engine of souls | forum 2

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Negative Plans Faced
mre


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 350
Date:
Negative Plans Faced


Negatives!!  Detail, by stock issue, the plans you faced.  No fact is too small.  Put everything you remember here.

__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:

Negative Plans Faced

Negatives!!  Detail, by stock issue, the plans you faced.  No fact is too small.  Put everything you remember here.

Darren and i faced only one debate. the debate between us and bishop connely was about solar power.

by stock issue:

there was topicality
their inherency was a structural barrier
their need for change was green house gas emissions
they didnt have reliable sources


__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Date:

Hello Everyone!

Debate Round One was against Stang D, Matt Guresh and Peter Bratton.

There plan was Nuclear Recycling Plant. (I had no idea what the plan was clearly about until after the debate when i spoke with them.)

Topicality:
We challenged Alternate Energy. They had a definition that stated nuclear was a type of alternate energy. we kept going back and forth but in the end somehow they won that stock issue.
Then we challenged incentives. They wanted to put a 25cent tax on bottled water and the revenue generated from the tax would be used to give only one company the incentives. We argued that its not topical because first of all they are going to tax millions of people and only one company will profit from this. Then again we argued our definition of incentives.

Need:
The affirmatives argued that we don't have a lot of coal or oil and what will happen if we run out and said that same thing can happen with plutonium, that's why our plan calls for a 7 billion dollar budget and we want to give it to 1 of the 20 companies who are showing interest in creating a Nuclear Recycling Plant.
We didn't really attack Need as much.

Inherency:
I don't remember their inherency but it was a law that said US can't dispose nuclear waste in America and we would have to send it to France but there is great danger in transporting nuclear waste. Therefore we want to create Nuclear Recycling Plants.

Workability:
The cost of the plan was 7 billion, lasting about 5-10 years, 400 million per year. The funding will come from a 25 cent tax on bottled water. I asked them who will enforce this plan, i didn't get a clear answer, they said the company will take care of everything. There plan did not have any specific details such as how many people it would take to run the plants, how much the workers will be getting paid, repairing cost etc.
We argued that the affirmative team does not have any specifics, therefore there estimate can be wrong.(Again during this debate I was not in the zone, so I don't know the details on what I argued.)

Advantages:
This stock issue along with inherency was overlooked by the affirmative and negatives.


In my opinion, the two affirmative debaters were pretty good but they were bad at cross ex. During the cross ex they asked me to read about 3 different quotes,( did not know what the quotes were about) however I refused to read it. In conclusion i believe this plan could of been defeated but I guess i was little too nervous since it was my first negative debate.



T


__________________
T


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Date:

Debate Round Two was against Stang B, Christina Wood and Adrienne Caiado

This plan was also about Nuclear Power Plants.

Topicality:
We argued nuclear is not an alternate energy. Our definition came from the US DOE website while there definition came from a former judge. So we said that their definition is more of an opinion from a person rather then a definition. They attacked by saying the judge decided this in a court case therefore it is valid. We argued that the definition was from 1994, words get updated damn it!

Need:
The need was global warming and CO2. I think in the cross ex i had her admit that global warming was a myth and she never attacked back.

Inherency:
This stock issue was well argued by Moussa and I. They took a poll from a group of people and the results were as such : 60% refused to create Nuclear Power Plant and 40% wanted it. So they argued that there is an attitudinal barrier. Then they say the company who took the poll messed up the first time because the way the phrased the question. but the second time it was argued.
Attack 1: they took a poll from a non credible source.
Attack 2: how many people participated in this poll, who are these people, do they have any background on the pro/con of nuclear power.(none of these questions were answered. and said the poll they took was from US biggest poll company or something)

Workability:
The workability was messy! they had random number and information about funding and cost. They had no idea how much incentives the companies will get. in the cross ex i asked for the cost of funding, answer i got: I dont no on the top of my head.
I asked where will you store the energy, can you store it, how will you transport it, how much energy will be lost in the transportation. They had no answer to these questions! (I don't know how we lost to this plan!!!!)
They said they will store the waste by putting it reallllly deep in the ground will protective casing.
I argued well what if there is an earthquake?
How long will they be there for? What happens if the case gets rusty and starts to leak?
Where will you bury the waste?
They had no answers. Kept saying nothing will happen to the case.
The incentives came in the form of tax breaks to companies who make power plants and they would offer loans to the companies. There i argued that the affirmative is not giving incentives, they are giving loans. And loans are repaid with interest. therefore companies can decide not to make any power plants(and then the affirmatives can not provide prove that the companies will accept their incentives.) The companies will generate less revenue because the have to pay back interest. They can get a loan from banks oversea at low interest rates. they said they have 20 companies interested.

Disadvantage:
They only talked about the advantage in the constructive and last rebuttal. we argued that it would be very dangerous to store waste underground because the waste will be active for 1,000s of years and something might happen and there will be a catastrophe.
The US will generate less revenue from the taxes, that money can be used for something else better.


This team wasn't as strong, I don't know why we didn't win this one. They were bad during the cross ex. There plan had no specifics and we strongly argued each of the stock issues. The affirmatives did not have any attacks on our arguments, i was disappointed last Wednesday.

Good LucK Everyone!

__________________
T
mre


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 350
Date:

fahimmulti wrote:

Negative Plans Faced



Negatives!!  Detail, by stock issue, the plans you faced.  No fact is too small.  Put everything you remember here.

Darren and i faced only one debate. the debate between us and bishop connely was about solar power.

by stock issue:

there was topicality
their inherency was a structural barrier
their need for change was green house gas emissions
they didnt have reliable sources


Fahim and Darren,

This post does not even come close to the assignment.  Detail the affirmative plan.  I expect more from you.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Date:

furious David and Savanna faced the B Somerset Affermative plan was to increase incentives for hybrid plug in cars.

Need:

They claimed that there was a need for change because of global warmming and it's effects on peoples health. There is no need for change because the alleged claims that global warming is happening are false. The claims that the polar ice caps are melting are vastly exaggerated.

Inherency

Their inherient barrier was that the oil companies are opposed to the production of hybrids. They claimed that the oil companies controlled a certain part that is need for hybrids. This is not an inherient barrier because car companie are already producing hybrid plug-ins and the oil companies have no control over the production. They also said that the federal goverment would not increase incentives for the production of these cars but then they said that the goverment had provided funding for there plan which clearly is to produce incentives for hybrid cars.

Workabilty

The affermative team claimed that their plan will work by reducing carbon emissions that are being reased into the air. They believe that the plan wil work because a hybrid runs on a electric battery for up to 40 miles and then when it runs out of power it will switch over to another energy source such as ethanol or some other source. They said that it takes 8 hours too fully charge the hybrid. The affermative team's plan will not work because after the battery loses power and switches over to another energy which would most likely be gas or another fuel source that will give off carbon emmissions that will not help the enviroment or global warming.

Solvency:

They believe that this plan will help solve the problem of global warmming.
Their plan will not help solve the problem of carbon emmissions because they said that once the battery of

Topicality:

They believe that the planis topical because the goverment has already provided funding and according to polls, the public supports the use of hybrid cars.

During the affermative team's construtives, and rebuttles, they said that they already had the money to put their plan into effdect and they did not give evidence to support this claim. Throughout their plan, the affermatives defined what a hydrid plug- in is and how it is different that a hybrid over and over and the it took up most of their time. During their second construtive, they stated their inherient barrier, which was that oil companies oppose the production of of hybrid plug-ins at the risk of losing business, and that the oil companies controlled the production of of a certian part of the car that it needs to run.  penny is the bomb! But later on in their second rebuttle, they claimed that the oil companies were not a threat.

-- Edited by Savanna at 19:00, 2008-12-08

-- Edited by Savanna at 01:52, 2008-12-09

__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:

Negative Plans Faced


Negatives!!  Detail, by stock issue, the plans you faced.  No fact is too small.  Put everything you remember here.
      
        Darren and i faced only one debate. the debate between us and bishop connely was about solar power.

By Stock Issue:

Topicality: the affirmative had a loose case on topicality.

Need: they really didn't
attack gas emmisions which could have a great need for the affirmatives, and they also didn't present strong, reliable sources which could back up their plan significantly.

Inherency: the affirmative team admitted that they didnt really have an inherent barrier. they presented quotes that the american people all loved it and approved it but their problem was that the federal government didnt have any  people to regulate their system to give people tax credits. but when challenged by the negative team, they couldnt support themselves at all whatsoever, they in fact evaded the problem.

workability: their workability was mediocare, they did not explain how solar panels operated. when asked does the making of solar panels release gas emmisions, they said no and presented no evidence otherwise.

solvency: the aff. team stated that they cannot solve the problem. only make it better.

disadvantages: the disadvantages were they cannot solve the problem, no credible sources besides the " new york times" and " mr. al gore".




-- Edited by fahimmulti at 19:05, 2008-12-08

-- Edited by fahimmulti at 19:06, 2008-12-08


-- Edited by fahimmulti at 19:07, 2008-12-08

__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:

The first debate was between us and cohassett school.

Fahim was first negative
Darren was second negative

The plan we faced was ocean energy.

the affirmative team had a budget of 3 billion dollars.
they wanted to convert 3 states out of the whole U.S. into their plan.
they lacked evidence and sources but yet won the debate.

Topicality: they would substantially increase incentives in Ocean Energy Plan.

Need: too much carbon emmisions from machinery
























__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:

First debate: fahim and darren faced wind power. the faced the school Hingham.

Plan:wind power
Need: global warming is erupted by gas emmisions which we proved wrong by presenting many quotes.
Workability/solvency: their plan wasnt workable because they lacked sources and evidence and they relied very much on so called global warming.
Disadvantages: their whole plan contained flaws and lack of sources and evidence, i just dont know how they won.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard