kirks negative topic lecture notes

7/30/2019 Kirks Negative Topic Lecture Notes

1/4

Kirks Negative Topic Lecture Notes

Posted June 23rd, 2012 by admin. 0 Comments

NEG ARGS LECTURE NOTES DOWNLOAD LINK

Economy Disads

Energy/Commodity Price Disads

Transportation Industry Disads

Energy/Commodity Price Disads-Energy (oil, coal, natural gas):

-Other natural resources (steel, copper, other commodities)

Building stuff consumes resources. Making transportation more efficient means more

transportation that consumes resources.

Supply and Demand

Transportation Industry Disads

-Auto, shipping, rail

Infrastructure makes economic activity easier. Thus, any infrastructure project willa) Increases/Locks in current patterns economic activity

b) Disrupt those patterns

c) Both

Example A High Oil Prices Bad Disad Plan increases energy consumption:If you improve highways, people drive more. If you improve ports, there will be more

shipping. This increases demand for oil, which would drive up priceHigh Oil Prices

Bad because they increase funding for international terrorism-Even improvements in security can effect consumptionFor example, safer ports makes

shipping cheaper by decreasing insurance costs.

Example B1 High Oil Prices Good Disad

Plan decreases energy consumption by-making transportation more efficient

-decreasing high consumption sq modes transport (e.g., cars)

High Oil Prices Good because they stabilize oil dependent regimes (Russia, SaudiaArabia)

Example B2 Auto Industry Disad

Transportation Apartheid claims to shift away from car-centrismThat hurts the auto

industry, which kills economy/heg
http://utdebatecamp.com/2012/kirks-negative-topic-lecture-notes/http://utdebatecamp.com/2012/kirks-negative-topic-lecture-notes/#commentshttp://utdebatecamp.com/wp-content/uploads/NEG-ARGS-LECTURE.docxhttp://utdebatecamp.com/2012/kirks-negative-topic-lecture-notes/http://utdebatecamp.com/2012/kirks-negative-topic-lecture-notes/#commentshttp://utdebatecamp.com/wp-content/uploads/NEG-ARGS-LECTURE.docx


2/4

Example C: Inland waterways claims to help shipping and hurt land transport (auto, rail),

decreasing net energy consumption

-High Oil Prices Good Disad because decreases prices-Industry Disad: Hurt Auto, Rail

Links come DIRECTLY from shifts in transportation patterns and INDIRECTLY fromshifts in economy 3 Levels

-building infrastructure-effects on transportation patterns

-how that effect other economic activity

These Disads can be tricky because the optimal version to run will vary widely from caseto caseBut that specificity can be a strategic benefit if you can get ahold of the

intricacies.

Most affirmatives are more prepared for more generic disads like Politics.

Spending DAPlan spends money!

-Direct spending

-Requires more spending down the road (cost overruns, builds demand for new projects)

-Opens the Floodgates-Perception of Fiscal Discipline

Spending money is bad

Short Term: Business Confidence Perceptions of runaway deficit hurts confidence,stifling recovery

Long Term: Fiscal Crisis: Deficits crash the economy through

-financial panic-high interest rates-inflation

Spending money is OK/good

Short Term

-Keynesian Stimulus: Deficit spending is good because sq economy lacks demand-No short-term deficit issue

-Confidence Fairy

Long term-Spend money to make money

-Deficit is sustainable

-Alt Caus

Is link short-term or long-term? How does that connect with internal-link story?For example, Business Confidence is a short-term scenario, so link turns claiming plan

saves money in long run may not be relevant.


3/4

Privates CP

Instead of government run/funded transportation projects, unleash the power of the

market!Does it make sense for private corporations to own/build the infrastructure build by the

plan?

Mechanisms

-Public private partnerships-Private Contractors

Tax incentives, grants to corporations (e.g., Port Security CP)

-Collect fees (e.g., tollroads, meters, port fees)-Infrastructure Bank (to states, localities, private corporations)

-Tax incentives best for contexts where already corporations controlling infrastructure

(e.g., rail)

-Public private partnerships are best for security/functionality Corporation do x

-Infrastructure Bank works best for large general upgrade policies

Net Benefits

-Spending: privates cheaper

-Red Tape: Govt projects bogged down because of bureaucracy-Politics: politicians love corporations, especially GOP

-Coercion: Government owned roads violate rights

Ecology kritiksLinks

-Instrumentalize Nature: Treat nature as

-infrastructure (waterways)-resource (earth dug up for pavement)-object sacrificable to infrastructure needs (clear forests for highway)

-Unsustainable Economy: Increase/Assume consumption and transportation patterns

destructive to natural world-Anthropocentrism (human centrism)

-Prioritize human interests (e.g., Transportation Apartheid subordinates nature used for

infrastructure to project of human liberation)-Treat Nature as Human Life Support System (e.g., global warming impact only views

ecological destruction as bad insofar as it threatens human survival)

Impacts

-Ecocide Humans consume the earth, collapsing the ecosystems sustaining (more-than-human) life

-Ethics: Anthropocentric valuation is wrong

-Interconnection-Arbitrary Species Bias

-Kritik of Cost Benefit Analysis


4/4

-Anthropocentrism root cause of impacts: Humanism key to denigration of difference,

interspecies violence key to intraspecies violence

Alternatives:-Ecological Ethics

-Political Ecology: Politicize the plan instrumentalization of nature-Personal Consumption/Transportation Habits

K top-down planningAffirmative assumes infrastructure can be controlled through top down planning.

Specifically the 1AC

-Imagines policy enacted through fiat, ignoring bureaucratic networks that undermineplan

-Predicts future transportation patterns (but effects are unknowable, especially amidst

complexity)

-Assumes transportation risks can be controlled (e.g., terrorism) but new

dangers/vulnerabilities are always emerging

Impact

-Takes-out Solvency/Impacts

-Sovereign Ordering (e.g, Biopower)

Alternative

-Embrace uncertainty

-More real world relationship to actual planning

kirks negative topic lecture notes

Documents