Hydrogen Economy File

At the outset, I think Nick Matthews already knows how grateful to him I am for posting this file, and how much I look forward to working with him in the coming year. Ergo, nothing in this “comment” should be construed as being a negative criticism of his excellent work.

However…

Particularly after my private conversations with coaches at NFA Nationals (especially the “older” ones)…

This file beautifully demonstrates the “divide” between what policy debate is at the high school “national circuit” level (and college CEDA/NDT, of course) and what policy debate is in NFA-LD.

Reviewing Nick’s work convinces me – MORE THAN EVER – that the “problems” some coaches have with NDT/CEDA-style debate, contrary to the “conventional wisdom,” DO NOT
involve

“speed”
“the spread”
“canned briefs/arguments/evidence,” etc.

but rather the lack of common ground between debaters and certain judges on “voting issues” (“voters” in today’s paralance) and evidence usage/citation. (Back in my day, a debater citing evidence this way – which I know is completely acceptable contemporary NDT-CEDA style – would have been ridiculed. In addition, this type of citation is plainly in violation of NFA-LD Rules, although it appears that no one intends to enforce them.)

I will address all of this – in detail – at Dr. Sydne’s upcoming Clinic (if I may).

One quick observation must be made now, though.

If you look at the Plan Nick advocates (page 3 of his file), I would say (were I debating him, which I’m glad I’m not):

This is not a plan at all; it is a bare-bones, conclusory (almost platitudinous) statement of of goal. And, whereas the setting of goals is extremely beneficial in policy-making [i.e. The Apollo Project], it doesn’t begin answer the three biggest questions (and three biggest public concerns) about legislative proposals:

(a) HOW – precisely – are you going to reach this goal?
(b) HOW MUCH will it cost?
(c) HOW can the USFG pay for it?

Much more on this later.

MHM JD

I think that ‘How you are going to be doing this’ is the right question.

How much and how will we pay for it are nebulous arguments. Fine, decrease military spending on RND by 40 billion. The budget for rnd is roughly 300 billion if I remember now (ken would kill me if he knew I said that Dr. Miller so don’t tell him). That is about 2,000,000… a little bit more then 3 times what we have now.
If you don’t like that sell bonds to China. Sell a couple bombers to France. Tax lettuce $0.01 a head. Legalize and tax pot. Sell Hawaii back to themselves, lol. Who cares about funding? Funding is never the issue.

The real problem is inherency.
Black says that the USFG already has 600k cars so there is limited inherency to the 1ac. “The Energy Policy Act, passed after the first Gulf War, mandates all federal agencies to reduce oil dependence by ensuring that some 75 percent of new vehicle purchases use alternative fuels. The law has been totally ignored. A steady cascade of court rulings has rejected government requests for delays. ”

Minor repair cases ftl. It implies the SQO will fix itself and there is no inherency.

Anyone have any new news on RCC-LD camp?

No offense, but “nebulous arguments” are the meat & potatoes of debate, aren’t they? Even as an aspiring attorney I was taught, “If you can’t anihilate ‘em with evidence, baffle ‘em with bullshit.”

BTW: I don’t know if anybody else in the whole ******* country except me watched the House of Representatives debate* the “Cap and Trade” Bill on Friday, but it was very instructive.

First of all, it demonstrated how much “in the real world” policymaking is limited by fiscal constraints, budgetary concerns, and competiong legislative priorities (AKA “political capital”).

Secondly, of special interest for those concerned with Parliamentary Debate, I saw a stunt pulled that I thought was illegal. John Boehner did a “mini-filibuster.” (He gave up after about an hour and a half when he saw that he couldn’t change many – if any – votes.)

As someone who has been actively involved in politics/government since 1960, and who has been teaching political science since 1978, I thought (and taught) that the U.S. House of Representatives differs from the U.S. Senate by having “strict limits on time for debate.”

On Friday, both I and Congressman Waxman found out that “some strict time limits are less ‘limited’ than others.”

*CSPAN – The Thinking Man’s low-cost alternative to Viagra…

Damn, here I thought the meat and potatoes of debate were good arguments and not F-spec. Yes, I have a 150+ page F-spec file but I have not and probably will not ever use it.

I just do not feel that there is a significant place in LD for funding arguments like these. Yes, “how are we going to pay for it” should be an argument for policy making. However, I feel that it is a cop out by negs to run for it. At the same time, I feel that there is no impact to it that would favor the Neg. Maybe a spending K, which I have seen and I think are crap (I love the K as much as T but even I have to draw the line somewhere), but I think that there are not enough offensive impacts to the whole spending DA.

Impact: You overspend, therefore you have to cut education??
Link Turn: we don’t cut edu, we cut military spending as normal means. I capture your advantage of saving education and also find money for my project… it takes even less time because I don’t go for the Non-Unique so I can say how my program is vital to saving education (have something about setting precedence maybe?) which also saves time as well as grants offense.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/good-government/gg-20090227.html is a good place to look for spare money by being more efficient/offering cuts.

Nerdy, as usual, makes a multiplicity of good arguments, all of which merit a response. However, I think the optimal place for that response is at a Clinic, or on a more conventional Message Board.

Therefore, I am going to respond to Nerdy in only a limited fashion, and urge others (if any) to get involved… specifically, I hope via the Internet from Ohio and/or in person at the Clinic at RCC!

1. Overview: IMHO, what constitutes “good arguments” is the skill + the evidence of the two (or four, or whatever) debaters making them. An argument without persuasive advocacy (either oral or written) is mere verbiage.

2. I assume that “F-Spec” is contemporary Debatese for
“specification of financing.” I mention this because, when you debate NFA-LD next year, don’t assume that every judge would know this.

3. Again, only IMHO, policy – particularly USFG policy – cannot be debated REALISTICALLY in the context of current economic and political conditions without “F-Spec.” If you don’t believe me, go back and read President Obama’s speech on PAYGO, or ask any responsible member of Congress (assuming, arguendo, you can find one).

4. I agree that debating “F-Spec” within the time constraints of NFA-LD is difficult, but that doesn’t mean that it should be – as Nerdy appears to imply – prohibited.

(A) NON-UNIQUE: It was just as hard debating “F-Spec” at the NDT-style National Circuit level in the 1960′s and 1970′s (when constructives were 10 minutes, and before the addition of CX gave the 1AR a little breathing space), and I suspect that it’s hard debating “F-Spec” today (both in Congress and the classroom). But these issues get debated.

(B) EDUCATIONAL VALUE: Research and debating “F-Spec” is good, because these issues are important. Moreover, TURN:
avoiding debating “F-Spec” in anti-educational, because it encourages wild-eyed, idealistic liberalism at the expense of pragmatism. expensive

(C) MINOR REPAIR: Take one minute away from the current six minute 1AR and add it to the 1AC so the Affirmative speaker can say something about financing other than every-so-sleazy and Clintonesque “normal means.”

5. This year an Affirmative would be wise to adopt specific financing mechanisms that also implement the topic.
For example: “encourage energy-efficient modes of transportation” by taxing/charging extra for inefficient modes of transportation (gas taxes, toll roads, etc.)

6. My initial impression (subject to change by a good argument in response) is that, UNLESS the Affirmative Plan specifies it, the Affirmative debater cannot answer a solid (“politix-budget cuts DA”) merely by saying “I don’t cut ____.” To this Old Timer, fiat gives the Affirmative the right to specify how the Plan is funded. Immunizing other parts of the federal budget to prevent it from being a bad policy strikes me as blatantly extra-topical.

7. Maybe I’m alone in this, but last year I was really disappointed at the lame nature of most Negatives’ DA’s.
Either they lacked impacts or were incredibly speculative (no “real” link), or both.

Financing DA’s – particularly in today’s economy – are just sloppin’ over with credible impacts. Trust me – if you do the research on the economics of taxation and deficit financing, you will know exactly what I’m talking about.

Going back to the original point of this thread, I recommend:

1. Google: “Research Guide: Transportation Policy, Operations, and Logistics,” which is published by the George Mason University Libraries.

2. Review
http://dotlibrary.dot.gov/bibliographies/print_polbib.htm

First, Dr. Miller, I appreciate your consideration into what I posted here. I also recognize that I cannot wait to hit up RCC ‘co-op’ and have insightful discussions of this topic with you and other members of the community. If we get bored this summer and want to find time before or after the camp I would be more then happy to meet with you or others… as nerdy as I am I could not pass up a chance to talk more db8.

Now, to the task at hand, responding to most of which you offered.

1. & 2. – are good points indeed. I take it for granted that I can jargon my way through debate to make up for time constraints and just be lazy.

3. – I have gone and researched the basics of his proposal and think that this issue does warrant more attention now then before. That being said I leave it up for debate in round, as I usually do (cop out? yes). However, until paygo is reinstated I will scream and holler in my 2ar that we have to pass it before paygo is put back into effect so we can save (X). After it is reinstated you will see some weird shit outta me for funding, lol.

4. – I do not believe that it should be prohibited. I would never prohibit an argument, ever. I just do not feel that the 1 minute it would take to run F-spec would be worth it in most cases. There are more offensive positions you can run in that time. The fastest I can run a good T shell is about 40 seconds, I am rather slow compared to others, about 225 words/minute. I personally would rather spend the time giving another turn to a case advantage or a new disad rather then another procedural. The last thing I want is for F-spec to be the new T this year is what I am getting at… I think.

(A) – Sure they get debated but that doesn’t mean that they are better then a new DA that links to cultural discrimination.

(B) EDUCATIONAL VALUE: I believe that these “wild-eyed, idealistic liberalism at the expense of pragmatism” are more important then F-Spec, but I am probably alone on this one. We need to search for 1AC’s and viable policy options that are idealistic. Bailouts, not idealistic. Let companies fail, not realistic. There are educational experiences to have in all arguments yes, but when a debate comes down to funding it is just another way for the Neg to avoid necessary changes to the SQO in a game we play called Monopoly.

(C) wish we could do that but no one will let us… unless you want to host a tournament and rewrite the times. It is done in parli so why not in ld?

5. If you tax to much then the impoverished will suffer. Tax to little and there is no solvency. Only tax those in (X) tax bracket and you don’t have enough significance. I think this is easier for companies then it is for people, which you probably meant and I just didn’t understand in its entirety. Either way, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and I am one of those poor who cannot take much.

6. – I agree with you, unless you have a card that says normal means for spending is to draw finances from (X). Then when the 1NC reads trade-off with education you come back and read, “Miller ’09 says N/M means spending draws from (X),” I don’t T/O with edu I T/O with (X) I no link your DA. That seems like entrapment to a point but we do it for politics arguments all the time so I don’t see why f-spec gets special treatment.

7. – agreed, last year was all bad.

Sample Card (Old School Style)

Anchorage Daily News
“Keeping Oil Flowing to the U.S. is Expensive”
April 4, 2009

“CONGRESS COULD THEREFORE CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET BY $6
BILLION TO $25 BILLION* IF OUR MOTOR VEHICLES DID NOT USE PETROLEUM-BASED FUEL OR IF THE OIL CAME FROM A SOURCE THAT NEEDED NO MILITARY PROTECTION, SAY DELUCCHI AND MURPHY.**
NOT THAT CONGRESS WULD NECESSARILY CUT THAT MUCH, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER REASON TO SPEND THE MONEY, THEY SAY.”

*[annually] This is obvious from the context of the article.

**Mark Delucchi and Jim Murphy are professors at UC Davis and the University of Alaska (Anchorage), respectively.

This quote is but a tidbit of what can be found at

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/index.php

“The Transportation Revolution: On Track for a Better Future?” by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory…

Not only a great overview of the topic area, but loaded with internal links (in blue) for further research.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/tra.htm