{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

213 CM RPS Case Neg - RPS Neg DDI 2008 ...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RPS Neg DDI 2008 <Clark/Martin>    Thejas TOC: RPS NEG TOC: RPS NEG .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Topicality (RPS) (Incentives ≠ mandates) .............................................................................................................. 2 CP: States ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Neg CP XT ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Eco-Managerialism K Link ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Coal DA: link ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Politics DA .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Wind DA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Frontline: Climate Change ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Frontline: Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Frontline 3: Solvency ................................................................................................................................................ 15 XT1- Fed Bad(Flexibility) ........................................................................................................................................ 17 XT2 :Federal RPS pre-empts***** ........................................................................................................................ 19 XT3: Fed RPS ineffective ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Aff Ans: State CP ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 AFF CP ANS: Specific Alt Energy ......................................................................................................................... 23 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RPS Neg DDI 2008 <Clark/Martin>    Thejas Topicality (RPS) (Incentives   mandates)  1. Interpretation: Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange – alternative energy must be part of the exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive Geoff Thale , associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 19 98 (ch 7 Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm) The Nature of Incentives It is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of incentives that are being offered and the context in which they are offered. In its simplest form, an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if the recipient engages in some specified behavior . Another more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers a good directly related to the desired outcome --when, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient design and implement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire, the ''good'' being offered, but may engage in the desired behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will greatly influence the strength of the recipient's commitment to carry out the desired behavior when the inevitable problems and complications occur. 2. Violation: The Aff mandates a desired outcome, and manadates are not incentives. Standards 3. Predictable Limits – The aff under-limits and allows for any case to be topical. If allowed, the fed can mandate anything for alt energy incentives. This explodes the neg burden of researching and developing a coherent strategy. The neg’s interpretation limits the aff cases and allows for a more coherent debate 4. Bright Line – The aff’s interpretation is vague and this blurs the fine line between topical and un-topical cases. The aff can claim that pre-empting the current state programs for a fed program is an incentive inasmuch providing subsidies to companies for increase alt energy use. The neg’s interpretation makes a clear distinction of what an incentive is. 5. Ground – The aff steals negative ground. The aff ‘s plan is essentially the neg’s counter plan. The neg expects the aff to provide incentives while the aff mandates. Consequently, the aff’s interpretation disallows for and even avoids any arguments that the neg comes up with for incentive based plans 6. T is a voter for
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}