Policy Debate: Alternative Energy

[LordoftheMorning]

Alright. I'm gonna try to introduce a slightly different form of debate to this here hall. It's called Policy Debate. I has the potential be really fun and educational (hurray!); it might just end up getting locked. Hopefully, this style of debate will be able to carry over to the format of an online forums. Either way, here it is. I sort of feel like my head is on the chopping block for this, but if done right, it could be a lot of fun. Oh, and don't flame me for the colors. I wanted it to look interesting and not shoddy.

POLICY DEBATE​

How To Play: I present you with a resolution:

The U. S. Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

This is not a yes or no sort of thing. This is a "how" debate. You say "Yes we should" and then you tell us why, but that's not where it ends. You have to tell us "This is how we're going to do it." That's the affirmative side.
The Negative side says "Bad idea!" and then says why. They can attack the affirmative side's plan any way they want to.

Now I'm going to touch on some of the types of arguments in this debate.

Topicality: This argument basically is saying that the plan does not fit in well with the prompt. Note the key words in the prompt:

The U. S. Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

A topicality argument would attempt to show that the plan violates the resolution somehow. Is it... not substantial? Maybe it's not alternative? Maybe there's a mandate instead of an incentive? If the affirmative cannot defend the topicality of his plan, the plan becomes irrelevant.

Harms: It is the affirmative's burden to give us a reason to carry out his plan. He has to tell us what's wrong with the status quo, that is, the current system. It could be Global Warming, it could be oil dependency, it could be failing U.S. hegemony. The more, the merrier.

Inherency (apparently, not a real word): One of the more popular stances that the negative side takes is defending the status quo, . You can say that the affirmative's plan will inherently occur (with proper evidence of course), and therefore the status quo will solve for any harms the affirmative has presented.

Solvency: This is the meatiest issue. Again, it's the affirmative's burden to give us evidence that their plan will solve for the harms they have listed and fulfill the resolution. They have to tell us why it works. The negative can attack this if they right evidence on something like inefficiency, past failures, or whatever else.

Critique/Disadvantage:
This argument talks about possible side-effects of the affirmative plan. The negative side might say something like "Yes, you can do that, but that means you'll undermine our relationship with China." Then you establish an impact, like "This can cause a nuclear wars!!!!1!1"

Since the DH has quite a few members, you can also choose to join someone else's cause and help them argue their plan. Cite your sources, or prepare to be attacked for not having credible sources.

You'll want to start making an affirmative plan. If no one seems interested in doing so, I'll make a plan and post it by tomorrow and we can start from there.

 

[DoH]

I'll go neg.

Is there CX?

 

[GoldShadow]

Too many colors and funny fonts.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I'll go neg.

Is there CX?

Have you done this before? Technically there is always Cross-Examination because this is a forums and we're not giving speeches.

****, guys. I have a lot of school work to do. I'm going to have to put my affirmative case off.

 

[DoH]

I debated CX for 4 years on the TFA circuit and have judged/coached for 3 additional years.

I dropped three bid rounds my senior year. FML.

 

[Narukari]

I'll see if I can suggest a first possibility. (Sorry if it isn't the format you're looking for, the colors play weird tricks on my eyes, makes it hard to read).

"U.S. Government should set up ocean space and funding to support the Wave Motion Generator."

If you go through physics, you will learn that you can generate electricity by moving a magnet up and down a metal pole. (Much more complicated but I hope most can understand the simple up/down movement to get electricity for this).

Oregon State University has been developing a way to use the ocean and its waves to move magnet up and down. In simple terms they just make the magnet buoyant and secure it in one position so that it can only move up and down from the motion of the waves. From what has been shown at the OSU engineering fair, a 2ft tall, .5 ft diamater cylynder would be able to power 3-5 32watt light-bulbs, depending on how high the waves were at the time.

If we could get the government to help with this project, it would help supply more energy options mainly to the major cities on the Pacific and Atlantic ocean. For every acre of space in the ocean we had, we could set up around 45,000 of these small generators. (Most likely would be fewer generators of greater size for better efficiency)

 

[LordoftheMorning]

You're gonna need a lot more depth to your policy.

Define "help".

How much will that cost?

Is the tech ready?

Why do we need this?

This sounds just like tidal energy. We already use tidal energy.

It's mostly my fault. I still need to give a good example. This thread won't really come to life until I or someone else who's familiar with Policy Debate (D'oh) makes an affirmative plan. Currently I'm buried in schoolwork. I'll get my plan up and running on the weekend for sure.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Voiding the err... fruitfulness of the OP, I'd say water energy and H2O emissons would help very greatly. Only 1% - 5% of the world's potential water resources is used I read. Overall, 40% of the water resource in the world in Arfica, 10% in the states.

*Had to clarify my post.*

 

[Wolfang]

Yay, new debate hall material. Awesome colors btw, even though my eyes hurt.

I think America should take more advantage of their geology. We all know there are many forms producing energy, but I find one of the most useful is geothermal. There are places like White Sands, NM that constantly have the sun pouring down. Its never going to cool off there, so why not set up a boiler or two (more). Sand is harder to keep in place than soil, but its not like your building another Dubai, its just a geothermal power plant. Not just that, but the sand is white...as in highly reflective? I'm sure you guys have seen the Solar Tower in Seville, Spain (http://s3.amazonaws.com/mmc-digi-beta-production/assets/2178/800px-PS10_solar_power_tower_Spain_article.jpg). An entire city is powered by that thing, and it serves as a nice piece of artwork, go figure. I'm sure an achromatic landscape will make it easier to direct sunlight unto one of these towers, which means more heat, more electricity.

The main issue with alternative energy is that its area specific sometimes, like the example I provided. It shouldn't be area specific of course, but all of America's energy grids ARE NOT connected. I know electricity isn't the fastest traveler, but regardless, if your going generate a resource, it doesn't make sense that everyone can't get a hold of it.

I don't have anything against the status quo now...I just think if you can improve, why not do it. For solvency, I can't say much other than that its working in Spain, so it should work in the U.S. I also don't see how it can hurt the economy (as in, I see more profit obviously), and I don't see it hurting global relations either. If you see a problem, educate me, cause I don't. I don't consider time or money a detriment when there is the possibility/probability of a long-term score.

Sorry I didn't follow the outline exactly. Got more to say, but I'll start with that.