This loses to

1. T-Substantial. At some point a line has to be drawn, because allowing infinitesimal cases like these explodes the topic and makes links to all generic disads disappear.

2. States counterplan. No, really. There is literally zero warrant to why the federal government is key. In fact, quite the opposite – state and local authorities are the ones with jurisdiction over such projects.

1. absent a mechanism to measure substantial-ness without being FX-t, i think you’re just wrong, Nick. I think cost is the best measure, and this would be far more costly than most cases I’ve heard–but furthermore a cost can be fiated.

2. this is a more valid concern, but nothing that can’t be dealt with through clever advantage writing.

i like the idea. of course, we have roundabouts in the Northeast, where I’m from, so I’ve just seen how practical they are.

A2 T – you assume I build 1… maybe 2 roundabouts
next, solvency args assume thousands of roundabouts are built.
Millions of dollars for replacing stop lights with roundabouts meets your interpretation

Perm, States and Fed working together is normal means: Fed gov gives money and states implement

Nick,

T-Substantial? Really?

I mean, obviously, the plan loses to tix/states, just like most of the standard intuitive affirmatives.

T-Transportation Infrastructure/Solvency Advocate will be the bigger problems, procedural-wise, IMO.

Again, remember folks, a good affirmative:

1) can’t be stolen by a states counterplan
2) claims a big stick impact
3) actually has the federal government change some aspect of TI on its own

this aff is 0 for 3, imo.

idk, i don’t see why you couldn’t fiat that the fed made funds available and then just argue in solvency that states would do it. to me, that’s the most reasonable interpretation of ‘normal means.’ i’d be interested to see the solvency arguments that say the states WOULDN’T seize free money for jobs

furthermore, federalism DAs can go both ways, and a 1AR DA is pretty devastating with last word.

hilarious. james hilbert from lafayette just won a tournament with this affirmative. he has a pretty sick answer to the federal/states jurisdiction question. i hope that is your only strat.

I was driving in the Middle East last summer, and my first experience with roundabouts. Couple of observations (sans evidence):

1) Roundabouts are much more efficient, but only up to a point. In times of dense traffic, stoplights are actually faster. In the country I was in, heavy trucks were not allowed to be on the roads during rush hour for this reason.

2) Roundabouts may be faster, but lead to more accidents. Especially considering the extensive retraining needed to train U.S. drivers on how to give right of way to the inside, how to use turn signals in a roundabout, etc. this would lead to lots of fender benders.