Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energ[CONT]

First off is ASPEC A. Interpretation – power is divided among the 3 branches of government Jenner 01 The Framers of our Constitution...divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government... B. Violation – the Aff fails to specify the agent of action C. Standards First, ground – the Aff is an incomplete policy without an agent – specific case, DA, CP, and K ground is predicated on the agent Second, real world – no policy can be established with an agent, since the Government isn't a single entity – this is a full solvency takeout – vote neg on presumption. Third, plan text key – textual competition, and neg loses 1NC and pre-round prep are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan D. Voter for fairness and education Topicality 1. Violation - the aff plan is effects topical through fiat - it does not directly meet the resolution. Instead, it takes many steps to actually provide alternative energy incentives: first it removes all DEA restrictions for hemp, then it caps hemp cultivation, and then it eliminates all laws regarding the soil bank. Then, finally, it provides tax refunds for the sale of hemp - it takes at least three steps before it gets to the actual incentive part of the case. Counter-interp: the aff can only provide for incentives directly, without any extra steps. 2. This is horribly abusive - there are an infinite amount of three step actions that lead to an increase in alternative energy. Note how I don't have any good case specific arguments in my speech - that's because THERE AREN'T ANY FOR THIS CASE. It takes too many steps for their incentive to get passed. Vote them down for wasting my and your time talking about this ridiculous case. 3. This is not real world - the government can't just overturn DEA restrictions and soil bank laws as well as provide a tax credit. Sure, I'll grant you fiat on one of those things, but not all three at the same time. That goes too far. Next is more topicality - extra-topicality 1. Violation - the aff plan is extra topical. It "removes current DEA restrictions for the production of industrial hemp" and "eliminates existing laws dealing with the soil bank." These two parts of the plan are not even close to being topical as they do not increase alternative energy incentives. 2. Counter-interp: plan must be completely topical. That's the brightline - you're either topical or nontopical. 3. This is a voting issue for: 3a. Abuse. It's horribly abusive for the neg team to have to debate an aff that's even slightly untopical because THEY CAN'T PREPARE FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T TOPICAL. With the aff interp, they could literally append anything to their plan and as long as it has something about incentives it'd still be "topical." The neg cannot anticipate these additions because, once again, an infinite number of them exist. Thus, they destroy any chances at a fair debate. 3b. Ground - it makes aff ground literally unlimited because they can append anything. Neg can't prepare. 3c. Limits - it unlimits the aff plan, and we can't prepare for all of it. Next is a counterplan: Counterplan: The USFG should use all of the land that would be allocated to hemp by the aff plan and divert that land use towards foodcrop. Competes: -Both plans cannot be passed because in our plan, the same land that is used in the aff plan in now used for hemp. -Counterplan untopical Prefer the counterplan: -Solves their eurocentrism and food prices advantages better than they can by guaranteeing that food will be grown there rather than it being a possibility. Next, another counterplan: Counterplan: The USFG should ban all biofuel incentives/tax exemptions/tax credits/etc. Counterplan competes: it is impossible to provide an incentive and ban all incentives at the same time. Prefer the counterplan: cross apply Bioenergy Buisness 08 and Brown 07 - the food problem stems from the fact that we are using corn biofuels. We solve 100% for their advantages because they are BOTH BASED ON FOOD SHORTAGES CAUSED BY CORN BIOFUELS. They can't claim 100% solvency because corn biofuels will still exist after their plan is passed. After our plan is passed, there will be no biofuels taking away valuable cropland, and thus there will be more food cropland. Thus, we have better solvency for all of their advantages - vote them down. and another: The USFG should ban all biofuel incentives/tax exemptions/tax credits/etc. while allowing the "soil bank" to be used for growing crops. cross-apply from above CP Next, solvency: Farmers won't switch to hemp – global demand checks Rawson 07 ...The world market for hemp products is relatively small, and China, as the world's largest hemp... producer... will continue to have major influence on market prices and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries. Canada's head start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil also would likely affect the profitability of a start-up industry in the United States No infrastructure for hemp - it doesn't matter if we grow it if we can't use it. Vantresse 97 The...market for fiber hemp is relatively small ... given the lack of processing facilities and other infrastructure required... without a viable processing industry, US demand and profit projections for US-grown hemp are extremely speculative. If production was legalized, farmers would be limited to selling bulk production until (and if) a US hemp processing industry was established and growers would primarily be bulk suppliers for the export market, at least in the short-run. Again, corn biofuels will still exist because farmers wont switch to hemp. Biomass uses large amounts of land that should be used for crops – it takes 120 square meters to provide enough power for 1 square meter of a city Ausbel 07 Imagine replacing...a nuclear power plant...To obtain the same electricity from a power plant that burns biomass..., farmers would need about...2500 square kilometres of land with very high productivity. Harvesting and collecting the biomass are not 100% efficient; some gets left in fields or otherwise lost...Prime land has better uses, like feeding the hungry...One hundred twenty square metres of New Brunswick or Manitoba might electrify one square metre of New York City. Land is limited – alt energies take up agricultural land, driving up food prices The Mail, 08 Finding enough land…will be bad for people and bad for wildlife…biofuels take up land that would otherwise be used for food, reducing food supplies and driving up prices. The grain needed to fill the tank of a 4x4 car could feed one person for a year… valuable rain-forests in South America and Asia are being destroyed to create land to meet the demand next, the monkeysphere: The human mind cannot function in groups of much more than 150 people or so that we actually conceive as actual human beings. The negative tries to justify them saving lives but we, as human beings, cannot care. Imagine you have a pet monkey named Slappy. You and Slappy go on many monkey adventures together and have a great time. Slappy dies. You would be emotionally shocked by Slappy dying. Now imagine you had four monkeys. Now, they all die. You would be impacted in some way, but not as much as losing Slappy. Now imagine you know 200 monkeys that all die. You're no longer affected, right? That's because you don't care about them - they're outside your Monkeysphere (metaphor, get it?), the group of people we conceive as actual human beings. The aff pretends to care about saving lives but they don't actually care because it's physically impossible for them to. Thinking outside our monkeyspheres leads to horrible things like racism and all their impacts because we generalize everyone outside our sphere as one dimensional characters because we can't comprehend them as anything else, creating prejudice and hate. vote