DDI SS Topicality Violations

8/14/2019 DDI SS Topicality Violations

1/25

Topicality Violations! Page 1 of 25

DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

T File!

T File!...................................................................................................................................................................1

T File! ......................................................................................................................................................................1

1NC Directly Affect..............................................................................................................................................3

1NC Directly Affect ................................................................................................................................................3

2NC Directly Affects Overview ..........................................................................................................................4

2NC Directly Affects Overview ............................................................................................................................4

2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate...............................................................................................................5

2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate ...............................................................................................................5

1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6

1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs) ............................................................................................................6

2NC Barriers Overview ......................................................................................................................................7

2NC Barriers Overview .......................................................................................................................................7

2NC Barriers Standards Debate............................................................................................................................8

2NC Barriers Standards Debate ...........................................................................................................................8

1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ...........................................................................................................................9

1NC AE=Naturally Renewable ............................................................................................................................9

2NC AE=Naturally Renewable .........................................................................................................................10

2NC AE=Naturally Renewable ..........................................................................................................................10

1NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................11

1NC Exclude Nukes .............................................................................................................................................11

2NC Exclude Nukes ..........................................................................................................................................12

2NC Exclude Nukes ............................................................................................................................................12

1NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................13

1NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................13

2NC Substantial=60% .......................................................................................................................................14

2NC Substantial=60% ........................................................................................................................................14

1NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................15

1NC Incentives=Positive ......................................................................................................................................15

2NC Incentives=Positive....................................................................................................................................16

TopiCOOLity!

1


2/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Incentives=Positive ......................................................................................................................................16

1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ...............................................................................................................................17

1NC Increase=Pre-Existing ................................................................................................................................17

2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing..............................................................................................................................18

2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing ...............................................................................................................................18

1NC I-Spec.........................................................................................................................................................19

1NC I-Spec ............................................................................................................................................................19

2NC I-Spec Overview........................................................................................................................................20

2NC I-Spec Overview ..........................................................................................................................................20

1NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................21

1NC In=Throughout ............................................................................................................................................21

2NC In=Throughout...........................................................................................................................................22

2NC In=Throughout ............................................................................................................................................22

1NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................23

1NC Exclude Government Programs .................................................................................................................23

2NC Exclude Government Programs.................................................................................................................24

2NC Exclude Government Programs .................................................................................................................24

A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps.................................................................................................................25

A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps .................................................................................................................25A2 Potential Abuse ............................................................................................................................................25

A2 Potential Abuse ..............................................................................................................................................25

TopiCOOLity!

2


3/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Directly Affect

A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange alternative energy

must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive

GeoffThale is the associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 1998(ch 7 Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)

The Nature of IncentivesIt is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of incentives that are being offered and the context in

which they are offered. In its simplest form, an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, ifthe recipient engages in some specified behavior. Another more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers agood directly related to the desired outcomewhen, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient design andimplement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire, the good being offered, but may engage in the desired

behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will greatly influence the strength of the recipients commitment to carry out the desired behavior whenthe inevitable problems and complications occur.

B. Violation: Plan does not directly act on alternative energy but rather on ____________ to potentially

result in an increase of alt energy

C. Standards

1. Limitsliterally anything could potentially result in an increase of alternative energyIran

strikes or war with Saudi Arabia would be topical because we would have less access to Middle

East oilthis opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden

2. Groundpredictable ground is based on alternative energy exchangeswe lose our links basedon perception of alternative energy increase like politics, trade or bizcon, and CPs that dont act

on alt energy like efficiency

3. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them

to claim advantages from non topical action

D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a

precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started

TopiCOOLity!

3


4/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Directly Affects Overview

Our interpretation is that incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange alternative

energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive. The affirmative exchange

does not involve alternative energy; they merely have an offer and response involving_____________. Ifwe win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set

a precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.

TopiCOOLity!

4


5/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Directly Affects Standards Debate

Limits Standards

First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepareliterally any action

motivating development of alternative energy becomes topical. Iran strikes or war with Saudi Arabia, changinginterest rates, taxing gas, creating efficiency standards and anything else making alternative energy acomparatively better option becomes an affirmative under their interpretation.Second, our interpretation is not overlimitingplenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchangeinvolving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military,paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit orsubsidy affirmative.And, they double the research burden by making negative incentives topicalIncentives are positive only negative incentives are disincentives.

Harris 89(Ora Fred Harris,Professor of Law, University of Illinois, Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315, Automobile Emissions Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making ItMore Palatable to Coerced Participants, Lexis-Nexis)

53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means those devices that induce one into doing something because oftheprospect ofreward and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense would betax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators have taken a broader viewof incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on

construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives to compliance. To be sure, these latter items may induce compliance but surely notbecause of the extension of a "carrot." Instead, they epitomizethe "stick" or "disincentive" approach tobehavioral modification.

Ground Standards

First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchangewe

lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics.Second, their aff should be Counterplan groundindirectly acting on alternative energy, like the efficiencyCounterplan, is a core neg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms andalternative energies. We provide an equitable and clear division of aff and neg groundif it acts directly on AEits topical.Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for ameaningful and educational topic discussion

Effects Standards

Their plan is effectually topicalit is not the direct plan action that makes alternative energy more desirable.

Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claimadvantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in one step, but ratherthat plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.

TopiCOOLity!

5


6/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Remove a Barrier (Legalizing Affs)

A. Interpretation: Incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a rewardthisis distinct from coercion because you must gain something new for behavior

John DeLaHunt, Assistant Director for Environmental Health & Safety Services in Colorado College'sFacilities Services department , July-August 2006

( Journal of Chemical Health and Safety Volume 13, Issue 4, , Page 42 sciencedirect)

Incentives work on a quid pro quo basis this for that. If you change your behavior, Ill give you a reward. Onecould say that coercion is an incentive program do as I say and Ill let you live. However, I define an incentiveas getting something you didnt have before in exchange for new behavior, so that pretty much puts coercion inits own box, one separate from incentives. But fundamental problems plague the incentive approach. Like

coercion, incentives are poor motivators in the long run, for at least two reasons unintended consequences andperverse incentives.

B. Violation: Plan merely removes a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward

for its development

C. Standards

1. Limitstheir interp allows removing literally any barrier to motivate alternative energy

developmentchanging tax policy or interest rates could make renewables economically viable

and thus would be topicalthis opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden

2. Groundpredictable ground is based on alternative energy exchangeswe lose our links based

on perception of alternative energy increase like trade, bizcon, or politics, and CPs that dont act

on alt energy like efficiency

3. Direct plan action is not what provides the benefit to those producing alternative energy. Effects

topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing them to claim

advantages from non topical action



TopiCOOLity!

6
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18715532http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%2329707%232006%23999869995%23627114%23FLA%23&_cdi=29707&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=c7173519e342bff65a7c6a653d05e162http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18715532http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%2329707%232006%23999869995%23627114%23FLA%23&_cdi=29707&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=c7173519e342bff65a7c6a653d05e162


7/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Barriers Overview

Our interpretation is that incentives involve an exchange in which the desired response produces a

reward. Our DeLaHunt evidence specifically indicates that you must gain something new from your

behavior, as opposed to the example of do as I say and Ill let you live. Their affirmative merelyremoves a barrier to hemp production as opposed to offering a direct reward for its development. If we

win that our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competition interpretations, vote neg to set a

precedent for a better world of debate and to rectify the damage done before this round.

TopiCOOLity!

7


8/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Barriers Standards Debate

Limits Standards

First, their interpretation explodes the research burden to make it impossible to prepareliterally any functional

barrier to alternative energy development becomes topical. Changing tax policy, changing interest rates, makingoil prices cheaper, changing policy with major oil exporters and anything else that would make renewableseconomically viable is an affirmative under their interpretation.Second, our interpretation is not overlimitingplenty of affirmatives act directly to create an exchangeinvolving alternative energy. Examples include paying the military to develop synthetic fuel, solar military,paying NASA to make solar space satellites, giving businesses tax credits, and any other funding, tax credit orsubsidy affirmative.And, they double the research burden by allowing to affs that remove negative incentivesIncentives are positive only negative incentives are disincentives.




Ground Standards

First, all predictable ground based on the perception of alternative energy stems from a direct exchangewe

lose links for DAs like trade, bizcon, and politics.Second, their aff should be Counterplan groundindirectly acting on alternative energy, like gas taxes, is a coreneg generic to challenge the broad basis of positive incentives mechanisms and alternative energies. We providean equitable and clear division of aff and neg groundif it acts directly on AE, its topical.Third, this interpretation encourages clash between sides over the best way to shift to renewables, allowing for ameaningful and educational topic discussion

Effects Standards

Their plan is effectually topicalit is not the direct plan action that provides the benefit to those producingalternative energy. Effects topicality prevents us from getting predictable links off mechanisms while allowing

them to claim advantages from non topical action. Our argument is not that the entire plan must solve in onestep, but rather that plan text must directly enter into an exchange involving rewards for alternative energy.

TopiCOOLity!

8


9/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC AE=Naturally Renewable

A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable.

SOE 1(Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)

The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute.

B. Violation: Plan does not increase naturally renewable alt energy

C. Standards

1. Limitsliterally anything could be an alternative to the status quoour definition clearly sets a

limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden

2. Equitable division of groundour interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of

mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on

fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interp more predictable than just using the term alt

energy in context



TopiCOOLity!

9


10/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC AE=Naturally Renewable

Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewableour SOE 1 evidence is

exclusive and indicates that sources that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. If our

interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for abetter world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started.

Limits debate

Their interpretation opens the floodgatesliterally anything could be an alternative to the status quo

our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a

reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they

introduce non-renewablesrenewables like wind and solar link to totally different arguments than non-

renewables like nuke power. Its not just one more affa whole host of nuclear technologies and

mechanisms are included and their interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel.

GroundWe provide an equitable division of groundour interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of

mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables

like perception links and efficiency Counterplan.

Preferable interp debate

Our evidence is just betterit has intent to define the term alternative energy, and explains what

alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to

just using the term in context.

TopiCOOLity!

10


11/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Exclude Nukes

A. Interpretation: Alternative energy must be naturally renewable.

SOE 1(Saving our environment, ThinkQuest site, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111401/alternative_energy.htm)

The term alternative energy refers to energy sources that are naturally renewable and do not pollute.

B. Violation:Nuclear power isnt alternative energy

Christopher A. Simon, Prof PoliSci @ UNevada, 2007(Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility)

The federal defition of alternative energy is best summarized by Title 26, chapter 79, 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: the

term alternative energy facility means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source for the facility is notoil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power. The primary purpose of this definition relates to the issuance of tax credits to alternative energyfacility[ies], which meet certain standards as defined in Title 26, chapter 1, 48 Energy Credit. Tax credits are one method by which the federalgovernment encouges the private sector to make certain economic choices; in the case of energy policy, this definition of alternative energy willheve a definitive impact on how alternative energy will be defined by those individual\s and corporate bodiesseeking federal recognition (and benefit) by adopting a particular definition of alternatie energy. Many state definitions of alternativeenergy closely follow federal definitions. Case law confirms that federal guidelines supercede state-levelguidelines. Federal standards also impact the state and local rec\eipt of alternative energy grants, subsidies, and tax exemptions. It is reas\zonable, therefore thatstate and local definitions would be consistent with federal policy. Consistency between federal and state definitions does not mean there are not a few variations. Inmany ways, variation at the state level illustrates the dynamic and evolving alternative energy paradigm, which is by no means unique to the U.S. policy process.

C. Standards

1. Limitsliterally anything could be an alternative to the status quoour definition clearly sets alimit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a reasonable research burden

2. Equitable division of groundour interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of

mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links based on

fossil fuel like the oil, LNG and coal DAs, and efficiency CP

3. Intent to define and exclusivity make our interpretations more predictable than just using the

term alt energy in context

4. The federal definition of alternative energy is the most predictable



TopiCOOLity!

11


12/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Exclude Nukes

Our interpretation is that alternative energy must be naturally renewableour SOE 1 evidence is

exclusive and indicates that so urces that are not naturally renewable are not alternative energy. Plan is

not alternative energyour Simon 07 evidence references the federal definition of alternative energyindicating the U.S code specifically excludes nuclear power from its definition of alternative energy . Ifour interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent

for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started.

Limits debate

Their interpretation opens the floodgatesliterally anything could be an alternative to the status quo

our definition clearly sets a limit on what is and is not topical, predictably confining the topic to a

reasonable research burden. Additionally, a whole new literature base is opened up to research when they

introduce nukesrenewables link wind and solar link to totally different arguments than nuke power.

Its not just one more affa whole host of nuclear technologies and mechanisms are included and their

interpretation justifies any other form of energy that is not fossil fuel.

Ground

We provide an equitable division of groundour interpretation allows the aff to have a wide range of

mechanisms, incentives and alt energies while still guaranteeing the neg predictable links to renewables

like perception links and efficiency Counterplan.

Preferable interp debate

Our evidence is just betterit has intent to define the term alternative energy, and explains what

alternative energy is NOT. This makes it more predictable because it is clearly a definition as opposed to

just using the term in context. Additionally, it is the federal definition, which is the most predictable

interpretationthere are many conflicting sources so prefer the U.S. code.

TopiCOOLity!

12


13/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Substantial=60%

A. Interpretation: A substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%.

Edie News 4(Government must fund more renewables, says business group, http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2004/04/14/government-must-fund-more-renewables-says-business-group)

NEW YORK, N.Y. -- A coalition ofU.S. business and energy policy organizations have united in attacking official sponsoringof renewable energies in the U.S. as "lukewarm" and have called for a 60% increase in funding of this sector.The Sustainable Energy Coalition has addressed a letterto the Energy and Water Subcommittees of the Senate and House of Representatives Committeeson Appropriations requesting a substantial increase in federal support forthe cross-section ofrenewable energy technologies.The group, made up of 25 businesses, has asked that the Department of Energy's renewable energy programme budget be increased to $598.5 million for the fiscal yearof 2005 -- that is 60% above the White House's proposal and two thirds greater than the amount actually allocated in 2004.

B. Violationplan is less than 60%

C. Standards1. Limitsthere are infinite tiny cases that dont substantially affect anything and are impossible

to predictthis opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden

2. Groundlinks off tiny increases are impossible to geta substantial increase is key to politics,

economy, and relations DAs



TopiCOOLity!

13


14/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Substantial=60%

Our interpretation is that a substantial increase in renewable energy incentives is 60%--our Edie News 4

evidence specifically indicates that calling for a 60% increase was necessary to qualify for a substantial

increase. Plan does not increase incentives by 60% and is not substantial. . If our interpretation ispreferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a precedent for a better world of

debate and to rectify damage done before this round started.

Limits Debate

There are infinite tiny cases that dont substantially affect anything and are impossible to predictthis

opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burdenwe cant predict or research the use of solar

panels in one city

Ground

Links off tiny increases are impossible to geta substantial increase is key to politics, economy, andrelations DAs. We need to overcome uniqueness problems of the status quoonly a substantial increase

will be enough to make a difference considering that there are many incentives now.

A/T Substantially cannot be quantified

1. Maybe not, but its in the resolution for a reasonwe need to draw the line somewhere and will defendthat a world of debate in which a 60% increase is required is more educational and fair

2. The impact to their argument is predictabilitywe argue that in a world of our interp it is easier topredict and prepare for debates

a. Groundaffs need to have a big enough increase to get perception links and overcome

uniqueness issuesthis is the basis for core neg generics which are the most predictablearguments

b. Litthe best literature defends a sizable increase like 60% or more meaning they should have notrouble finding such affirmatives

3. Our definition is in the context of alternative energy, making it quantifiablethe world substantiallymeans nothing alone but in context it does have a meaning

TopiCOOLity!

14


15/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Incentives=Positive

A. Incentives are positive only negative incentives are disincentives.




B. Violationplan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentiveto maintaining the status quo

C. Standards

1. Limitsthis literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff

into twothe topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative

energiesthis makes it nearly impossible to go neg

2. Equitable division of groundour interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving

the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if

they choose to do that research

D. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set aprecedent for a better world of debate and to rectify damage done before this round started

TopiCOOLity!

15


16/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Incentives=Positive

Our interpretation is that incentives are positive only our Harris 89 evidence specifically distinguishes

them from




B. Violationplan does not provide an incentive to increase alternative energy but rather a disincentive

to maintaining the status quo

C. Standards

1. Limitsthis literally doubles the research burden and set of affirmatives by making every aff

into twothe topic is already unlimited by a broad base of incentives, mechanisms and alternative

energiesthis makes it nearly impossible to go neg

2. Equitable division of groundour interpretation clearly defines aff ground as positive, leaving

the neg with things like trade DAs off a positive incentive and negative incentive counterplans if

they choose to do that research



TopiCOOLity!

16


17/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Increase=Pre-Existing

A. Interpretation: the incentive increased must be pre-existing

Ripple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile Insurance Association, and

Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816, 9/24, lexis)

Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the risk is increased by any means

within the knowledge or control of the insured. However, the term "increase" connotes change . To show change, appellees would havebeen required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued. See 5 JAppleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence waspresented, this court cannot determine , on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased . Indeed, the answeto this question may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J. Appleman,Insurance Law and Practice, 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated insuring the risk which incurred the loss.

B. Violation: Affirmative provides new incentives isnt an increase of pre-existing incentives

C. Standards

1. Limits: requiring the use of pre-existing incentives is key to reduce the massive size of the topicand limit to predictable solvency mechanismswithout increase to modify, literally anything is

topical

Incentive means ANY factor that motivates a course of action

Answers.com, no date given, http://www.answers.com/topic/incentiveIn economics, an incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that provides a motive for a particular course of action,or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the alternatives. Since human beings are purposeful creatures, the study ofincentive structures is central to the study of all economic activity (both in terms of individual decision-making and in termsofco-operationand competitionwithin a larger institutional structure). Economic analysis, then, of the differences betweensocieties (and between different organizations within a society) largely amounts to characterizing the differences in incentivestructures faced by individuals involved in these collective efforts.

2. Lit basethe core of literature discusses effectiveness of incentives that have been used in thepastpredictable ground depends on access to this literature. We still allow for things like tax

credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives



TopiCOOLity!

17
http://www.answers.com/topic/cooperation-3http://www.answers.com/topic/cooperation-3http://www.answers.com/topic/competition-biologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/competition-biologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/cooperation-3http://www.answers.com/topic/competition-biology


18/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Incentive=Pre-Existing

Our interpretation is that the incentive increased must already exist in the status quo. Our Ripple 87

Evidence indicates that increase means change, and thus to increase something you must be changing

something that already exists. The plan creates a new incentivethat isnt an increase.

Limits Debate

They massively unlimit the topicliterally any incentive becomes topical if they can create new incentives. OurAnswers.com evidence indicates that ANY factor motivating action is an incentive, meaning that it would betopical for them to change interest rates or ban fossil fuels since that could make renewables more economicallyviable. Increase is key to check the research burden.Literature Base

Our interpretation is the best way to access the core literature base that discusses the effectiveness of existingincentives that have been used beforethis is crucial for predictable ground. We provide plenty of good affground as welltax credits, rebates, grants, loans, leasing, sales, production, and industrial incentives are all

topical.

TopiCOOLity!

18


19/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC I-Spec

A. Interpretation and violation the aff has to specify the type of incentive they dont

B. Standards

1. Groundputting incentives in the 1AC is key to a stable basis for ground that wont besusceptible to 2AC clarifications or spike outswe need DA links and case arguments off

incentives and competition for incentives CPs

2. Cross-x doesnt check not binding, no textual competition and prevents pre-round prep

3. Avoids the fundamental topic question of which incentives are effective and shifts the focus

to the desirability of alternative energythis unfairly allows the aff to avoid defending solvency

and puts the neg on the wrong side of a side biased debate

C. If our interpretation is preferable in a framework of competing interpretations vote neg to set a


D. No solvency enforcement and implementation will fail without a clear definition of what theincentive is

TopiCOOLity!

19


20/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC I-Spec Overview

Our interpretation is the aff must specify their incentive in the plan text, they didnt do that and they should losethe debate. You must evaluate the plan in a vacuum because its the only steady thing we can hold them to. Look

at this debate through an offense-defense paradigm, its simple, non arbitrary and prevents judge intervention. Ifwe win overall specifying the 1ac is better for debate you vote neg to set precedent for a better world of debateand to rectify damage done before this debate started. And, they dont solveenforcement and implementationis impossible when it is no clear what the incentive is.

Solvency cannot be determined when implementation is unclear

Thompson 00 (Anne, FAO, Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches at the Policy LevelPaper prepared for FAO e-conference, March, http://www.livelihoods.org/pip/pip/tho2-fao.doc) (emphasis in original)Policy itself can be analysed conceptually at a number of different levels. In its broadest sense, the term policy can be used to includeprojects, programmes, strategies, plans and their implementation, in fact every element of public or collective decision-making.Although it is a rather artificial simplification, policy can be divided into content and the process of policy formulation, in other wordsthe way in which that content is arrived at. The way in which policy is implemented can change the effective content of policy, either

because policy interactions have not been fully understood, or because the policy is subverted by those responsible for implementingit.

We have lost critical, predictable links based off incentives

Some arguments include:

politics

Trade DAsEU, China, and others

Relations DAs

Bizcon

Spending

Budget tradeoff DAs

Mandatory Counterplan

Reg Neg CP

Subsidies CP

Coercion K links

Not specifying shifts the question of the resolution away from which incentives are effective? to ialternative energy desirable?this functionally allows them to fiat solvency and forces the neg to defend thewrong side of a biased debate. Instead of debating about the effectiveness of incentives, we must argue thatalternative energy is bad.

Clarification doesnt solve abusea) The damage is already done: the 1nc has been read and we didnt have links to important argumentsb) Aff conditionality: they dont specify in the plan, so any specification later on makes them a moving targetc) Textual competition, pre-round prep, and the binding nature of plan text specification have been lost

TopiCOOLity!

20


21/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC In=Throughout

A. Interpretation: the affirmative must provide incentives available throughout the United States

B. Violation: The affirmative provides incentives to ______________ as opposed to throughout the 50

States

C. Standards

1. Limitsallowing them to give incentives to a specific company, state, or region literally allowsinfinite plans like solar panels at Westminster High School with the school newspaper as a

solvency advocate

2. Groundcore perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a strong, widespread

increase in incentives, and defending throughout the US is key to negative PIC ground. Status quo

incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs



TopiCOOLity!

21


22/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC In=Throughout

Our interpretation is they must provide incentives throughout the United States which is defined as the

50 statesplan only provides them to the air forcethis violations the word in which words and

phrases indicates means throughout.

Limits Debate

Their interpretation explodes limitsany company, organization, region, district or even school could

receive incentives meaning we would have to research local newspapers as solvency advocates. Its

impossible to prepare against these affs. Our interpretation does not over-limityou dont have to

provide incentives to everyone but simply make them geographically available throughout the U.SRPS,

cap and trade and feed in tariffs are a few examples.

Ground debateTheir interpretation robs of us of core perception links for politics, bizcon and trade are based on a

strong, widespread increase in incentives. Defending throughout the US is also key to negative PIC

ground. Finally, Status quo incentives require a major change to overcome uniqueness issues for our DAs

there are already incentives now, meaning a little change does nothing. Their interpretation does not

provide us with PREDICTABE ground even if it increases it, because we cant predict every organization

or region they could give to.

TopiCOOLity!

22


23/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

1NC Exclude Government Programs

A. Interpretation: Incentive is an optional offer that provides an extra benefitthis is distinct from a

fixed payment or salary

Incentive is an optional extra benefitCareerride.com 2008, Human Resources Interview questions, http://www.careerride.com/Interview-Questions-HR-General.aspx

Question - What is the difference between salary and incentive? Answer:Salary can be termed as the fixed remuneration you are offered for your services while incentive means someextra benefits that you are offered based on your performance. Incentive can be in cash or kind.

B. Violation: Plan is a governmental program that funds development of alternative energythis

provides a salary rather than an optional incentive

C. Standards1. Limitsthere are millions of programs they can just fund people to participate inany

program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topicalthis

opens the floodgates and makes research impossible

2. Groundpredictable ground is based on optional market based incentives we lose a core lit

base of case args and DA links based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon



TopiCOOLity!

23


24/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

2NC Exclude Government Programs

Our interpretation is that incentive means an optional offer that provides anextra benefitour evidence specifically distinguishes this from a fixed

payment or salary. Plan is a governmental program that funds development ofalternative energythis provides a salary rather than an optional incentive.

Limits debate

Their interpretation allows for millions of programs that they can just fund people to participate in. ANY

program or agency developing, producing, or testing alternative energy would be topical

There are literally thousands of government programs and agenciesMichelle Burton, 2006, Lawyer-Guide, http://www.lawyer-guide.org/Government-Agencies-and-Programs.asp,There are nearly 1,300 government agencies working at both state and national levels, and literally thousands of government

programs working at the federal, state, and local levels. Existing Government Agencies and Programs Government agencies aredivided into two groups: United States Federal Executive Departments Independent Agencies A government agency is a departmentof a local or national government responsible for the management and administration of a specific function. Examples of governmentagencies include the Defense Logistics Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Department of Energy, Missile DefenseAgency, and Womens Bureau. A government program is a plan of action created by the government to address specific functions andspecific problems. These programs are managed by the appropriate government agency. For example, the Department of Agricultureoversees the Animal Welfare Program, the Food Stamp Program, and the Soil Survey Program. Other government programs exist inthe areas of Business and Commerce, Education, Foreign Affairs, Science and Space, Training and Employment, Veterans Benefits,Health and Well Being, and Education.

Our interpretation still allows for plenty of market based incentives that allow for the option of

developing AEwe dont overlimit.

Ground Debate

Our interpretation allows for the predictable literature base that discusses optional market based

incentives when salaries to governmental programs are allowed, we lose core case args and DA links

based on perception like politics, relations, trade or bizcon.

TopiCOOLity!

24


25/25


DDI 2008 SS

Jillian!

A2 Reasonability/Competing Interps

1. They are not reasonablethey have not given you a warrant as to why they are and all of our standardsarguments explain why their interpretation is not

2. This justifies judge interventionreasonable means different things to everybodyeven if interventionis inevitable to an extend, competing interpretations minimizes it

3. Competing interpretations leads to a race to the top to best define the resolution, making debate better4. Topically debates are good because academics and communities must study words before they can

discuss substantive policy implications5. More limiting topics allow for more clash and in depth, responsive debates

A2 Potential Abuse

1. This standard discourages researchif we have researched answers to an aff, we lose the debate2. There is in round abusethey have done_____

3. We started out the round behindthis is not potential abuse, it is actual abuse, because we had aworse and more limited set of arguments to run

4. Topicality sets a precedent because teams will change their aff if they repeatedly lose on T

T iCOOLit !

25

DDI SS Topicality Violations

Documents