SDI 2008 7/17/2008

STP Lab Aff T Blocks

INDEX

Index......................................................................................................................................................... .....1
at: us – subsets............................................................................................................... ..............................2
at: should = expected..................................................................................................................................... 4
at: substantial = 30%............................................................................................................. ........................5
at: increase = make greater........................................................................................................... ................6
at: alt energy inc. not conservation of efficiency......................................................................................... ....8
at: alt energy excludes hydrogen.................................................................................................. .................9
at: incentives = tax breaks.................................................................................................... .......................10
at: incentives not mandatory................................................................................................. .......................11
at: incentive = positive action........................................................................................................... ............12
at: aspec........................................................................................................................................ ..............14

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 1
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: US – SUBSETS

1.We meet – we provide the tax credit to companies in all states and we close the loophole
for every state.

2.Counter-interpretation –
(( insert the random house definition from page 22))

3. We meet counter-interpretation: we provide tax credits to the US as a whole.

4. Counter-standards

a.predictability – our definition is very predictable it is what the world think of what
the United States is.

b.ground – our interpretation provides fair ground for both the aff and the neg.

c. brightline – we provide a specific brightline to what the US is. The neg does not
clarify whether the District of Columbia is in the US.

d. education – with our interpretation we learn about the whole of the united states,
not just a subset of it.

e. context – the neg definition is taken completely out of context. Prefer our definition
– its from a dictionary.

5. Reasonability – our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. Topicality is not a voter

a. T is not apriori – we’ve already proven we’re topical and the judge should now vote
on impacts

b. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we have abused them in-round

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 2
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks

AT: USFG = 3 BRANCHES

1.We meet – we use all 3 branches of the government, the congress passes the bill, the
executive signs it and the court enforces it.

2.Counter-interpretation:

((insert first card from page 21))

3. We meet counter-interp – we use the federal government as a whole.

4. Counter-standards
a. Ground – we provide fair ground for both the aff and the neg by using all 3
branches of government together. The neg still has sufficient DA and CP ground
– they just ran ((insert))

b. Predictability – our interpretation is the most predictable, its what the world thinks
of as the US government.

c. Education – we provide education about the whole government working together

to pass and enforce a plan.

d. Brightline – we provide a clear brightline as to which part of the 3 branches does

what part of the plan and the neg doesn’t.

5. Reasonability - our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. Topicality isn’t a voter

a. education – if we spend the whole round only discussing whether the plan is
topical or not we will never learn anything
b. potential abuse isn’t a voter – make them prove we’re abusing them in-round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 3
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: SHOULD = EXPECTED

1. We meet – scientists are already expecting that algae will be used and European
companies are expecting the US to close the loophole. We are increasing incentives
for alternative energy use and that is expected.

2. Counter-interpretation:
(( insert card # 2 should=necessary from page 24))

3. We meet our counter-interp. – we must increase incentives for alternative energy or

we will die from our many impacts.

4. Counter-standards

a. Fairness – Their interp forces a debate over whether the USFG will do something.
Debate ought to be about what the government should do normatively. This is critical to aff
ground.

b. Ground—their interpretation limits the topic to only things the Bush administration
is likely to do. This excludes huges portions of the topic.

5. Reasonability - our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. T is not a voter
a. Jurisdiction – it is not within the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on topicality once
we’ve proved we are topical – which we have.

b. Education – debating about topicality limits the amount of education we could

otherwise get in this round.

c. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 4
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: SUBSTANTIAL = 30%
1. We meet – we increase incentives for algae biodiesel by more than 30%

2. Counter-interpretation:
((insert the 4th card substantially = without material quals on page 25))

3. We meet our counter-interp – we increase the incentive substantially

4. Counter-standards
a. Context – your definition is taken completely out of context – the card provides an
example of how application of college students increased by 30% - tis has nothing to
do with alternative energy

b. Limits – their interpretation overlimits us – they place a material qualification on

the word “substantial”.

c. Brightline – they provide no clear brightline as to how much 30% of an incentive is.

5. Reasonability - our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. T is not a voter
a. Jurisdiction – it is out of the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on T after we’ve
proven we’re topical.

b. Education – if we spend the whole round debating T we will never learn anything.

c. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.

d. Clash and lit check debatability.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 5
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: INCREASE = MAKE GREATER
1. We meet – we increase the amount of US companies profiting from the tax credit by
removing the loophole, we also increase the amount of biodiesels allowable for the tax
credit

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert first card increase is to become more numerous from page 26))

3. We meet our counter-interp – we add another biodiesel to the incentive-viable list

4. Counter-standards

a. Brightline – our interpretation provides a clear brightline – we either add another

incentive that does not currently exist or we don’t. The neg doesn’t clarify what kind
an increase it must be, in money, in numbers, ect.

b. Limits – the negative limits us to increasing the amount of money credited. This is
extremely abusive to us because the neg gets it easy researching.

c. Ground – we provide fair ground for both teams. There are enough, but not too
many aff cases and fair neg CP and DA ground.

5. Reasonability – our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. T is not a voter
a. Jurisdiction – it is not under the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on T after we’ve
proved we’re topical – which he have done.

b. Education – We won’t learn anything if we spend the whole round on T

c. Fairness – T is not fair for the affirmative because the neg can always find some
obscure definition that we don’t meet.

d. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 6
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: ALT ENERGY NOT NUCLEAR
1. We meet – we provide incentives for biofuels, not nuclear power.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert 2nd card on page 28))

3. We meet our counter-interpretation – we provide incentives for biofuels, which are not
fossil fuels

4. Counter-standards

a. Context – our interpretation is in context also.

b. Brightline – our interpretation provides a clear brightline – either we provide an

alternative to fossil fuels or we don’t. The negs interpretation doesn’t say whether
fossil fuels are allowed – if they were it would be abusive to both aff and neg.

c. Predictability – our interpretation is predictable – an alternative to fossil fuels is

what most people think of as alternative energy.

5. Reasonability – our interpretation doesn’t have to be the best, it just has to be

reasonable, and our is.

6. T is not a voter

a. Jurisdiction – it is not under the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on T after we’ve
proved we’re topical – which we have done

b. Clash and lit check debatability

c. Education – if we spend the whole round debating T we won’t learn anything.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 7
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: ALT ENERGY INC. NOT CONSERVATION OF EFFICIENCY
1. We meet – we provide an incentive to use biofuels, not conserve them.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert 4th card from 28))

3. We meet our counter-interpretation – we provide incentives to use biofuels instead of

fossil fuels

4. Counter-standards

a. Ours is also a contextual definition – we take it out of a scientific journal about the
environment. Theirs is out of context – its from an article about politics.

b. Limits – the neg definition overlimits the aff, allowing only cases where we must
actually use a new form of energy. Conserving is alternative to what now exists.

c. Brightline – we provide a clear brightline – we must either provide an alternative to

fossil fuels or not. The negative interpretation doesn’t specify whether we are
allowed to have a “just keep using fossil fuels aff”

d. Ground – we provide fair ground for both sides – the neg gets many CPs and
specific biofuels links for DAs.

5. Reasonability – we don’t have to provide the best interpretations, we just have to provide
a reasonable interpretation, and our is.

6. T is not a voter

a. Jurisdiction – it is not under the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on T after we’ve
proved we’re topical – which we have done

b. Education – if we spend the whole round debating T we won’t learn anything.

c. Fairness – our interpretation is much more fair than theirs, and we have proven
that we are topical.

d. potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.
Potential abuse claims are abusive to us.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 8
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: ALT ENERGY EXCLUDES HYDROGEN
1. We meet – we provide incentives to use biofuels, not hydrogen fuels.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert card #4 from page 28))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we provide incentives to use energy alternative to

fossil fuels.

4. Counter-standards

a. Breadth over depth – its better to learn about many different topics that in-depth
on 1 topic. We are in high school, not grad school/

b. Brightline – we provide a clear brightline – either we provide an alternative to fossil

fuels or we don’t. The neg definition just limits out hudrogen and allows for fossil
fuels, which would be abusive to the neg.

c. Our evidence is from a scientific journal – much better than a dictionary. Scientific
journals are peer-reviewed by scientists who specialize in the topic. Also, their
definition isn’t from a dictionary.

d. Ground – our definition provides fair ground for both the aff and the neg. We get
fair plan ground and they get fair CP ground and DA links.

5. Reasonability - we don’t have to provide the best interpretations, we just have to provide
a reasonable interpretation, and ours is.

6. T is not a voter

a. Education – if we spend the whole round on T we won’t learn anything. We also

provide fair ground for education with our interpretation.

b. Fairness – our interpretation is fair. Clash and lit check fairness.

c. Potential abuse isn’t a voter – make them prove we abused them in-round. Voting on
potential abuse is extremely abusive to us.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 9
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks

AT: INCENTIVES = TAX BREAKS

1. We meet – we provide tax credits for companies that make biofuels

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert 1st from page 33))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we provide a positive reward, a tax credit, if companies

produce biofuels

4. Counter-standards

a. predictability – our interpretation is the most predictable, its what most people
believe an incentive is.

b. Brightline – our definitionis clear – either we provide a positive reward or we don’t.

The negatives doesn’t specify exactly what a tax break is and whether it would be
given as a reward or before the alternative energy technology is created

c. Limits – the neg interpretation is overlimiting – they only allow for tax break cases
and kill aff ground in order to give themselves an easier research burden. Good
limits like ours are key to education.

d. Their definition is taken completely out of context – the card is about a tax break to
farmers, not alternative energy producers, in one instance, this does not mean all
incentives are tax breaks.

5. Reasonability - we don’t have to provide the best interpretations, we just have to provide
a reasonable interpretation, and ours is.

6. T is not a voter

a. Jurisdiction – it is not under the jurisdiction on the judge to vote on topicality after
we’ve proven we’re topical – which we have.

b. Education – if we spend the whole debate on T, we wont learn anything in this

round.

c. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abused them in-round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 10
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks

AT: INCENTIVES NOT MANDATORY

1. We meet – we don’t mandate that companies make biofuels, we give them tax credits if
they do.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert #4 from 33))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we provide a positive reward – a tax credit – to those

who produce biofuels.

4. Counter-standards

a. Their definition isn’t contextual – it’s about a staff training law, not alternative
energy. Our definition is from a dictionary, which is reviewed by many specialists,
and is agreed upon by the public.

b. Brightline – we provide a clear brightline to what an incentive is – we either

provide a positive reward or we don’t. The negative doesn’t specify what a mandate
is.

c. Limits – the neg interpretation overlimits us and makes it unfair because the neg
only has to answer a very small number of cases. Good limits are key to education,
and we have good limits that provide good ground.

5. Reasonability – we don’t have to provide the best interpretations, we just have to provide
a reasonable interpretation, and ours is.

6. T is not a voter

a. Fairness – overlimiting us isn’t fair, our interpretation gives fair ground and a fair
shot of winning for both sides.

b. Education – if we spend the whole round debating T we will not learn anything.

c. Jurisdiction – it is not under the jurisdiction of the judge to vote for T after we’ve
proven we’re topical, which we have.

d. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 11
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: INCENTIVE = POSITIVE ACTION

1. We meet – we provide a tax credit to any company that produces biofuels – this is a
positive reward.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert #2 from page 33))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we provide tax credits to increase output of biodiesel

from US companies.

4. Counter-standards

a. Limits – their definition overlimits cases to only include positive rewards, our
definition allows for better neg ground, they have access to more CPs and DA links.

b. Brightline – we provide a clear brightline as to what type of positive influence we

can have and the neg doesn’t.

c. Ground – we provide fair ground for the aff and neg.

5. Reasonability – we don’t have to provide the best interpretation of the resolution, only a
reasonable one, which we do.

6. T is not a voter

a. T is not apriori – since we’ve proven we’re topical the judge should consider the
impacts in the round first.

b. Jurisdiction – it’s not under the jurisdiction of the judge to vote on T after we’ve
proven we’re topical, which we have.

c. Education – if we spend the whole round on T we won’t learn anything.

d. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we have abused them in round.
Potential abuse is extremely abusive to us – voted down for something that could
happen in another round.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 12
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: IN THE US = 50 STATES
1. We meet – we provide a tax credit to any company, operating in any state or in the entire
country, that produce biofuels.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert #1 page 22))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we provide an incentive to any company in the 50

states, D.C. or the US territories, as long as the company is based in these places.

4. Counter-standards

a. Limits – the neg interpretation overlimits us, allowing only for cases that are in the
50 states and not in the territories or D.C.

b. Ground – we provide fair ground for the aff and the neg, the neg gets good CP and
DA links.

c. Brightline – we provide a clear brightine as to wat is in the United States and what
isn’t. The neg doesn’t specify if D.C. is in the US.

5. Reasonability – we don’t have to provide the best interpretation of the resolution, we just
have to provide a reasonable one, and we do.

6. T is not a voter

a. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.
Potential abuse is abusive to the aff because we are voted down for something that
only might happen in another round.

b. Education – if we spend the whole round on T we won’t learn anything.

c. We provide fair limits and ground, and thus a fair shot at winning for each team.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 13
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: ASPEC
1. We meet – congress is the only actor that can do the plan because it literally says to
pass a congressional bill.

2. Counter-interpretation
((insert from 3branches shell, p 2))

3. We meet counter-interpretation – we use the entire USFG.

4. Counter-standards

a. Ground – we provide fair ground for the neg for CPs and DA links. We also provide
fair ground for ourselves.

b. Limits – the neg interpretation limits us to a plan that can be done only by one
agent. A system of checks and balances doesn’t allow this – if congress passes a
bill, the president must sign it, and the court must enforce it.

c. We do not move our target, we stick consistently with the USFG throughout the
round.

d. Their interp justifies agent C-P. Agent C-Ps are bad they steal aff ground and eliminate our ability
to make offense. Bad for ed because we are overly focused on process.

5. T is not a voter
a. Potential abuse is not a voter – make them prove we abuse them in-round.
Potential abuse is abusive to the aff because we are voted down for something that
only might happen in another round

b. also for fairness and education.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 14
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT: OSPEC
1. We meet – we use all 3 branches. Congress passes, president signs, and the Court
oversees.

2. No ground loss – they get all links of federal action, including spending and politics

3. Overspecification increases neg ground – mean they can access things like executive
order CPs.

4. Overspecification increases education – comparing the different branches teaches us

the workings of government processes, which trains us to be better policy makers.

5. Cross-x checks – we would have specified

6. Not a voting issue unless actual abuse can be proven.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 15
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
at: fx

This is in the neg t file, page 17

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 16
SDI 2008 7/17/2008
STP Lab Aff T Blocks
AT:EXTRA T
This is in the neg T file, page 19.

“Antisocialism as in the practice of not being social or the practice of being against socialism?” 17