T- Its = gov development

Question 1

w/m

Answer 1

They don’t meet- They aren’t direct federal venture into the ocean to develop it:

a) The aff “mandate offshore wind power” and “require revisions” which is only a guideline on how to approach development NOT an actual federal project
b) The text also says they “increase incentives for offshore wind power development” which in no way INCREASES development

At best they are extra topical because they establish framework but also independently provides incentives for the private sector, which is distinct from establishing regulations.

Voting issue for predictability and topic specific education – Resolution becomes meaningless when different planks are allowed on affs, which destroys education of the resolution that changes every year.

Question 2

c/i privates

Answer 2

Prefer McNutt – Most predictable:

a) Literary consensus - She cites a consensus that MANY perceives direct federal exploration and development as distinct from those carried out by government incentivized private actors
b) Precision - She defines ocean development/exploration in context of INCREASING federal involvement while their counter interpretation is only a snapshot explanation of status quo policy and not at all descriptive of the process of increasing it which is arbitrary at best

Their interpretation justifies affs like the federal government reducing ship subsidies so a yacht company can send out exploration projects

Including private sector incentives creates bad debates- cross apply the standards from the overview

Question 3

c/i associated w/

related to

Answer 3

“It’s” mandates direct ownership of the development/exploration program – that’s Glossary of English terms-

Prefer McNutt – Most predictable:

a) Literary consensus - She cites a consensus that MANY perceives direct federal exploration and development as distinct from associated with government incentivized private actors
b) Precision - She defines ocean development/exploration in context of INCREASING federal involvement while their counter interpretation is only a snapshot explanation of status quo policy and not at all descriptive of the process of increasing it which is arbitrary at best

Their interpretation justifies affs like the federal government signing a contract with the fed ex of the sea or doing something in the great lakes because they are are related to the ocean development

Including anything associated with the federal government creates bad debate- cross apply the standards from the overview

Question 4

reasonability

Answer 4

Prefer competing interpretations –

1) Best for education – We can’t learn about the resolution if we can’t debate about the wordings of it
2) No race to the bottom – That was the standards debate
3) They aren’t reasonable – They are either topical or they aren’t – Bright line checks
4) Reasonability means that they are equally unreasonable – vote neg on presumption

Question 5

over limiting

Answer 5

Over-limiting is key to education – in depth discussions are most useful and the alternative is teams reading generics every round – this internal link turns their stale debate arguments

No link:

1. Our interpretation allows for a stable number of affs within the categories – Here’s a caselist:

• Any direct actions from federal agencies like the Coast Guard
• Some energy affs such as offshore NUCLEAR power which has to be under federal maintenance
• Ice breakers creating trade lanes over ice, which is a federal project because international sea trade requires government mandates

2. Topical version of the plan checks
3. If we win predictability, it proves that overlimiting lies in the fault of the resolution not neg abuse
4. Plenty of direct federal exploration affs
   McNutt 13 - chair of the Ocean Exploration 2020 group (Marcia, “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020” http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf)
   toward a national program of ocean exploration Ocean Exploration 2020 participants agreed that there is a critical need for effective coordination among the federal agencies in all aspects of ocean exploration and research. Likely federal budget ocean exploration allocations for these agencies are too small for independent approaches. The community noted that a national program must be flexible, responsive, and inclusive, and called for NOAA to act as a coordinator and facilitator of all exploration activities. The program must have the means to grow partnerships of all kinds to seize the opportunity—and respond to the urgent need to understand the global ocean. Finally, Ocean Exploration 2020 participants noted the value of this National Forum and the need for regular opportunities for the community of ocean explorers to come together. Maintaining the momentum from Ocean Exploration 2020 is critical, and NOAA and its partners need to take advantage of all opportunities to capture the energy and maintain the commitment of the ocean exploration community.

Even if, underlimiting is worse – Neg predictability is more important than Aff predictability because even if we overlimit, the aff will always be ready to debate since they choose the focus of the debate.

Question 6

ov

Answer 6

The aff’s not topical, it involves private sector development, but not development explicitly linked to the federal government – our argument has a robust resolutional basis, the word “its” requires that the development belong to the federal government and McNutt draws a distinction between our interpretation and theirs. Prefer our interpretation:

1. Neg ground - Allowing incentives creates an unfair, unpredictable advantage ground based on the specific private sector action that should be reserved for counterplans. Also best for education - only our interpretation allows us to test private sector versus USFG action.
2. Limits – the government has over 40 ways to incentivize private sector development – we can’t prepare for all the private sector actions that could result from incentives. Our interpretation limits the mechanism and actor to just the USFG - that’s Moran

Moran lists the abusive aff mechanisms that would be allowed under incentives:
• Tariffs
o The fed can put tariffs on seafood imports which then incentivizes the private sector to develop domestic seafood market
• Tax credits
o The fed can increase the percentage of which they reimburse private sectors with for their investment in the offshore wind project
• Advertisements
o the fed can create and distribute propaganda posters for why we need offshore wind for heg and how it would be beneficial and call that development because it motivates private actors
• AND also justifies NEGATIVE incentives – the fed can literally coerce private agents into initiating ocean policies
• etc – there are 40 more

Question 7

+ Ground

Answer 7

New affs and advantages solve all of their offense

Question 8

+ Innovation

Answer 8

No impact to aff innovation or creativity —- new advantages, internal links, add-ons, and link turns solve.

And cross apply the case list we allow for numerous aff innovation within the categories.

aff innovation should occur at the advantage level not the mechanism level – they can read private actor involvement as an advantage

We internal link turn this with limits – cross apply from standards debate

Question 9

lit check

Answer 9

The literature base is massive on this topic if its not limited at all - T violations set the parameters on where the literature ends

Question 10

sub check

Answer 10

Substantial is ridiculous on this topic- no consensus and lack of tangible metric makes it impossible

Question 11

c/i theirs + our +

Answer 11

We provided a specific interpretation of its and a caselist of topical affs under our interpretation and their aff is not topical under our interpretation – extend from overview.

View this as a counter interpretation – they combine their aff with our caselist and says that they are topical under their new caselist of topical affs.

And disads to their counter-interpretation is applies

In round abuse proves no solvency and topical version of the plan checks

This is intrinsic and steals neg ground by avoiding the link to topicality – Which is independently a voting issue

Question 12

c/i general

Answer 12

Prefer McNutt – Most predictable:

a) Literary consensus - She cites a consensus that MANY perceives direct federal exploration and development as distinct from those carried out by government incentivized private actors
b) Precision - She defines ocean development/exploration in context of INCREASING federal involvement while their counter interpretation is only a snapshot explanation of status quo policy and not at all descriptive of the process of increasing it which is arbitrary at best

AND, prefer limits as the controlling standard of the debate – Multiple implications

a) Key to neg prep - limits enable in depth research which is key to clash — prevents debates from being ships sailing by in the night — even if ground exists we can’t find it in a world in which the topic is so broad
b) Participation - people will quit in a huge topic — this is linear since the larger the topic the harder the research and the more people will quit
c) In depth clash – it’s the difference between hard debate and impossible debate – their interpretation creates a flood of tiny affs that we can never all prepare for - Breadth is inevitable over the course of the year – only our interpretation increases advocacy skills and accesses the pedagogical benefits and that internal link turns their offense and solves decision making
d) Education – Exploding limits causes information overload that leads to at best a superficial understanding of the topic
e) No abuse and even good for the aff – a good limited topic induces aff innovation, so that creativity, while not at the mechanism level can instead occur at the advantage level which still allows them to talk about private sector involvement

Potential abuse is a voter and disregard their generic “no abuse” claims – In-round abuse doesn’t matte and camp creates a unique environment to test aff topicality where non-topical affs losing on T more often is not likely going to be ran during the season

Even if they win the standards debate, if we win that they violate our interpretation and we are predictable, jurisdiction means that topicality is an a priori issue and o/w theoretical offense because they’re all predicated off of the affs not being topical

OFFENSE TO THEIR INTERP