Icebreakers Case Neg ddi 2012



Download 455.42 Kb.
Page1/11
Date conversion28.01.2017
Size455.42 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Icebreakers Case Neg DDI 2012

Contents


Notes 1

Topicality 1

1NC Investment 2

1/2NC Create 3

Ext. “Investment” = Capital Expenditures (1/2) 4

Ext. “Investment” = Capital Expenditures (2/2) 5

Ext. Capital Expenditure = New Assets (1/1) 6

AT//Maintenance / Repairs (1/1) 7

AT//Short-Term Fixes (1/1) 8

1NC Infrastructure 10

Ext. “TI” Excludes Other Forms (General) (3/4) 11

Ext. “TI” Excludes Other Forms (General) (4/4) 12

AT//Coastal Defense (1/1) 13

AT//Military Infrastructure (1/1) 14

Err Negative – 1st Line (1/1) 16

Competing Interpretations Good – 1st Line (1/1) 17

Fairness 1st (1/1) 18

Limits Good (1/1) 19

Ext. Limits Good (1/1) 20

Framers’ Intent Good (1/2) 21

Framers’ Intent Good (2/2) 22

AT//Aff Flexibility (1/1) 23

AT//Breadth > Depth (1/1) 24

AT//Literature Checks Abuse (1/1) 25

AT//Clash Checks Abuse (1/1) 26

AT//Disclosure Checks Abuse (1/1) 27

AT//Not a Voting Issue (1/1) 28

AT//Reasonability (1/1) 29

Shipping Lanes 29

1NC F/L 30

2NC Econ High ext 34

2NC Collapse Inev ext 35

2NC Hurts Enviro ext 39

2NC GW ext 40

Naval Power 42

1NC F/L 43

2NC Coop W/Russia 45

2NC No Conflict 46

Arctic Science 46

1NC F/L 47

2NC Not Real ext 50

2NC Adapt Now ext 53

2NC Disease ext 54

Oil Spills 55

2NC Shell 57

2NC Ecosystems Resil 58

Solvency 58

2NC Coop w/Canada 60

2NC 2 Not enough 61

2NC No Jurisdiction 62

CPs 62

Russia Do the Plan 63



2NC O/V 64

2NC General Solvency 65

2NC Oil Solvency 67

2NC IF Good 68

2NC Perm: DB 69

2NC Perm: Do the CP 70

2NC PICs Good 71

2NC No Jurisdiction 72

DAs 72

Spending 73



2NC Generic Links 76

Politics 80

2NC Links 83




Notes


I think the 2NR should be the Russia CP and the Spending DA (or possibly politics, although that might create some issues since the impact is based off of US/Russia Relations). You could also go for T-investment, since their plan text doesn’t mandate an investment in transportation infrastructure.
GW adv: Note that it operates on the assumption that GW is inevitable (we’ve already passed the brink) and should just adapt to it.

Topicality

1NC Investment

(A.) Interp -“Investment” requires capital expenditure


Anderson 6

(Edward, Lecturer in Development Studies – University of East Anglia, et al., “The Role of Public Investment in Poverty Reduction: Theories, Evidence and Methods”, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 263, March, http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/1786.pdf)

1.3 Definitions We define (net) public investment as public expenditure that adds to the public physical capital stock. This would include the building of roads, ports, schools, hospitals etc. This corresponds to the definition of public investment in national accounts data, namely, capital expenditure. It is not within the scope of this paper to include public expenditure on health and education, despite the fact that many regard such expenditure as investment. Methods for assessing the poverty impact of public expenditure on social sectors such as health and education have been well covered elsewhere in recent years (see for example, van de Walle and Nead, 1995; Sahn and Younger, 2000; and World Bank, 2002).

( ) That means you have to be new infrastructure – repair and maintenance affs aren’t topical


Law Depot 8

(“Capital Expenditure”, 2-6, http://wiki.lawdepot.com/wiki/Capital_Expenditure)

Definition of "Capital Expenditure" Capital expenditure is money spent to acquire or upgrade (improve) long term assets such as property, buildings and machinery. Capital expenditure does not include the cost to merely repair such assets.
B. Violation – the affirmative doesn’t mandate investment in infrastructure to create shipping lanes.

Vote negative for limits and ground – not requiring the affirmative to invest in infrastructure permits them to evade links to core DAs and allows the negative to defend minor-repair affirmatives for which no meaningful link uniqueness exists.

1/2NC Create

Create does not mean invest


Merriam-Webster (“create”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create)

1: to bring into existence 2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior 3 : cause, occasion 4 a : to produce through imaginative skill b : design

Note: “invest with” is distinct from “invest in”

Ext. “Investment” = Capital Expenditures (1/2)

( ) Not all spending is investment. Only capital expenditure is topical and requires new projects


Becker ‘8

(Werner, Deutsche Bank Research, et al., “Improving the Quality of Public Finances – The Road Ahead”, 2-5, http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000220498.PDF)

With regard to the effects of public spending on growth, a distinction is traditionally made between current government consumption expenditure (on, say, the compensation of government employees) and capital expenditure geared to the future (on infrastructural projects such as transport, utility supply and communications systems). Government consumption spending is frequently generalised as unproductive, whereas public capital expenditure is regularly labelled as growth-enhancing investment in the future. When assessing the growth effects of public spending, however, this simplistic approach needs reexamining. There are some kinds of public spending that, while reported as capital expenditure, do not count as productive investment in the economic sense. Empirical surveys show that substantial growth effects can normally be expected only from infrastructure investment. But over the past 25 years this has accounted for a mere quarter to a third of total government investment.13 Ultimately, the simple equation “more public investment equals more growth” has been undermined in Germany by the very broad interpretation of the debt rule in Article 115 of the Basic Law.14 Although the rule stipulates that net new borrowing by the Federal government must not exceed public investment expenditure, in many years the government has departed from this principle – most recently in each of the years from 2002 to 2006 –, taking as its justification the disturbance in macroeconomic equilibrium. Public spending and public debt rose, but in most cases growth remained anaemic. A problem here is the relatively broad definition of public investment.

( ) This applies to transportation investment as well


Berechman 2

(Yossi, Professor of Public Policy – Tel Aviv University, Transport and Economic Development, p. 114)

4.1. Basic definitions In the present context, "transportation investment" is defined as a capacity improvement or addition to an existing network of roads, rail, waterways, huh terminals, tunnels, bridges, airports and harbors. The concept of "resultant economic growth" is further considered to mean the long-run increase in economic activity in a given geographical area, which can be ascribed to a specific transport investment and which confers welfare improvements to the area's residents. Additionally, as explained later, it is also required that the growth benefits will be in addition to the direct transportation benefits from the investment and not merely their capitalised value. Tin's latter condition is a fundamental one. fully discussed in section 5.2.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2016
send message

    Main page