kill everyone through means of injection, of anyone mentally retarded determined by 2 of 3 credited officials. 12) Kill everyone who has ever committed a crime worthy of more than 2 weeks in jail. B. Non-Topical -This policy action has nothing to do with alternative energy. C. Mutually Exclusive -You can not eliminate arsenic and increase it at the same time. D. Net-Beneficial 1) Solves Hunger (from: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...) -"The food prices are going up, and everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food, but it's really (that there are) too many people. It's a little embarrassing for everybody, nobody knows how to handle it" -"Most famous, the 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus said mass starvation was inevitable because population increases geometrically while food production grows arithmetically." 2) We need to stop this worsening truth (same source) -"Every year, world population grows by 75 million people" 3) Solves Cannibalism (same source) -"They eat everything in sight and multiply 50-fold -- until they have consumed everything, when they turn in desperation on one another, munch off their siblings' heads and then fall out of the sky dead." 4) Solves Global Warming (same source) -"They say with a frown that this global swarming is driving global warming. How can you be prepared to cut back on your car emissions and your plane emissions but not on your baby emissions? Can you really celebrate the pitter-patter of tiny carbon-footprints?" 5) This death is a must. -"The AIDS epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population" 6) With less supply and demand, gas prices will be decreased, and more money and resources will be available to the remaining members of our world. Passing this plan will benefit the economy, and the quality of life for the remaining members of this world, and thus should be the option pursued. -Why have 6 billion terrible lives when you can have 2 billion good ones? This policy action will end this ridiculous ‘everyone can be happy' idea that we have been living under for so many years. Note, that I gain an EXTREME greater amount of advantage then my opponent and will do so for years to come. Every advantage gained by my opponent is gained by me, but he fails to decrease supply and demand, fails to solve the inevitable cannibalism, and ultimately fails to solve hunger. -To be noted: Voting negative means accepting ANY ONE of the 3 topicalities, the kritik, OR the counterplan. Negation means to not accept the affirmative, NOT to accept the negative stance. Good Luck!