The Instigator
greatdebater_1
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy ince

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 3 votes the winner is...
fresnoinvasion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,828 times Debate No: 6971
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

greatdebater_1

Con

Since I am neg, and aff holds the burden of evidence in CX/POLICY debate, I cannot post any arguments until my opponent does so.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

We begin with a narrative from BRE, a homeless person living in Tornoto, Canada.

"My body is viewed as garbage. In a popular series of ads for a local Toronto radio station, a homeless person is shown sitting on a garbage can. Emblazoned on the photo is the word "PEST."
A middle-class tourist is overheard saying abou those of us who rest outside his hotel: "The kindest thing would be to get them all drunk and just put them to sleep. Nobody would know the difference. Nobody knows them. They'd never be missed." Graffiti screaming "kill the poor" has appeared around town over the last few years. threatened violence is too often played out for real. We are reminded of the vulnerability of our bodies when a friend is killed while sleeping in a park... the contempt, the lies, the innuendo, and the stereotypes of the media and the politicians are the first manipulating steps to the hatred that must be necessary before killing seems acceptable"... We are the naked lives, and there are man, including indigenous people and nonstatus immigrants, who are deemed not to be part of the decision-making body: the citizenry"

Debate is no different. The game we play has evolved to exclude the poor, to exclude the population that our proposed "policies" might affect.
BRE continunes.

"This politics of exclusion removes our poor bodies from civil society and the realm of citizenship. Exclusion, being rendered invisible, immaterial, is a common bodily experience. Goverments don't invite us to take part in discussions on issues that affect our lives. The comfortable chairs at summits on living and working opportunities are not filled by poor people. We are not asked to tell our own stories and we do not get many opportunities. We are treated as objects rather than subjects"

We see this ever more in debate. Debate is filled with the rich, those who can afford to travel to tournaments that cost hundreds and institutes that cost thousands. Break rounds are filled with those who go to big name schools that cost thousands. The majority of the debate community thinks that we can understand and solve problems that affect people we have no relation with.
BRE continunes

"poor people have as much control over government experiments or think-tank theorizing about their future as lab rats have in a cancer experiment"

Online debate is no different. We only accept those with a computer and internet access, we make subjects out of the people we debate about, yet do not include them.

Not only is the system of debate set up to exclude the poor, but it also set up to exclude dissent. Technical proficiency and speed are increasingly taught as the only way to win rounds. The purpose of debate today isn't to change anything rather to out tech your opponents and win rounds. Criticism that attempts to create change is taboo, and are quickly force to the outskirts of debate and erased. Although nothing is done in a debate round, much is accomplished. Incorporating narratives and experiences is an important way to create this change. By becoming aware of others struggles and forms of resistance against the system allow us to incorporate them in to our own movement and create change.

Just like the debate community so too has the state evolved to exclude others. Structural violence, energy problems, and discrimination all result from the lack of ability to influence political decisions and change within structures we live through. The debate should NOT be about competing policy options, the role of the ballot can be as something to endorse critique. It is an endorsement of finding positions of subversive ness in the struggle against bureaucracy.

My argument is an alternative framing of debate. I believe that debate shouldn't be about affirming some government action that I can't affect. Rather, we should affirm our own action. The ballot can be used to construct new possibilities of resistance by exposing the flawed nature of existing institutions including debate itself..

Resistance against the system quickly spreads and your ballot plays a key role

Looking forward to your response :-)
Debate Round No. 1
greatdebater_1

Con

greatdebater_1 forfeited this round.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

You can't vote for someone that forfeited, no matter your opinion of my argument. If you didn't like it don't vote for me but don't vote against me either
Debate Round No. 2
greatdebater_1

Con

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

My opponents arguments have spoken of the poor and not energy. Therefore, his arguments do not stand. His argument does not use facts and statistics to support his own words. His whole case is based on his own logic rather than reality. Although he as the pro should affirm the resolution, he negated it ["I believe that debate shouldn't be about affirming some government action that I can't affect,"] thus giving me the win.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

haha I think I'll just end the search for someone that can handle the crazy arguments.

Read my aff.. Debate excludes the poor.

Extend the fact that this exclusion silences an entire social level.. Who votes for debates on here? People rich enough to have constant internet access. We tailor our debates to accommodate those that are rich enough to afford internet access. Our discourse of exclusion and labeling those below us outweighs any imaginary impact any affirmative can ever bring up. We must understand that accommodating ALL of those in our country is key to actually moving our society forward. We cant debate about how we will help the world when an entire group is silenced.

Alternative energy is a major issue to those living in poverty. So many affirmatives argue the fact that "the technology may be more expensive, but it is key to powering our country". Then we pass the plan in an imaginary world, thus believing that plan would work in the real world. When we exclude the poor from our discussions our minds begin to believe that things are good which are really bad, and if the poor were involved on the discussion we would see that.

Of course i said "I believe that debate shouldn't be about affirming some government action that I can't affect" which is why i ran a real world affirmative with real world consequences. How many people read this debate and thought "wow people living in poverty really have it tough" or "wow i never thought about the fact that they are not on this website, and only those rich enough to have internet are". I have shone a light on the face of the poor that are so commonly forgotten, and have created even a little real world change. We may now be more open to donations, social programs, surveying the thoughts of the poor when finding a solution to an issue (alternative energy will surely be one).

The argument is beatable with only a few words. But the negative didn't even try. Don't let her win just because she complained. At least explain WHY it is important that we talk about alternative energy and alternative energy only, not an underlying issue that can help the alternative energy fight in the process. The only framework for evaluating the round brought up by the negative is "he didnt talk about alternative energy, therefore he loses. and his case is based on logic not reality" So lets look to who REALLY presented what is happening in reality.

POOR PEOPLE ARE REALITY. I brought it up in my last speech, an individual testimony on what living in America as a poor American is like. I brought up what is happening in reality, and i have made at least a little change.

Not only that, if you want to evaluate the round based on alternative energy you have to look to the aff also. By allowing poor people into the discussion we will be able to have better ideas on alternative energy, better ways to accommodate all people in the world, not just the rich like today. Therefore my plan of including the poor makes alternative energy better in the future and remains a topical aff. He doesnt not argue the fact that including the poor in to the alternative energy discussion is an incentive for alternative energy. The incentive lies in the fact that more people are involved in the discussion, thus congress will have more pressure to pursue alternative energy

Dont vote for the complaints. Take the arguments made in the round.

To my competitor: You can send me a challenge for the same topic if you want. I will run a completely topical affirmative with absolutely no crazy things going on. I will also go on the neg if you want with no Ks, all straight policy.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Since Pro made no arguments supporting the resolution --the resolution was understandable because the words "alternative energy" were visible -- Pro did not make a prima fascia case. Con would win if he did not show up at all.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
By the contents of my aff, you can see the resolution doesn't matter.
Posted by greatdebater_1 7 years ago
greatdebater_1
Sorry about the resolution. I didnt realize it was cut off. I intended to debate Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. But would you rather debate Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States?
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
the resolution is up for interpretation, its the way debate is, policy especially.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Is nuclear "alternative energy"? How about oil shale? More dams? I suspect you mean "politically correct alternative energy," which is about the only kind discussed these days.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
could you please post the full resolution?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Alexmertens559 7 years ago
Alexmertens559
greatdebater_1fresnoinvasionTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
greatdebater_1fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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
fresnoinvasion
greatdebater_1fresnoinvasionTied
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