Round Report in Debate Central #2

2008 Greenhill Fall Classic
Affirmative: Kinkaid
Negative: Westminster
1AC

The affirmative team argued that current energy production hurts minority and poor communities. Minorities are exposed to a dangerous environment because energy plants are located close to their homes. The plan funds incentives for renewable energy in low income and minority areas. They argued that we have an obligation to act to decrease the suffering of minority and low income people in the status quo. They note that renewable energy will create 40 million jobs and benefit poor communities economically.
Negative Strategy
Topicality: The negative argued that

the word "necessary" in the plan was too vague and made the affirmative a moving target. The affirmative responded that there is no resolutional basis for this argument. In addition, there are plenty of offensive arguments available for the negative.
ASPEC: The negative argued that the one key way to get change is to discuss the mechanisms and institutions that can affect change. They argued that the affirmative failed to do this. The affirmative said that this was an unpredictable burden. They also argued that it is infinitely regressive. The negative could always require them to be more specific. Debates about agents decrease education because we do not discuss the topic.
India Deal: The negative argued that the India Deal will pass in the status quo and that it is massively unpopular. If Bush passed the affirmative plan, he would not have enough political capital to pass the India Deal. The negative argued that the India Deal was key to United States-India relations. The affirmative read numerous cards that argued that the India Deal will not pass in the status quo.
Elections: The negative argued that Obama is currently ahead, but by a slim margin. The plan is popular and would allow McCain to capitalize on its success. Obama is key to a Middle East peace agreement. The affirmative read evidence that McCain will win in the November elections. They argued that their evidence is better because it is an aggregate of several polls. They also argued that Obama will not get a peace agreement in his term because of his other priorities.
Counterplan: The negative read a states counterplan. They argued that state policy making is good because it mobilizes people at a local level and increases democratic participation. Democratic participation is key to implementation and sustainability of the plan. They also argued that centralization of power in the federal government is harmful because it is too big. The affirmative made a plan flaw argument because the negative's plan used a comma instead of the word "and" between "low income" and "minority." They also argued that only congress can solve the problem. If the states implemented the plan, it would violate the commerce clause. Also, states would raise money by increasing the sales tax. Regressive taxes harm minorities.
The negative went for the counterplan.
The decision was a 3-0 for the affirmative.
The judges commented that they voted affirmative because the negative changed the text of their counterplan in the 2NC and became a moving target by clarifying that they would not raise sales taxes to pay for projects.

Best Regards: MBEC's Team