eSeals 1AC 1.0
Hydrogen 1AC
Free Trade Disad
US Dollar Hegemony Disad
T Violations Sample
Heidegger Sample

One thing that is interesting is that Nick sets up his case very differently than I usually teach. The way I interpret his case is: in the eSeals case Nick set it as: inherency, plan, harms and solvency; in the Hydrogen case he set it as: inherency, plan, solvency, harms.

The way I usually teach the first affirmative constructive is inherency, harms, plan and then solvency. The reason for this is that it tells a really clean story. You tell the judge/audience what’s currently going on and why your policy has not been implemented. You then tell then the bad things that’s happening from the status quo. Third, you propose a plan to address the bad things that are happening in the status quo. Finally, you tell the judge why you think your plan will address the bad things in the status quo.

How do you all setup your cases? For me, hearing harms after hearing the plan would be a bit disjointed. I don’t know why I’m hearing about the negative things in the status quo after hearing about your plan to change the status quo.

Share on Facebook

Sprawl DA
OPEC DA
Solar Panels neg
Inherency Fiber Optics

One of my favorite parts of NFA-LD is coming up with new disadvantages to run in debate rounds. Just like the affirmative debater gets the advantage by knowing their case really well as the negative debater you should have the advantage on any new disadvantages that you run in rounds.

Of course the link is always the hardest part but once you get that (perhaps in a good cx question?) you’re golden. You then have two speeches to bring up and finish off the disadvantage debate.

Here are two good disadvantages and a few examples of case specific negative research. My coach used to always tell me that it’s OK to lose to a brand new affirmative case you have no evidence against – once. After that round if you lose to the case again it’s no good since you had time to go research and develop a negative strategy against the case. The solar files and fiber optics evidence David sent in is a great example of that type of work. It’s what will usually separate those who make it to out rounds and those who don’t – winning at least one negative round.

Share on Facebook

Definitely check out the files marked frontline. These are files that contain both strategy and evidence specific to an affirmative case. These are key to winning as the negative since you’ve done your work before the round starts. One of the reasons affirmative debaters win so often is because they know their case so well and you’re likely only vaguely familiar with it. However, if you’ve done the work to do a frontline you’re likely ready to win. Thanks again Mat!

CBS-Theory-File
CP – Consult NativesCP – Consult NATO
CP – Exclude Natives PIC
DA – Biz Con
Frontline – Aircrft Carrier Aff
Frontline – ATC Privatization Aff
Frontline – Ballast Water Dumping Aff
Frontline – Cargo Scanning AffFrontline – Evacuation Infrastructure Aff
Indian Reservation Roads take 2
K – The Gift
Space Infrastructure

[The evidence page has been updated]

Share on Facebook

Send the files to info@socal-ld.net I’ll make sure you get credit.

Share on Facebook

Plus, you can build big monuments in the middle!

Anyone running this? Anyone have good ideas on the neg?

Share on Facebook

Panelists discussed the need for a national freight vision as critical to the future economic health of the country given that the Gross Domestic Product is expected to double over the next 20 years. That has been forecast to happen with a concurrent increase in freight expected in the Gulf of Mexico region by 2020 due to the widening of the Panama Canal. Congestion is a growing concern because it drives up the cost of goods and has a direct effect on the consumer.

Share on Facebook

My initial thought is that this is a perfect example of reforming the infrastructure. Currently, highways are not required to have broadband – this reform will require them which will greatly boost internet speed and access.

This seems like a perfect case to “break” in outrounds to try to sneak past an opponent =)

Any thoughts?

Share on Facebook

Here is a disadvantage I’ve been mulling over in judging some rounds this year and thinking about the topic - increased congestion. I want to kind of walk through the process of writing the disadvantage as opposed to simply posting a file for you to use. As I mentioned on the affirmative case construction lecture, I’m a big believer in getting something done now and then improving it. I’m not worried at this point if these are the best possible cards on this topic. The disadvantage can always be improved later. The important thing now is to get the disadvantage written.

Step 1: Coming up with a shell.

The first thing I recommend when writing a disadvantage is to write down a rough shell of where you think the disadvantage is going. This is where if you do parliamentary debate your skills of coming up with positions on the fly will serve you well. Here is what I came up with:

Thesis: their plan will make congestion worse on freeways

Uniqueness:
Currently transportation policy focused on adding highway capacity to reduce congestion

Link:
Their plan reduces (a) focus on highways (ie, rail cases, port, air) (b) reduces funding for roads (ie, shift money from roads to rail, public transit buses)

Internal Link:
Decreased funds means worse roads and more congestion

Impact:
wasted money, deaths from accidents, bad economy

Step 2: Research

I then started doing research on congestion and found these two great sources:
Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009 and the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Congestion and Reliability Report from 2005.

Step 3: Cutting Cards

I quickly started cutting cards and ended up with these 17 cards. The CardCutter is still available on the site although I’m going to be working on improving it this summer. Remember that you’ll want to include as much of the citation as possible since the first time you read the card you should include the full author, his/her credibility, and title/source.

Step 4: Coming up with a shell

Placing them into the shell I get this quick and dirty disadvantage that took me probably about 1 hour to finish. The internal link is atrocious but that can be improved. The idea is that I now have a foundation to work off. As I keep up on research and reading about transportation policy I’ll probably find better cards to take the place of this evidence.

You also now have something to run against many possible cases. It may not be the best position but it’s something and judges will appreciate that effort.

Here is the disadvantage:

A. Uniqueness

Congestion is being dealt with in the status quo – at least
stabilizing
Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
Congestion, by every measure, has increased substantially over the 25 years covered in this report. The most recent two years of the report, however, have seen slower growth or even a decline in congestion. Delay per traveler – the number of hours of extra travel time that commuters spend during rush hours – was 1.3 hours lower in 2007 than 2005. This change would be more hopeful if it was associated with something other than rising fuel prices (which occurred for a short time in 2005 and 2006 before the sustained increase in 2007 and 2008) and a slowing economy. This same kind of slow growth/decline over a few years occurred in the early 1990s when spending and growth in the high- tech and defense sectors of the economy declined dramatically. The decline means congestion is near the levels recorded in 2003, not exactly a year remembered for trouble-free commuting.

B. Link

1. Their plan focuses transportation policy on one area of _[say area]_
2. Congestion solutions require balanced and diversified approach
Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
We recommend a balanced and diversified approach to reduce congestion – one that focuses on more of everything. It is clear that our current investment levels have not kept pace with the problems. Population growth will require more systems, better operations and increased number of travel alternatives. And most urban regions have big problems now – more congestion, poorer pavement and bridge conditions and less public transportation service than they would like. There will be a different mix of solutions in metro regions, cities, neighborhoods, job centers and shopping areas. Some areas might be more amenable to construction solutions, other areas might use more travel options, productivity improvements, diversified land use patterns or redevelopment solutions. In all cases, the solutions need to work together to provide an interconnected network of transportation services.

C. Internal Link

Efforts to reduce congestion limited by funding
Chester County Planning Commission, accessed 2009
[Highway page, p.online | no date given | Accessed 01-02-10 ~
http://www.landscapes2.org/Transportation/transIssuesHigh.html !DJC]
Efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve highway safety are limited by the availability of funding. While funding levels have actually increased in recent years, the buying power is less because of dramatic escalation in construction costs. The construction cost index has increased 100% since 1996. Funding levels have not kept pace with the rate of material inflation. The effect of this funding shortage has been a backlog of capital projects, higher priorities to system-maintenance, increased pressure to scale back capacity-adding highway projects, and increased interests in alternative financing including roadway tolling and asset privatization.

D. Impact

1. Congestion costs us 4.2 billion hours and 87.2 billion dollars

Schrank & Lomax 2009
[David; Tim | Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report 2009, p.online | 07/01/2009 |
Accessed 01-02-10 ~ http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf !DJC]
Congestion is a problem in America’s 439 urban areas, and it has gotten worse in regions of all sizes. In 2007, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of $87.2 billion – an increase of more than 50% over the previous decade (Exhibit 1). This was a decrease of 40 million hours and a decrease of 40 million gallons, but an increase of over $100 million from 2006 due to an increase in the cost of fuel and truck delay. Small traffic volume declines brought on by increases in fuel prices over the last half of 2007 caused a small reduction in congestion from 2006 to 2007.

2. Congestion hurts economic growth

Federal Highway Administration 2005
[ | Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Traffic Congestion and Reliability, p.online | 09/01/2005 | Accessed
01-02-10 ~ http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/congestion_report_05.pdf !DJC]
The nation’s local, regional, and national transportation systems play a vital role in creating access to goods and services which sustain and grow our nation’s economy. Planners and economic development experts recognize that congestion is an economic development issue because it thwarts business attraction and expansion, and reduces the quality of life for residents.

Any thoughts on the Disadvantage? Anyone running something similar? Have any research or articles to improve the cards?

Share on Facebook

Because transportation infrastructure is built to
last decades, and represents substantial national
invest ment, it is critical that climate factors be
incorporated in transportation siting, investment,
and design decisions.

States can’t do this plan!

Only the federal government can do the necessary
interdisciplinary climate impact research, data
gathering, modeling and forecasting, mapping,
and structuring of the comprehensive planning
neces sary to ensure the resilience of our nation’s
multimodal transportation systems, and the communities
and businesses they serve.

Possible Plan? Might be effects-topical.

Authorize capital and planning funding support
to enhance transportation resil iency, including
funding states to conduct inventories of their
transportation assets and locations that are
vulnerable to climate change. Most impor tantly
it should make infrastructure climate adaptation
an eligible expense under the core highway
and transit programs, based on a comprehensive
system inventory and risk assessment.

Share on Facebook

It looks like the USFG is kicking the can again to deal with transportation policy:

The House of Representatives voted by a 335-85 margin on legislation to extend federal surface transportation programs for three months through December 31. The legislation has been sent to the Senate … While this extension may be able to keep federal funding for surface transportation intact through the end of the year, it is more of a stop-gap than anything else, considering the long-term needs for major transportation infrastructure investment.

Need attitudinal inherency?

“Existing Federal transportation policies, which will be continued under this extension, are outdated and ill-equipped to meet the demands of a changing nation,” Oberstar said on the House floor. “Right now, the only impediment to the implementation of a long-term surface transportation authorization is a lack of political will to make the necessary choices and implement the reforms that will set the nation on the path to building a surface transportation network that meets the needs of the 21st Century and beyond.”

Share on Facebook