T development Flashcards
ov
Our interpretation is that development is the utilization of ocean resources – that’s the Japanese Institute of Navigation – the plan [does whatever] – conservation prevents development – they are straight out anti-topical – that’s Underhill
More definitional support - Development means resource exploitation
US Code 14 (16 USC 2462: Definitions, From Title 16-CONSERVATION CHAPTER 44B-ANTARCTIC MINERAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, Pub. L. 101–594, §3, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2976, http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title16-section2462&num=0&edition=prelim)
(3) The term “development” means any activity, including logistic support, which takes place following exploration, the purpose of which is the exploitation of specific mineral resource deposits, including processing, storage, and transport activities. (4) The term “exploration” means any activity, including logistic support, the purpose of which is the identification or evaluation of specific mineral resource deposits. The term includes exploratory drilling, dredging, and other surface or subsurface excavations required to determine the nature and size of mineral resource deposits and the feasibility of their development.
They can run affs that increase exploitation of the ocean
Here’s a caselist:
- Sea lanes – which exploits the ocean space for trade
- Arctic mapping – which would exploits the arctic resources
- ANY energy affs – which exploits ocean energy
They have not provided ANY REASON why conservation affs are key to this topic – means you default to offense defense paradigm
Topical version of the plan - The USFG builds and maintains [AFF] themselves
Topicality is an a priori voting issue – debate is about negating or supporting the resolution and when the aff cannot meet the stands to be topical, debating becomes impossible.
Err neg – aff has first and last speech and infinite pre round prep – they should come prepared with a topical aff
w/m
[Insert analysis]
At best they are effects because their conservation framework ALLOWS for sustainable exploitation
Voting issue for topic specific education and predictable ground – Infinite number of chains shift the focus away from the resolution and makes impossible to have a statis point
c/i
Our interpretation is that the federal government should DIRECTLY INCREASE ITS development/exploration of the ocean – Cross apply from the overview.
Prefer US Code – Most predictable:
a) Literary consensus - government definition proves there is a national consensus
b) Precision - our evidence defines ocean development while theirs is about sustainable development
Predictability is good because it spurs clash and increases advocacy skills which is portable and spills over – Also creates predictable limits and predictable ground which comparatively outweigh
Their interpretation is - [Explain interp]
This is bad and makes debate impossible: Here are the affs that they justify: [Caselist]
This creates bad debates – here are the standards:
- Ground – development means exploitation and conservation is the exact opposite. Allowing both types of affs to be allowed under a single topic forces the neg take both stance – Makes it impossible to have core generics
- Predictable limits – Conservation was already a topic – their interpretation doubles the number of possible affs in this topic by combining two resolutions
Sustainable development makes the topic bidirectional
UNESCO 11 (“Build Green Societies in Small Island Developing States: Addressing Key Vulnerabilities” http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/ioc-oceans/priority-areas/rio-20-ocean/10-proposals-for-the-ocean/2a-small-island-developing-states/)
SIDS expect Rio+20 to provide support for sustainable ocean development and protection of resources. Measures could include actions to reduce fishing overcapacity, to establish MPAs, enhance and support local coastal management efforts, improve wastewater treatment as well as solid waste management and recycling. Significantly, capacity development could take place through SIDS-SIDS partnerships based on the sharing and consolidation of unique SIDS approaches to coastal management; such as the Pacific Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) network, the recognition and transmission of local and indigenous knowledge and customary management of the coastal environment, and community participation in scientific coastal monitoring, management and decision-making as practiced in UNESCO’s Sandwatch programme.
Prefer limits as the controlling standard of the debate – Multiple implications
a) Key to neg prep - limits enable in depth research which is key to clash — prevents debates from being ships sailing by in the night — even if ground exists we can’t find it in a world in which the topic is so broad
b) Participation - people will quit in a huge topic — this is linear since the larger the topic the harder the research and the more people will quit
c) Depth over breadth – it’s the difference between hard debate and impossible debate – their interpretation creates a flood of tiny affs that we can never all prepare for – prefer depth - Breadth is inevitable over the course of the year – only our interpretation accesses the pedagogical benefits and that internal link turns their offense providing constraints is key to creativity and improving affs — leads to better debates overall
d) Education – Exploding limits causes information overload that leads to at best a superficial understanding of the topic
e) No abuse and even good for the aff – a good limited topic with balanced depth and breadth induces aff innovation, so that creativity, while not at the mechanism level can instead occur at the advantage level which still allows them to talk about private sector involvement
Even if their specific instance of the aff is not abusive in round, potential abuse from their interpretation is still a voter: It is what they JUSTIFY not what they have done in the round that should matter, because it sets a model for all other debates.
overlimit
No link:
- Our interpretation allows for a stable number of affs within the categories – Cross apply the case list from the overview
- Limits disad proves we provide the BEST limits
- Over-limiting is key to education – in depth discussions are most useful and the alternative is teams reading generics every round – this internal link turns their stale debate arguments
- If we win predictability, it proves that overlimiting lies in the fault of the resolution not neg abuse
- Their underlimiting is worse – If we underlimit, the neg will never be ready to debate. Neg predictability is more important than Aff predictability because even if we overlimit, the aff will always be ready to debate since they have infinite pre round prep and choose the focus of the debate.
reasonability
Prefer competing interpretations –
1) Best for education – We can’t learn about the resolution if we can’t debate about the wordings of it
2) No race to the bottom – That was the standards debate
3) They aren’t reasonable – They are either topical or they aren’t – Bright line checks
4) Reasonability means that they are equally unreasonable – vote neg on presumption
+ ground
New affs and advantages solve all of their offense
+ innovation
No impact to aff innovation or creativity —- new advantages, internal links, add-ons, and link turns solve.
And cross apply the case list we allow for numerous aff innovation within the categories.
aff innovation should occur at the advantage level not the mechanism level – they can read private actor involvement as an advantage
We internal link turn this with limits – cross apply from standards debate
lit check
The literature base is massive on this topic if its not limited at all - T violations set the parameters on where the literature ends
sub check
Substantial is ridiculous on this topic- no consensus and lack of tangible metric makes it impossible
w/m- theirs + +
We provided a specific interpretation of (Phrase) and a caselist of topical affs under our interpretation and their aff is not topical under our interpretation – extend from overview.
View this as a counter interpretation – they combine their aff with our caselist and says that they are topical under their new caselist of topical affs.
And disads to their counter-interpretation is applies
In round abuse proves no solvency and topical version of the plan checks
This is intrinsic and steals neg ground by avoiding the link to topicality – Which is independently a voting issue
