The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energ[CONT]

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,417 times Debate No: 7831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

Format of debate: Cross-X or Policy Debate style, with cards and theory arguments and stock issues and whatnot. Here is how the round will go:

1. Intro
2P. 1AC
2C. 1NC
3P. 2AC
3C. 2NC
1NR will have to be merged with 2NC, I suppose... you'll get an advantage here
4P. 1AR
4C. 2NR
5P. 2AR
5C. 1NC

Cross-x will be asked in comments after each constructive, with each participant answering at least ten questions for each constructive. and questions after that are optional.

Post any further clarifications in comments.


Observation 1: The status quo

A. The current shift to alternative energies renders biofuels inevitable
Bennett 08

"The reason biofuels has a bright the oil industry's future is not so bright. The bottom line is that biofuels are inevitable...They are a mainstream fuel that will fill the gap between fuel demand and petroleum supply."

B. But Hemp is currently illegal in the US due to federal restrictions
Martindale, 08

"Unfortunately, Federal anti-drug officials say that allowing such crops would create a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. Currently, the U.S. is the only developed nation that has not established hemp as a legal crop"

C. The US uses a third of its corn for biofuels
Bioenergy Buisness 08

"last year the US used a third of its maize (corn) crop for biofuels "

D. Corn biofuels are raising food prices globally- Needs based off Eurocentrism are preceding all other world needs
Brown 07

"This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere. As the world corn price rises, so too do those of wheat and rice, both because of consumer substitution among grains and because the crops compete for land... The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying 70 percent of the world's corn exports, looms large in the world food economy...With corn supplies tightening fast, rising prices will affect not only products made directly from corn, such as breakfast cereals, but also those produced using corn...The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs

Advantage 1: Eurocentrism

A. The current Eurocentric alternative energy discourse is pushing the use of biofuels which are causing political instability, hunger, and failed humanitarian efforts worldwide
CBC News 08

"Rising food prices cause political instability worldwide...the trend is likely to exacerbate both the incidence and depth of food insecurity worldwide. "The security implications [of the food crisis] should also not be underestimated as food riots are already being reported across the globe...unless the government is subsidizing consumers, consumers have no choice but to cut consumption. It's a very brutal scenario, but that's what it is."

B. Eurocentrism naturalizes the exclusion and oppression of those in the third world causing poverty, hunger, dehumanization, and makes extinction inevitable
Lander 06

"The perspective of Eurocentric knowledge is the central aids of a discourse that not only naturalizes but renders inevitable the increasingly intense polarization between a privileged minority and the worlds' excluded, oppressed majorities. Eurocentric knowledge also lies at the center of a predatory model of civilization that threatens to destroy the conditions that make life possible on Earth. "

C. Hunger outweighs extinction
LaFollette, 2003

"to survive on lifeboat earth, knowing that others were tossed overboard into the sea of starvation, would signify an indignity and callousness worse than extinction "

D. Poverty Outweighs Nuclear War
Gilligan 00

"even a hypothetical nuclear exchange...cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year...every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war"

E. Dehumanization outweighs extinction- It makes violence against those that are not Eurocentic the norm
Maiese 03

"Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples...Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal. We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured...for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant." Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified...dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary."

Advantage 2: Pakistan

A. Rising food prices are causing political instability in Pakistan
Gale 08

"Pakistan is affected by world food prices that have surged by about 83 percent in the past three years, provoking riots"

B. The Taliban will potentially be the ruling party of Pakistan in 20 years
Norman 08

"the Taliban found itself a better target of opportunity, Pakistan...This may mean tempering terrorist attacks and using more soft power to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis. In 20--30 years, it could be the ruling party of Pakistan."

C. Allowing terrorist parties to rule threatens to create an Orwellian state that suppresses those living in states ran by terrorist parties
Kellner 05

"Orwell envisaged a grim condition of total warfare in which his fictional state Oceania ruled its fearful and intimidated citizens through war, police state terror, surveillance, and the suppression of civil liberties. This constant warfare kept Oceania's citizens in a perpetual situation of mobilization and submission"

Hence the plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its incentives for alternative energy by removing the current DEA restrictions on the production of industrial hemp, capping cultivation of hemp to � of existing farmland, and providing 100 percent tax refunds for the sale of hemp, to biofuel companies, grown the "soil bank"; eliminating existing laws dealing with the soil bank. We reserve the right to clarify.

Gown 91 Hemp doesn't trade off with food production—uses empty lands while refertilizing for increased production.

"we could grow enough hemp to replace our current use of both fossil fuels and trees on a portion of the "soil bank," the 90 million acres of farmland that the U.S. government pays farmers not to grow crops. Hemp does not deplete the soil of essential nutrients as many food crops do if grown repeatedly on the same lands. Leaves fall to the ground during the plant's entire growth cycle, fertilizing the soil. The deep shade of the tall plants chokes out weeds, and the deep root systems connect with water sources and loosen hard packed ground. Thus, hemp is a perfect tool for the reclamation of damaged, depleted, or marginal farmlands"

Observation 4: Framework

A. Interpretation: the aff should win if the plan is the best policy option in the debate. The neg should win if the plan is proven worse than the status quo or a policy option competitive with the plan.

B. Standards

1) Ground –Forcing the aff to debate in whatever framework the neg picks moots eight minutes of our speech time. Because the K could literally be about anything, their so-called framework destroys aff ground because we can never predict what we'll have to compare our plan to. Even if there's some ground for us to respond to their arg, it's not good or predictable and losing the 1AC puts us at an inherent disadvantage.

2) Topic-specific education – only debates about the plan translate into education about the topic. There would be no reason to switch topics every year if not for plan-focus debate. K frameworks encourage ugenerics like the ‘state bad' K that are stale and uneducational.

3) Real-world implications- Every round we run this affirmative in we will be convincing judges that hemp should be a legal crop, that ties into the real world.
Debate Round No. 1


First off is ASPEC
A. Interpretation – power is divided among the 3 branches of government
Jenner 01
The Framers of our Constitution...divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government...
B. Violation – the Aff fails to specify the agent of action
C. Standards
First, ground – the Aff is an incomplete policy without an agent – specific case, DA, CP, and K ground is predicated on the agent
Second, real world – no policy can be established with an agent, since the Government isn't a single entity – this is a full solvency takeout – vote neg on presumption.
Third, plan text key – textual competition, and neg loses 1NC and pre-round prep are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan
D. Voter for fairness and education

1. Violation - the aff plan is effects topical through fiat - it does not directly meet the resolution. Instead, it takes many steps to actually provide alternative energy incentives: first it removes all DEA restrictions for hemp, then it caps hemp cultivation, and then it eliminates all laws regarding the soil bank. Then, finally, it provides tax refunds for the sale of hemp - it takes at least three steps before it gets to the actual incentive part of the case. Counter-interp: the aff can only provide for incentives directly, without any extra steps.
2. This is horribly abusive - there are an infinite amount of three step actions that lead to an increase in alternative energy. Note how I don't have any good case specific arguments in my speech - that's because THERE AREN'T ANY FOR THIS CASE. It takes too many steps for their incentive to get passed. Vote them down for wasting my and your time talking about this ridiculous case.
3. This is not real world - the government can't just overturn DEA restrictions and soil bank laws as well as provide a tax credit. Sure, I'll grant you fiat on one of those things, but not all three at the same time. That goes too far.

Next is more topicality - extra-topicality
1. Violation - the aff plan is extra topical. It "removes current DEA restrictions for the production of industrial hemp" and "eliminates existing laws dealing with the soil bank." These two parts of the plan are not even close to being topical as they do not increase alternative energy incentives.
2. Counter-interp: plan must be completely topical. That's the brightline - you're either topical or nontopical.
3. This is a voting issue for:
3a. Abuse. It's horribly abusive for the neg team to have to debate an aff that's even slightly untopical because THEY CAN'T PREPARE FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T TOPICAL. With the aff interp, they could literally append anything to their plan and as long as it has something about incentives it'd still be "topical." The neg cannot anticipate these additions because, once again, an infinite number of them exist. Thus, they destroy any chances at a fair debate.
3b. Ground - it makes aff ground literally unlimited because they can append anything. Neg can't prepare.
3c. Limits - it unlimits the aff plan, and we can't prepare for all of it.

Next is a counterplan:
Counterplan: The USFG should use all of the land that would be allocated to hemp by the aff plan and divert that land use towards foodcrop.

-Both plans cannot be passed because in our plan, the same land that is used in the aff plan in now used for hemp.
-Counterplan untopical

Prefer the counterplan:
-Solves their eurocentrism and food prices advantages better than they can by guaranteeing that food will be grown there rather than it being a possibility.

Next, another counterplan:
Counterplan: The USFG should ban all biofuel incentives/tax exemptions/tax credits/etc.

Counterplan competes: it is impossible to provide an incentive and ban all incentives at the same time.

Prefer the counterplan: cross apply Bioenergy Buisness 08 and Brown 07 - the food problem stems from the fact that we are using corn biofuels. We solve 100% for their advantages because they are BOTH BASED ON FOOD SHORTAGES CAUSED BY CORN BIOFUELS. They can't claim 100% solvency because corn biofuels will still exist after their plan is passed. After our plan is passed, there will be no biofuels taking away valuable cropland, and thus there will be more food cropland. Thus, we have better solvency for all of their advantages - vote them down.

and another: The USFG should ban all biofuel incentives/tax exemptions/tax credits/etc. while allowing the "soil bank" to be used for growing crops. cross-apply from above CP

Next, solvency:
Farmers won't switch to hemp – global demand checks Rawson 07
...The world market for hemp products is relatively small, and China, as the world's largest hemp... producer... will continue to have major influence on market prices and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries. Canada's head start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil also would likely affect the profitability of a start-up industry in the United States

No infrastructure for hemp - it doesn't matter if we grow it if we can't use it. Vantresse 97 for fiber hemp is relatively small ... given the lack of processing facilities and other infrastructure required... without a viable processing industry, US demand and profit projections for US-grown hemp are extremely speculative. If production was legalized, farmers would be limited to selling bulk production until (and if) a US hemp processing industry was established and growers would primarily be bulk suppliers for the export market, at least in the short-run.

Again, corn biofuels will still exist because farmers wont switch to hemp.

Biomass uses large amounts of land that should be used for crops – it takes 120 square meters to provide enough power for 1 square meter of a city Ausbel 07
Imagine replacing...a nuclear power plant...To obtain the same electricity from a power plant that burns biomass...,
farmers would need about...2500 square kilometres of land with very high productivity. Harvesting and collecting the biomass are not 100% efficient; some gets left in fields or otherwise lost...Prime land has better uses, like feeding the
hungry...One hundred twenty square metres of New Brunswick or Manitoba might electrify one square metre of New York City.

Land is limited – alt energies take up agricultural land, driving up food prices
The Mail, 08
Finding enough land…will be bad for people and bad for wildlife…biofuels take up land that would otherwise be used for food, reducing food supplies and driving up prices.
The grain needed to fill the tank of a 4x4 car could feed one person for a year… valuable rain-forests in South America and Asia are being destroyed to create land to meet the demand

next, the monkeysphere:
The human mind cannot function in groups of much more than 150 people or so that we actually conceive as actual human beings. The negative tries to justify them saving lives but we, as human beings, cannot care. Imagine you have a pet monkey named Slappy. You and Slappy go on many monkey adventures together and have a great time. Slappy dies. You would be emotionally shocked by Slappy dying. Now imagine you had four monkeys. Now, they all die. You would be impacted in some way, but not as much as losing Slappy. Now imagine you know 200 monkeys that all die. You're no longer affected, right? That's because you don't care about them - they're outside your Monkeysphere (metaphor, get it?), the group of people we conceive as actual human beings. The aff pretends to care about saving lives but they don't actually care because it's physically impossible for them to. Thinking outside our monkeyspheres leads to horrible things like racism and all their impacts because we generalize everyone outside our sphere as one dimensional characters because we can't comprehend them as anything else, creating prejudice and hate. vote


ASPEC->T->Solvency->Oil dependence->CPs->K

Yay for 8 off and solvency in the 1nc. haha

Honestly, I can foresee much confusion in the round because the negative debater is making arguments that he really doesn't understand.. I'll try my best to keep it clear but there's a lot I have to cover with limited words.

ASPEC- He says that I don't specify which branch of the government I am using, so I lose because of it. It can be reasonably inferred that congress is passing my plan.
1) Cross-ex checks.. He could have merely asked.
2) No ground loss, he makes arguments against my case.
3) It is real world, the plan is passed through congress. How much more real world can you get?
4) The plan text is not key.. I don't have to put every single little part of the logistics of passing the plan in the plan text, we would have plan texts that are read for the entire 1AC. You could have asked in CX to get the obvious answer.
Not a voter.

Effects T- haha you don't understand effects T. Now if I were to say "remove DEA restrictions" and do nothing else that is a direct incentive, I would be effects topical. Effects T is only when the incentive I provide only comes to be after multiple steps post plan passage. Just because I have more than 1 thing that my plan does, does not mean that the incentive is only given a few steps after the plans passage. The plan is perfectly topical, I wrote my own plan text, just because I don't have the stock camp file does not mean I am untopical.
Abuse? Really? I am giving specific steps that my plan will take. Look at all the CP ground you gained because of this. With a specific plan text, you just need to find a tiny flaw and you will win. Don't complain because this is actually a good idea that would be passed in the real world with support. And if you really are going to complain because the monetary incentive is at the end of my plan text, just pretend its at the beginning. Like seriously, it doesnt matter where I place the monetary incentive in the plan text, its all passed at the same time.
Not real world- This is perfectly real world. They created the restrictions, they can take them away. Even if its not real world you don't impact it. Who cares? It should be real world, if its not real world our system is flawed. Then your impact to it not being real world is non-existent, being that you are trying to uphold a flawed system. Arguments prove no ground loss.

Extra-T- You try and make a similar argument but dont pay any attention to the direct monetary incentive I give the third part of my plan text. This is directly a financial incentive and is not extra T. You have to look at the plan text in a vaccum to see if it remains topical, and you can clearly see it is. I meet your brightline. I am topical. Just because I do other things on top of making it topical does not make me untopical. If you go for the abuse story, you're not going to win T and just lose solvency because you will have to concede 100 percent solvency. Arguments prove no ground loss.


Farmers want hemp
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
"It's high time for hemp, say farmers who are enlisting state legislatures in an effort to legalize cultivation of the potentially profitable non-hallucinogenic cousin of marijuana. Montana and Virginia have formally called for an end to a federal ban on "industrial" hemp, and the Minnesota Senate this week passed a bill, backed by Gov. Jesse Ventura, aimed at permitting experimental hemp production. The Hawaii House this week voted to have the state grow a 10-acre test crop."

High profits will drive farmers to hemp
Clifford 2008
"In Canada, industrial hemp has become the most profitable crop farmers grow, paying $200 to $300 per acre. Just across the border, in North Dakota, farmers realized $10 to $40 profits per acre growing corn in 2007. "

His card is irrelevant. Hemps use as a biofuel in the US will be a huge success because of the crops profitability. Farmers want the switch to hemp now. The importation costs makes US farmers have an advantage over foreign farmers.

No infrastructure-
There are the ethanol refineries now, they didnt have them in 1997 when his card was written but they do now, 12 years later.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007)
"There are about 140 corn ethanol refineries nationwide, which produce more than 5 billion gallons a year"

Corn biofuels won't exist because hemp is 100 times more effective than corn
"An acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane--the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants"

He says biomass takes land- I agree. Thats why we use hemp that is 100 times more effective than corn and use less land.

I solve back the "the mail" card with the more effective biofuel

Oil dependence-
The US is dependent on oil Debusmann 2008
"the United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil...America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." That dependence has increased sharply over the past three decades"

This threatens the economy in 2 ways
1) Peak oil
2) Mean oil distributors that want to kill us by taking away our oil

Bearden 00- I'd find the card but I'm sure you know the deal. It talks about how when the US economy collapses, the whole worlds economy collapses.

On the CPs

1st one- Doesnt solve oil dependence. This may solve the food problem but with the aff you solve the food problem with solving our oil dependence and you dont get that with the CP. Look to the aff

2nd one- Corn biofuels will be non existant because they are not effective. At that point, biofuels are not raising food prices at all. The land that we are giving the incentive for is not being farmed on now because its soil is depleted. The tax refunds are key to incentivizing the farmers move to the soil bank to farm hemp and the cp fails because of it. Prefer the aff because it solves back both advantages better.

3rd one- You can't use the soil bank for growing crops other than hemp. Corn wont grow on it, but hemp will. Hemp will replenish the land of essential nutrients. This solves back both advantages better, prefer the aff.

On the monkeysphere-

The neg links into the K with his 3 counterplans. He is trying to "save lives" too. The evidence talks about how it is physically impossible to love more than a certain number of people.. If you reject my plan, you don't reject the mindset because it is impossible to do so. For these reasons I win the K

Extend my framework that says Ks are bad for debate and you shouldnt even evaluate it. Extend the standards. This is a reverse voting issue and you should drop the neg on it independently. He is trying to run a K in this debate round, drop him now so he wont do it again in the future. He concedes that policy debate is better and he is trying to contribute to a new type of debate that isnt as good as the current type. For this you need to drop the team to stop it from happening in the future.

Debate Round No. 2


rofflewoffles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


rofflewoffles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


vote pro for me being a jackass and not finishing this debate


haha if you want to do another that you are on the aff thats cool
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
thats fine. keep it to 5,000 words characters though. The numbers work out to be like the 8/5 speech times that way.
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
btw if it's alright i'll take up the comments for my 1NR
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
1. you need to specify an agent of action. the usfg is split into three distinct parts. thus, you must specify which one of the parts actually passes the plan.
2. i can't run any agent counterplans or attack any of the specific branches because you didn't specify your agent and thus could spike out of what i say
3. the first T violation says that your plan takes too many steps to get to providing incentives. this is unfair because there's an infinite amount of steps that could lead up to alternative energy incentives and by your interp those steps would still be topical.
4. if you only gave an incentive, your plan would be fine. unfortunately, you also do a bunch of extra stuff that isn't related to the topic at all. it's extra topical. this is abusive because i can't prepare for whatever extra stuff you want to add on.
5. i operate in multiple worlds as per negation theory. they won't all pass at the same time. they are opportunity costs to your plan.
6. crops will be grown on the lands that your plan would've used. this solves for food crisis.
7. by your own framework i can present competing policy options.
8. exactly, but you can't have 500 favorite monkey friends. there's not enough time in the day.
9. can you clarify this question to a specific argument, please?
10. i don't link to the k because i'm not aff. i'm not trying to help the people outside my monkeysphere.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
1)On APSEC.. How does your interp relate to your violation?
2)Explain how you lose ground..
3) Haha so the first T violation basically says that I have too many good parts to my plan and you can't win because of it?
4) So the part where I directly give the incentive doesn't apply to your 2nd T violation? Explain it please.
5) Are all of your CPs put together in one? Or are they all passed independently?
6) Explain your 3rd CP, "Growing crops?"
7) How is it fair at all to be able to run 3 counterplans. like wtf
8) Couldn't the reason I felt bad about Slappy dying be because he became my favorite monkey friend?
9) How can you vote me down on something that is physically inevitable?
10) How do you not link into the K?
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
i wish i could actually run a kritik but there isn't enough room to put framework justifications for a kritik and an actual legit kritik in there.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
But most of the hemp files are short and generic to Biofuels D: some of them are good.
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
i was out of ideas. be quiet! D:<
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
"I don't have any good case specific arguments in my speech - that's because THERE AREN'T ANY FOR THIS CASE"

I lol'd at that. I have four neg hemp files :D

But I only hit hemp three times :(
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Lawl ASPEC. Whoever made that PHailed civics. I Made a shirt that has big bold letters "NOSPEC" :D
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
also, it cut off like six words at the end for some reason. "vote neg to reject this thinking within the monkeysphere."

it's a loltastic argument anyway so w/e
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07