Evazon Ziegler

Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

Alternative PIC
Alternative PIC....................................................................................................................................................................................1 File Description......................................................................................................................................................................................2 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 2NC/1NR Overview...............................................................................................................................................................................4 ***Theory***........................................................................................................................................................................................5 AT: Textual Comp Bad..........................................................................................................................................................................6 AT: PICs Bad.........................................................................................................................................................................................7 ***Perms***..........................................................................................................................................................................................8 AT: Perm Do Both..............................................................................................................................................................................9 AT: Perm Do the CP.........................................................................................................................................................................10 AT: Juxtaposition Perms......................................................................................................................................................................11 ***Solvency/Net Benefits***..............................................................................................................................................................12 2NC Solvency Wall...........................................................................................................................................................................13 Solvency Military Energy.................................................................................................................................................................14 AT: Public Does Not See Plan.............................................................................................................................................................15 AT: No External Impact to Net Benefit...............................................................................................................................................16 AT: Alternative Will Still Be Used...................................................................................................................................................17

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

File Description
This counterplan says to do the plan, but instead of using the word alternative energy, you should say clean energy. But hold up my lab leader told me word PICs are dumb and only desperate teams use them! Half-true. The argument is that the term alternative is politically divisive people read alternative or renewable and think hippy/pinko commie/lieberal (thats right lie-beral). The evidence is (surprisingly) pretty good that this has a psychological effect on people, and the shift to cleaner energy never happens. Clean is a politically neutral word with no extra baggage that people are open to. The net benefit is pretty old school youre mutually exclusive with the plan and solve case better. More people are open to clean energy. Everyone is using alternative now, so you probably control the one-way uniqueness street on the framing of the energy debate. Game. Set. Match. Wait, this sounds shady. Those terrible lay judges that judge me will probably vote on the perm or theory or dumb defense args! No worries. Scripted 2NC/1NR blocks have been written to every (half-intelligible) perm, theory, and defensive solvency claim youre likely to hear. Have any questions, give me a yell. $5 is a steal for a stock argument you can use the entire year and even after. Alternative energy will be an issue in every debate in the near future.

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

1NC
The counterplan: <Write the plan text, but instead of the word alternative, use the word clean>

Observation One Competition: All permutations either include the word alternative, meaning it still links to the NB, or textually sever severance is a voter for competitive equity if it were not, 2ACs could moot every link and would win on presumption negs could never win. Observation Two Solvency: A Solves 100% of case. Theres no legal difference between alternative or clean plan would be implemented the same exact way in the world of the CP. B The counter-plan solves case better Both alternative and renewable are politically polarizing clean is the most neutral and contextually correct, meaning more people buy into the incentives plan offers. Cascio 2005
(Jamais, Clean vs. Alternative vs. Renewable, March 11, p. lexis) Would you prefer "alternative" energy or "renewable" energy? What about "clean" energy? Thrown together like this, you probably recognize that they all refer to more-or-less the same thing. Used in isolation, however, they tend to prompt different reactions from people. Clint Wilder, contributing editor at Clean Edge, argues that "clean" energy tends to get the best reaction, based on a recent study: In opinion research conducted last year in Rhode Island, the Clean Energy States Alliance and marketing consultancy SmartPower found that the label of clean energy had a much more positive public reception than green (too political), renewable (too niche), or alternative (too much of an implication that its users must adopt a new lifestyle). If you read WorldChanging closely, you'll notice that we rarely use the term "alternative" to describe wind, solar and other non-polluting energy sources. That's intentional (at least for me): "alternative" cedes the ground to polluting sources, because if they're not the alternative, they must be the mainstream choice. In the Bright Green future we see as happening, sources such as wind, solar, tides and such won't be the other choice, they'll be what we all increasingly will rely upon. I've tended to use "renewable" instead, but Wilder makes a good point. "Renewable" is probably a bit too focused on a technical aspect (as with "fossil fuels"); "clean" energy is a clearer meme, and I'll be sure to add that to the editorial mix in my posts.

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

2NC/1NR Overview
The counterplan does the affirmative plan, but instead of using the term alternative, we use the term clean. Hold your horses, because this isnt a dirty word PIC. Our Cascio evidence says that the term alternative has a polarizing effect implying that energy to not be the norm and fail. This results in less people buying into the incentives the plan offers. The term clean has been proven in clinical studies to be more receptive and less politically divisive. If we win the CP, we win the debate: A Solves 100% of case. Our Cascio evidence says theres no functional difference in the energies under the label clean energy. This means the counterplans implements the same exact energy incentives as the plan. We only need to win a risk of the NB, and B Our net benefit is pretty old-school: we solve the case better. Cascio says clean is a clearer way of referencing the same energy and it doesnt cause conservatives to go all crazy when they hear it. More people buy into the incentives of the CP.

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

***Theory***

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Textual Comp Bad

1 Were functionally competitive. Cascio says there is a functional psychological effect when we refer to alternative energy as clean energy. The world of the counterplan also results in additional uses of renewable energy. 2 Textual competition is good for debate: A Key to test resolutional phrasing and affirmative discourse the words and numbers in the topic were chosen for a reason, these type of PICs are the only feasible way to test the discourse of the affirmative B Clarity this is the most objective way to determine competition functional competition can always be reexplained and is subject to the whims of judge intervention textual competition is lock-tight because its based on a stable text C Better Plan Writing and more real world policies textual competition forces aff strategic thinking and precise plan writing. Each word in the law is interpreted. D Fairer limits textual competition limits out consultation and conditioning counterplans, which explode aff research burden our net benefit is grounded in the topic so its predictable E Backup Plan Even if functional competition is a better standard, our CP still functionally competes the word alternative in the plan is a functioning performative utterance when we exclude it its just like PICing out of one plank of the plan.

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: PICs Bad

1 It is the only way to competitively test the discourse of the affirmative and the terms within the resolution. The framers of the resolution put alternative in the text for a reason, be it unconscious acceptance or not, counterplanning out of specific words like the ensures all words in the resolution are tested and the affirmative has meet their burden to affirm all parts of it 2 Textual competition that PICS out of specific words in the resolution are good to limit out abuse functional counterplans that do the plan but save a dollar. 3 The affirmative has infinite prep time to write their plan- it should be a carefully formulated and thought out piece of text-our arguments are predictable because there is literature to support claims against enframing clean energy as alternative. 4 Running the CP is the only way to guarantee the word has weight, running the da alone would allow the affirmative to just say that their advantages outweigh, all the while sweeping the root of the problems mentioned by the 1ac under the rug. Alternative has meanings in its utterance. 5 No copyright to 1ac-they dont own their plan text-it is not a form of property and claims of ownership reify the belief that land can be owned by a government and controlled by its sovereign will. 6 It addresses the core of the affirmative-because the word exclude short circuits their solvency-they should be prepared to defend alternative

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

***Perms***

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Perm Do Both

1 Doing both is impossible you cant refer to the specific incentive in the plan as alternative and clean at the same time. 2 The only way thats possible is if you did both together there are a couple of problems with two incentives: A No double-solvency. The incentives still go to both energies at the end of the day. This means theres no net benefit to the permutation a lack of a solvency deficit means theres no offensive reason the perm is superior to the counterplan. You would vote for the counterplan on a risk of a link to the net benefit. B Our evidence is comparative that the counterplan is preferred to the plan. This means in the world of the perm, people would do the counterplan only. This is another reason theres no net benefit to the perm. 3 Still links to the net benefit. People still see the word alternative and go crazy, refusing to buy into the supposedly hippy connotations of the plan.

4 Using both is worse it creates political conflation in which clean and alternative become indistinguishable this allows unclean technology to steal claim theyre clean, which turns case. Pedals 2006
(Peter, Rainbow Power Company, Renewable Energy versus Alternative, p. http://www.rpc.com.au/products/services/faqinfo/renewvsalt.html) It is common usage today to use the word alternative energy when discussing renewable energy. The unfortunate thing about this is that it infers that renewable energy is the poor cousin of energy derived from coal or nuclear fuel. As both coal and nuclear are clearly unsustainable (in my understanding of the meaning of that word*), I would hope that in the not too distant future the use of renewable energy will outstrip the use of non-renewable energy (eg fossil fuels and nuclear energy) and at that point renewable would clearly no longer be the alternative, but would have become the mainstream energy source. Even if the description of renewable energy as alternative energy may technically be correct at this juncture I much prefer to be forward thinking and decline from using the word alternative when talking about renewable energy. In the same light, when we install a grid-interactive solar power system we are required to install a warning sign that reads: Warning - dual supply. Isolate both normal and solar supplies before working on the switchboard. This again is showing a clear bias towards the grid supply which in this case is powered mostly by coal-fired power stations. I live in a solar powered household and in my view the solar power is my normal supply. To show a less biased attitude I would prefer the wording: ... Isolate both grid and solar supplies ... which would also mean that the signs wont be dated when renewable energy becomes the mainstream energy source. * I must note that some organisations such as the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) have defined the word sustainable as anything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Using this definition, coal mining, coal fired power stations and fossil fuel powered vehicles can be made to look sustainable and allows the BCSE to give the highest producers of greenhouse gas emissions the tick of approval to allow them to look green.

5 No shift to the term clean in future policies. The current political environment likes the term alternative the perm only lends legitimacy, making a fallback inevitable.

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Perm Do the CP

1 The perm is severance it severs out of the word alternative. Severance permutations are illegitimate because they allow the aff to jettison parts of their aff according to 1NC strategy that make it impossible for the negative to make offense its a voter for fairness and ground. 2 The only way its not severance is if they win functional competition good we have a few preempts: A Were functionally competitive. Cascio says there is a functional psychological effect when we refer to alternative energy as clean energy. The world of the counterplan also results in additional uses of renewable energy. B Textual competition is good for debate: 1 Key to test resolutional phrasing and affirmative discourse the words and numbers in the topic were chosen for a reason, these type of PICs are the only feasible way to test the discourse of the affirmative 2 Clarity this is the most objective way to determine competition functional competition can always be reexplained and is subject to the whims of judge intervention textual competition is lock-tight because its based on a stable text 3 Better Plan Writing and more real world policies textual competition forces aff strategic thinking and precise plan writing. Each word in the law is interpreted. 4 Fairer limits textual competition limits out consultation and conditioning counterplans, which explode aff research burden our net benefit is grounded in the topic so its predictable 5 Backup Plan Even if functional competition is a better standard, our CP still functionally competes the word alternative in the plan is a functioning performative utterance when we exclude it its just like PICing out of one plank of the plan.

10

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Juxtaposition Perms

Any arguments as to how the permutation generates extra offense juxtaposition, reappropriation, etc are not grounded in the plan text or the counterplan text which makes them intrinsicness permutations. These type of permutations are bad for debate because: 1 They create a moving target- They functionally make the affirmative conditional by allowing them to add anything to the plan which destroys clash 2 They become infinitely regressive- There are an infinite number of changes that could be make to the affirmative plan, which would destroy negative predictability. 3 They steal negative ground- Any additions outside the plan should be negative CP ground-allowing the affirmative to add anything to the plan steals negative ground. 4 Not topical-violates the term resolved which means to make firm by proving the affirmative is not firm in their advocacy from the 1AC. Independent voting issue for reasons of fairness and education 5 Not real world- Congress cant add things to the bill not present in the previous debate. Real world analogies key to education by allowing us to put debate in context. 6 Not Reciprocal- We have only one CP, the should have only one CP to preserve fairness. 7 Voting issue-Rejecting the permutation serves the purpose of affirmative conditionality and exceeds your jurisdiction-voting negative is the only way to preserve fairness and education.

11

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

***Solvency/Net Benefits***

12

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

2NC Solvency Wall

The counterplan solves 100% of case Cascio says that alternative and clean energies are functionally the same thing the difference is how theyre perceived by the public. Cascio is surprisingly good in saying clean is less politically divisive, and thus, more people are likely to use it.

AND Framing matters people wont hop on board with the affs incentives because they frame clean energy as alternative something only pinko commies would use. Wilder 2005
(Clint, Clean Edges Contributing Editor, Reframing Clean Energy Could Help Improve the Picture, p. lexis) For the past year or so, political junkies like myself have become fascinated by the work of University of California-Berkeley linguistics professor Dr. George Lakoff, who writes and speaks eloquently on what he calls the framing of political issues. A big part of framing is simply the language used to describe and then sell an issue, and Lakoff attributes much of the recent political success of the Republican party to their better job of framing than the Democrats. Support for reducing or eliminating the federal estate tax, for example, rose significantly when GOP tax-cut advocates started referring to it as the death tax. The time has come to reframe the issue of clean energy. Despite years of technology advances, cost reductions, and large-scale corporate investments, too many people and legislators in the U.S. still view our industry and the energy it produces as alternative, unreliable, and even a little bit subversive. In Texas, Ive been called a communist for supporting ethanol, says Dr. Max Shauck, director of the Institute for Air Science at Baylor University. As a former Navy fighter pilot, that really pisses me off.

AND Solvency is empirically verified 40-50% more people use alternative energies when theyre framed as clean instead. Wilder 2005
(Clint, Clean Edges Contributing Editor, Reframing Clean Energy Could Help Improve the Picture, p. lexis) The good news is that a lot of smart, dedicated people are already on the path toward reframing the energy debate. In opinion research conducted last year in Rhode Island, the Clean Energy States Alliance and marketing consultancy SmartPower found that the label of clean energy had a much more positive public reception than green (too political), renewable (too niche), or alternative (too much of an implication that its users must adopt a new lifestyle). But even when viewing clean energy as positive for the environment, the public was skeptical of its ability to replace fossil fuels. Coal, oil, and natural gas make our world work, and theres nothing else to take their place was the prevailing view, says SmartPower president Brian Keane. Perhaps the biggest framing hurdle that the clean energy industry faces was summed up in one respondents words: I just dont think it works. After the initial research, SmartPower ran a public information campaign, including TV ads narrated by actor Peter Gallagher spotlighting renewable-powered houses, hospitals, and factories with the tagline, Clean energy: Its real. Its here. And its working. The result? A thousand new customers switched to the local utilitys green power option in 100 days, and the number of people who agreed that clean energy is as reliable as fossil fuels jumped from 40% to 51% in the same period.

13

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

Solvency Military Energy

We solve military shift to clean energy better we frame in a way that crosses party and security lines better. Wilder 2005
(Clint, Clean Edges Contributing Editor, Reframing Clean Energy Could Help Improve the Picture, p. lexis) The influential framing themes of reliability and affordability could get a big boost from greater public awareness of one of clean energys biggest customers: the Department of Defense. Military bases across the U.S. are increasingly turning to renewables, distributed generation, and co-generation under a directive to have adequate plans for on-site power in the event of transmission disruption due to natural disaster, grid breakdown, or terrorist attack. The U.S. Air Force is by far the largest purchaser of green power in the U.S. (more than 321,000 megawatt-hours annually), and one base, Dyess AFB in Texas, is the nations largest single-site wind power buyer. The militarys embrace of clean energy speaks to possibly the biggest framing issue of all: clean energy and energy efficiency as a matter of national security. This effort has gained a lot of recent momentum, and was the topic of a lively session at the Power-Gen Renewable Energy trade show in Las Vegas earlier this month. Reducing oil consumption to lessen the flow of dollars to hostile nations is by far the most compelling argument here, but the global natural gas market is also increasingly showing the bad earmarks of oil with high prices and geopolitical instability. Framing clean energy in terms of national security is significant because it crosses traditional political lines in a way that arguing for environmental sustainability, unfortunately, does not. The board of oil-use reduction advocacy group Set America Free Coalition (http://www.setamericafree.org), for example, includes members from the conservative Hudson Institute and National Defense Council Foundation as well as the environmentalist Natural Resources Defense Council. We are fighting a war on terrorism and paying for both sides of the war, says coalition founder Dr. Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and a former colonel in the Israeli army. We need to change the terms of the energy security debate, and we need conservatives to lead it.

14

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Public Does Not See Plan

1 Patently false. When the plan is debated on the floor of congress, it will be referenced and perceived as an alternative energies bill. Cascio says this term itself is a term of art, and triggers feelings of uncertainty and fear of hippy technology in conservative people that would do the plan. 2 It is still published into law anybody reading about the law will see its an alternative bill. Just like parents reaction to hearing the latest alternative music, it will be ignored and shunned away, even if it may be awesome and cool to use. 3 Even if plan is not perceived, there is still no offensive reason why the term alternative is good. Theres only a risk it gets perceived and used less.

15

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: No External Impact to Net Benefit

1 We dont need one. The counterplan is mutually exclusive with the affirmative, meaning you cant capture any of our offense with a legitimate permutation. If the impacts in the 1AC are worth voting aff for, then the competitive counterplan that solves them better is a reason to vote for us. 2 Our evidence is better than just less people use the plan our Wilder evidence goes on to explain that the reason less people want to use alternatives today than years ago is because of the label reframing it as clean leads to a positive surge that we control uniqueness to. 3 Even if they win that theres no external net benefit, theres no offensive reason why the term alternative is A Any better, or B Has an external reason to prefer that word. You should still vote for the counterplan on a risk of the net benefit.

16

Evazon Ziegler
Alternative PIC 10-29-2008

AT: Alternative Will Still Be Used

1 Irrelevant. Were not a question of changing societys impression of energy were just saying the counterplan is better perceived by the public. 2 If our net benefit is true, then this is a uniqueness takeout to the aff as well. Everyone will be so caught up in alternative craziness that they will refuse to ever make the shift. This is a solvency takeout to the aff. 3 This only gives uniqueness to the net benefit. Well be the first major policy that uses terminology differently at least you have a risk of a change with the CP. 4 The plan alone ensures the change never really happens. What is needed is a firm government action that recognizes the difference the aff does nothing to spark a change.

17