1AR Vinay

OV
Our counterinterp is that economic engagement is the
provision of incentives meant to improve economic
relations between the US and a target country- thats
Haass and Osullivan
They say we dont meet: quoting from Haass
Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties, whether
they be trade embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs that have impeded
economic relations between the United States and the target country .

We definitely meet- the plan is literally a removal of tariffs

Extend Capie- defining the term engagement alone is
really bad because there are so many definitions out
there which leads to confusion and moving targets
Extend reasonability when it comes to T- good is good
enough, competing interps creates a race to the bottom
that limits out substantive policy discussion, killing
education

LBL Their interp

They say Croker provides best definition of engagementthis fails- 1) they gave no reason to prefer, 2) it fails to
define economic engagement as a whole- which is more
contextual- this would be akin to defining people, republic
and china separately rather than defining the PRC as a
whole which makes no logical sense
They say limits- but nowhere do we defend the inclusion
of other organizations- we still limit those involved to the
us and china
They say Rowland- Rowland is a critique of broad
resolutions- not questionably T affs- no offense for
them
Turn underlimiting- forces you to be more creative and
improves second-line argumentation- beneficial to
education
Defense to underlimiting- you still reasonably engaged
the aff- you reading grid, cyberattack, and analytics
against WTO proves
They say Poscher- you still disagreed with us to a
sufficient amount- no b/l to what counts as rigorous and
not- also crossapply above answers
They say ground- their only warrant for why bad ground
kills education is that it makes for bad debates that
nobody wants to hear- two flaws: 1) you can still have a
good debate with generics, 2) just bc nobody wants to
hear your debate doesnt mean that it wasnt educational
They say predictability- disclosure solves- check out the
Mannford wiki
They say Sutter- eliminating tariffs imposed on the PRC is
still interaction- also concedes that engagement is hard to
define precisely- which calls into question the legitimacy
of the Crocker evidence

LBL - Our interp

They say we dont meet our own ci- we did the work
above
They say the ci isnt competitive- definitely resolves their
offense bc were weighing between whether to define
economic engagement or engagement- our aff is
clearly economic (tariffs)
They say Derrick- doesnt apply because 1) it doesnt even
say engagement and 2) doesnt talk about economic
engagement
Extend Capie- engagement has so many definitions which
leads to confusion- 1) they definitely link to the offense
because you try to define engagement, 2) Crocker still
links to Capie- Crocker is whats causing all this confusion,
3) Capie still serves as a DA to your interp
They say Wallin- doesnt link to the CI- we define
economic engagement, not engagement
Extend were only 1 aff- even our logic blows the lid off
topic, it doesnt mean we singlehandedly explode the
number of affs
Extend we dont justify other organizations- our economic
engagement was limited to tariffs against the PRCdoesnt mean we justify the involvement of the UN
Extend link granting- solves ALL of their offense if they
want to complain about not getting enough DA groundwe probably wouldve granted links
Extend reasonablilityThey say its arbitrary w/ no b/l- this is nonu/q- competing
interps is unquantifiable and can also be arbitrary
They say invites judge intervention- nonu/q- judges
intervene all the time with messy flows and impact calc
They functionally concede that reasonability creates a
race to the bottom that limits out substantive policy
discussion which kills education
If we win reasonability- this means you dont vote on T,
we definitely meet our counter-interpretation

They say CI creates better norms- turn- Definitions cant

be set as norms because there are so many different
interpretations for topics. The value of maximally good
interpretations is substantially diminished on topicality
because changing topics prevents the solidification of
norms
They say CI creates better visions of the topic- not trueme losing on T in this debate isnt going to make me
change the 1AC- its going to make me learn how to
debate T better- means CI fails to create better visions.
They say forces substantive policy discussion- definitely
untrue- 1) them spending this much time on T proves that
we lost time discussing the 1AC- 2) There is no such thing
as the best definition because definitions are subject to
contextual and social interpretations that change over
time. Kills education by spending time away from
discussion of 1AC
Reasonability controls i/l to education- ^ work done above
Heres how the T debate breaks down: we definitely meet
our counter-interp, they dont do enough work on
competing interps vs reasonability but we do, link
granting solves all of their ground arguments, their limits
arguments are false because we still limit those involved
to US & China, and its better to define economic
engagement as a whole as opposed to engagementthats Capie and is simply more contextual.

Oil DA
Extend squo solves- Dicker says oil prices goes up b/c
OPEC deal and Perry says Russia is in trouble if oil price
goes down. Means the OPEC deal solves the DA
They say that solar will completely displace oil- but
nowhere in the card does it explicitly say that oil prices
will decrease as a result- 1NC Randall concedes that oil
prices are unpredictable- they may not follow
supply/demand
They say Haug- xapply reasoning above- they dont say
how oil prices will decrease as a result- OPEC solves Haug
Extend Macaskill- Russia-NATO war is inevitable b/c of
NATOs encirclement of Russia which will cause Russia to
expand into Baltic states which are NATO members- they
say war shouldve happened already
Macaskill 16
the events in Crimea have destroyed the post-cold-war settlement and set
the stage for conflict, beginning next year

Its not 2017 yet vinay

They say US checks- not enough presence to deter all of
NATO- also Russia probably doesnt care about what the
US thinks- look at Syria
Heres how the DA debate breaks down: the squo solves
with the OPEC deal and the terminal impact is non-unique.
Theres no reason to vote on the DA.

Condo Bad

OV
Extend neg condo bad- they ceded all of the original shell
so grant no new 2nr responses
1. It destroys 1AR flexibility and provides the neg with
a path of least resistance to the ballot in the later
speeches- skews the round in favor of the neg and
kills fairness
2. Condo encourages late-developing debates where
the negs win percentage is astronomically high- kills
fairness
3. Condo circumvents depth by giving the neg an easy
path to the ballot- kills education b/c depth is k2 to
debates political value

LBL
1. They say k2 neg flex- you dont need to run
everything condo to be strategic- e.g. strategic
undercovering or cool adv cps solve your offense and
offsets aff infinite prep & last speech
2. They say aff strategic thinking- which is i/l to real
world thinking- but where in real life will I have to
decide to spend 2 minutes covering a CP and 3
minutes on a DA- no impact
3. They say most real world- but in congress whenever
you propose a bill, youre expected to defend it- not
just get rid of it after someone makes a good
argument against it- turn- means that congress
demands unconditional advocacy skills
4. They say no in-round abuse bc the 2nr checks- yes in
round abuse- xapply 1 & 3 from above- condo forces
the 1ar to cover everything even at the risk of it
being kicked- fundamentally skews the 2ar b/c we
wont have properly covered it in the 1ar
5. They say all arguments are conditional bc CPs dont
take any more time to answer than T- but that
disregards what happens after the CP is run- if I
spend 3 min in the 1AR answering it and you just kick
out if it later- you moot all the time I spent skewing
the round in your
6. They say reject the arg not the team- 1) no warrant,
2) extend that rejecting the arg is the definition of
condo and its use as a punishment mechanism would
only magnify the abuse
Condo bad o/w all T offense- limits and grounds internally
link to edu & fairness b/c of quality of debate and depth
while condo also circumvents depth b/c of late-developing
debates- however condo has the added abuse of
destroying all 1AR flexibility

Case

OV
Tariffs prevent adoption of solar
This solves grid stability- thats He
Scenario 1 has 2 i/l to extinction:
First- cyberattacks that collapse the grid go nuclearthats tiller
Second- blackouts from instability cause mass meltdown
from failure to cool nuclear plants and then extinctionthats Hodges which they ceded in the block
This o/w on probability b/c of 2 independent links to
extinction
Scenario 2 has 1 i/l to extinction:
Renewables can and will offset fossil fuels which solves
fossil fuel volatility- thats Phillibert and Davis
Davis also says that volatility kills the economy which
serves as the i/l to nuke war which is Tnnesson
This o/w on timeframe- thats Davis- prices are really low
right now and we need to take advantage of this
fluctuation in order to make energy reform (aka the plan)

LBL Grid ADV

They extend Gao- extend Sandry 13- a declassified report
indicates huge risk- they ceded this- TD on Gao
They say Birch- their no impact claim doesnt stem from a
cyberattack and even says we need better defense
hackers
threaten the security of U.S. utilities and industries, and recently penned an
op-ed for the New York Times calling the United States "defenseless" to a
cyber-assault.
James Lewis, director of the technology program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that

They say Leger- but extend 1AC Register- the system is

too centralized- takes out their segmenting args
They say Maness- extend our arguments- extend Sandry
13- terrorists are the biggest threatStates will restrain themselves from crossing the red lines of cyber conflict

They say no cyberattacks have happened yet- extend

Sandry- were really vulnerable
They say Singer- a cyberattack vs Estonia is going to be a
lot different compared to the US- extend Tilford- an attack
vs the US could uniquely escalate to nuclear bc it would
be met with full scale response

LBL Economy ADV

They make some serious concessions when it comes to
evidence comparisons
First the Macdonald vs Tnnesson debate- all they do is
reexplain the warrant- 1) extend that our evidence is
more recent and contextual- this is specific to US-Sino
relations, they say retrenchment- but Tnnesson indicts
this and says that economic decline destabilizes the
economy and make trade relationships unbalanced- which
increases the risk of conflict.
Macdonald says compromise and deterrence- but
Tnnesson indicts this by saying that leaders dont act
sensibly- they act in a manner to protect their nation from
embarrassment- which causes them to not be deterred
and increases risk of nuclear weapon usage
They say Leonhardt- extend Davis- oil contributes 5% of
the worlds GDP and volatility can seriously hurt the
economy b/c it affects a lot of other sectors b/c it can
delay investments, requires reallocation of resources,
reduces spending and slows job growth
Group Bennet & Boehmer- 1) it has no methodology of
how they come to their conclusion, 2) their warrants are
not based on real events, 3) extend Tnnesson- leaders
dont seek to internalize- they blame other countries for
unbalanced relationships, increase nationalism, and
increase anti-foreign sentiment which leads to war
They extend Trainer- they ceded correlation not
causation- so we cant determine if economic growth
CAUSES war- only that its statistically associated which is
not good enough
Trainers stupid therell never be resource shortages
Jackson 7 (Gerard, Brookes News Economic Editor, Apr 16, [http://www.brookesnews.com/071604trainer1.html] AD: 6-23-11,
jam)

If anyone doubts for a moment that Marxism is a cult they need look no further
than Ted Trainer. Full-blooded Marxism has been an utterly brutal failure that
killed more than 100,000,000 people (The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror,
Repression, Harvard University Press,1999) yet Trainer remains so blind to historical facts
that he proposes a Marxism solution to the non-problem of economic growth and natural
resources. According to the learned Mr Trainer: The fundamental cause of the big global problems
threatening us now is simply over-consumption. The rate at which we in rich countries are using up

resources is grossly unsustainable. Its far beyond levels that can be kept up for long or that could be
spread to all people. (The Age, ) Let me first deal with Trainers absurd notion that we are running out

The following table clearly show that from a human perspective

mineral resources are infinite. So much for Trainers easily refuted idea of over-consumption.
of resources.

(In economic theory over-production would be defined as capital consumption). However, what the
above table does not reveal is that resources are basically a function of technology. Oil
was a just a smelly nuisance, a liability that reduced the value of a farmers land. In 1886, when the
Burma Oil Company of Britain first started to commercially pump oil, it bought thousands of barrels of
oil from 24 families at Yenangyaung. In English it means the creek of stinking waters. (James Dale
Davidson & Lord Rees-Mogg, Blood in the Streets, Sidgwick & Jackson Limited, 1988). Farming families
in Pennsylvania experienced the same good fortune more than 25 years earlier, as did Arab sheiks at a
much later date. This, and many other examples from economic history, demonstrates that

genuine

growth is actually a resource-generating process. It also needs to be stressed that

mineral and oil reserves are a function of prices. As prices rise so do
reserves. This is why Ali Al-Naimi, Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, was able to
tell an international conference in April 2004 that his countries proven oil reserves have been greatly
under-estimated and that the country has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve four times what
is usually estimated. No wonder that Peter Odell of Rotterdams Erasmus University was able to
observe that since 1971, over 1,500 billion barrels have been added to reserves. Over the same 35-

One can argue for a world which

has been running into oil rather than out of it . (The Economist, 30 April 2005). Not
year period, under 800 billion barrels were consumed.

only are we running out of mineral resources we are also facing eventual famine because the average
per capita area of productive land available on the planet is only about 1.3 hectares. This is called
cherry picking. Lets forget the cherries and concentrate of the sort of facts that lefties hate. In
1960 it took about 1500 million acres to produce the worlds supply of grain; today it still only takes
about 1500 million acres. Without this 134 per cent increase in productivity we would now need about
3.5 billion acres for grain production.

Group chase-dunn- they say k-waves are good

Nah not really b/c Kondratieff wave theory empirically
false
North 9

(Gary, economist and publisher and PhD in history from the University of California, Riverside, The Myth of the Kondratieff
Wave, http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north725.html, 6/27/09, AD: 7/6/09) JC

THE K-WAVE These days, the Kondratieff Wave has a spiffy new name: the K-Wave. (I can
almost hear it: "Attention: K-Wave shoppers!") The K- Wave is supposedly going to bring
a deflationary collapse Real Soon Now. The Western world's debt structure will disappear
in a wave of defaults. Kondratieff's 54-year cycle is almost upon us. Again. The last

deflationary period ended in 1933. This became clear no later than 1940.
World War II orders from Great Britain, funded by American loans and Federal Reserve policy, ended the
Great Depression by lowering real wages. In 1942, price and wage controls were imposed by
Washington, the FED began pumping out new money, ration stamps replaced the free market, the
black market overcame shortages, and the inflationary era began. That was a long time ago. But the KWave is heralded as a 50 to 60-year cycle, or even more specifically, a 54-year cycle. That's the entire
cycle, trough to trough or peak to peak. The K-Wave supposedly should have

bottomed in 1933, risen for 27 years (1960), declined in economic

contraction until 1987, and boomed thereafter. The peak should
therefore be in 2014. There is a problem here: the cyclical decline from
1960 to 1987. It never materialized. Prices kept rising, escalating with a
vengeance after 1968, then slowing somewhat just in time for the
longest stock market boom in American history: 19822000. OK, say the
K-Wavers: let's extend the cycle to 60 years. Fine. Let's do just that.
Boom, 193262; bust, 196393; boom, 19942024. Does this correspond
to anything that happened in American economic history since 1932? No.

They say Holmgren- extend Porter- limiting growth had

little-to-no effect on carbon emissions and tech for
renewables solves- prefer on better quals, PhD vs
president of a company
They say Shearman & Atkisson- growth sustainablemarkets check overexploitation- they dont take markets
into account
Ridley 14 [April 25, 2014, Matt Ridley, "The World's Resources Aren't Running Out," WSJ,
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304279904579517862612287156, online, RaMan]

While current economic growth seems to do more good than harm for overall
environmental quality, worries about the effects of growth on the
environment make a lot of sense. The early stages of economic growth brought much environmental damage, and
countries like China and India are now going 28 THE NEW ZEALAND INITIATIVE through what the developed world experienced 50100 years

By contrast, worries that the

world will run out of critical resources make far less sense, while arguments
that economics cannot handle scarcity make no sense at all . In 1972, the Club
of Rome predicted that the world would run out of oil by 2003 if oil
consumption did not slow down, and by 1992 if consumption continued to
grow. Opponents of suburban expansion tell us that farmland will become too scarce if urban growth is not limited. In the early 2010s,
ago. Pollution is real and can sometimes require government regulation as a solution.

there were worries that China was monopolising access to a few rare earth elements necessary for high-tech manufacturing, with the
potential to strangle Western access. And David Attenborough says only madmen and economists believe infinite growth is possible in a finite

All these stories ultimately rest on mistakes about how markets

work. Economist Harold Hotelling explained the economics of non-renewable resources in 1931.54 Imagine you owned
a large deposit of a non-renewable resource say, iron. Imagine further that
the only thing in the world that you cared about was profits. How fast should
you pull all your iron out of the ground and sell it? The nave answer as fast
as you can! is not right. In fact, it is an answer that throws away money. Pulling
world.53

everything out of the ground in a hurry is generally more expensive than a slower approach. Suppose you could either mine all the ore this
year, all the ore next year, or some this year and some next year. Hotelling showed that miners would pull ore out of the ground until the
profits from mining this year, plus interest on those earnings, were the same as the profits expected from mining ore next year and selling it

Miners then will not simply extract ore as quickly as possible. Instead, they
will weigh up current interest rates, current production costs, expected future
production costs, and expected future prices. Even when the only thing they
care about is profit, tomorrows profits count, too. And $1.05 in profits
tomorrow is worth more than a $1 profit today, if the interest rate is less than
5%. In the simple Hotelling model, the world never runs out of any resource. The prices of all resources slowly
increase over time, in line with interest rates, THE CASE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH 29 unless
technological innovation changes the costs of mining or makes it easier to
use less of the resource. What does this mean in the real world? It means we need not worry much about running out of
then.

things. As relative scarcity increases, so too does relative price. Companies have no incentive to try and pull everything out of the ground now

As prices rise, technology

adapts both to increase the effective supply of the commodity by making
previously unfeasible reserves viable and to figure out how to use
alternative, relatively less scarce materials instead. As oil prices rose from the mid-1970s and
if they expect prices to rise, and increasing relative scarcity drives prices upwards.

consumers demanded more fuelefficient cars, substitutes for oil were found and previously uneconomical reserves became worth exploiting.
Rising oil prices first encouraged innovation in the Alberta oil sands, then brought us massive amounts of cheap natural gas through hydraulic
fracturing. And the rare earths crisis fizzled to nothing as the threat of increased prices both encouraged manufacturers to consider other
alternatives and provided incentives for new rare earths mining outside China.55 If urbanisation ever turned any substantial amount of
farmland into subdivisions, the consequent rise in the value of farmland and price of food would both encourage innovation in improving crop
yields and in developing denser urban living environments. None of these innovative responses to price changes would have surprised Julian
Simo

n. In The Ultimate Resource, Simon argued that while physical resources

are finite, human ingenuity in using those resources is infinite .56 Doom-laden
predictions of scarcity end-times might sell papers, but they consistently fail
because they ignore our capacity to improve.

Also tech solves- thats Porter

CP

Grid Plank
They still wanna go for Sandry- Sandry doesnt defend
upgrading transmission- extend not a solvency advocatealso Sandry says the problem is power distribution- not
only transmission
They say Hill- he only says that
A modernized transmission system increases reliability

Reliability and ability to withstand an attack are two

different things