Kirks Negative Topic Lecture Notes

Posted June 23rd, 2012 by admin. 0 Comments NEG ARGS LECTURE NOTES DOWNLOAD LINK

Economy Disads Energy/Commodity Price Disads Transportation Industry Disads Energy/Commodity Price Disads -Energy (oil, coal, natural gas): -Other natural resources (steel, copper, other commodities) Building stuff consumes resources. Making transportation more efficient means more transportation that consumes resources. Supply and Demand Transportation Industry Disads -Auto, shipping, rail Infrastructure makes economic activity easier. Thus, any infrastructure project will a) Increases/Locks in current patterns economic activity b) Disrupt those patterns c) Both Example A High Oil Prices Bad Disad Plan increases energy consumption: If you improve highways, people drive more. If you improve ports, there will be more shipping. This increases demand for oil, which would drive up priceHigh Oil Prices Bad because they increase funding for international terrorism -Even improvements in security can effect consumptionFor example, safer ports makes shipping cheaper by decreasing insurance costs. Example B1 High Oil Prices Good Disad Plan decreases energy consumption by -making transportation more efficient -decreasing high consumption sq modes transport (e.g., cars) High Oil Prices Good because they stabilize oil dependent regimes (Russia, Saudia Arabia) Example B2 Auto Industry Disad Transportation Apartheid claims to shift away from car-centrismThat hurts the auto industry, which kills economy/heg

Example C: Inland waterways claims to help shipping and hurt land transport (auto, rail), decreasing net energy consumption -High Oil Prices Good Disad because decreases prices -Industry Disad: Hurt Auto, Rail Links come DIRECTLY from shifts in transportation patterns and INDIRECTLY from shifts in economy 3 Levels -building infrastructure -effects on transportation patterns -how that effect other economic activity These Disads can be tricky because the optimal version to run will vary widely from case to caseBut that specificity can be a strategic benefit if you can get ahold of the intricacies. Most affirmatives are more prepared for more generic disads like Politics. Spending DA Plan spends money! -Direct spending -Requires more spending down the road (cost overruns, builds demand for new projects) -Opens the Floodgates -Perception of Fiscal Discipline Spending money is bad Short Term: Business Confidence Perceptions of runaway deficit hurts confidence, stifling recovery Long Term: Fiscal Crisis: Deficits crash the economy through -financial panic -high interest rates -inflation Spending money is OK/good Short Term -Keynesian Stimulus: Deficit spending is good because sq economy lacks demand -No short-term deficit issue -Confidence Fairy Long term -Spend money to make money -Deficit is sustainable -Alt Caus Is link short-term or long-term? How does that connect with internal-link story? For example, Business Confidence is a short-term scenario, so link turns claiming plan saves money in long run may not be relevant.

Privates CP Instead of government run/funded transportation projects, unleash the power of the market! Does it make sense for private corporations to own/build the infrastructure build by the plan? Mechanisms -Public private partnerships -Private Contractors Tax incentives, grants to corporations (e.g., Port Security CP) -Collect fees (e.g., tollroads, meters, port fees) -Infrastructure Bank (to states, localities, private corporations) -Tax incentives best for contexts where already corporations controlling infrastructure (e.g., rail) -Public private partnerships are best for security/functionality Corporation do x -Infrastructure Bank works best for large general upgrade policies Net Benefits -Spending: privates cheaper -Red Tape: Govt projects bogged down because of bureaucracy -Politics: politicians love corporations, especially GOP -Coercion: Government owned roads violate rights Ecology kritiks Links -Instrumentalize Nature: Treat nature as -infrastructure (waterways) -resource (earth dug up for pavement) -object sacrificable to infrastructure needs (clear forests for highway) -Unsustainable Economy: Increase/Assume consumption and transportation patterns destructive to natural world -Anthropocentrism (human centrism) -Prioritize human interests (e.g., Transportation Apartheid subordinates nature used for infrastructure to project of human liberation) -Treat Nature as Human Life Support System (e.g., global warming impact only views ecological destruction as bad insofar as it threatens human survival) Impacts -Ecocide Humans consume the earth, collapsing the ecosystems sustaining (more-thanhuman) life -Ethics: Anthropocentric valuation is wrong -Interconnection -Arbitrary Species Bias -Kritik of Cost Benefit Analysis

-Anthropocentrism root cause of impacts: Humanism key to denigration of difference, interspecies violence key to intraspecies violence Alternatives: -Ecological Ethics -Political Ecology: Politicize the plan instrumentalization of nature -Personal Consumption/Transportation Habits K top-down planning Affirmative assumes infrastructure can be controlled through top down planning. Specifically the 1AC -Imagines policy enacted through fiat, ignoring bureaucratic networks that undermine plan -Predicts future transportation patterns (but effects are unknowable, especially amidst complexity) -Assumes transportation risks can be controlled (e.g., terrorism) but new dangers/vulnerabilities are always emerging Impact -Takes-out Solvency/Impacts -Sovereign Ordering (e.g, Biopower) Alternative -Embrace uncertainty -More real world relationship to actual planning