The Affirmative plan was to have the US be bound by the Law of the Sea treaty.
The Negative went for T – ratifying (or otherwise bringing the US into compliance) is not USFG ocean exploration and/or development.
While the Negative presented a compelling argument for why it is bad to consider a version of LOST ratification to be topical, the lack of a coherent interpretation that includes a reasonable number of Affs while excluding too many makes it too difficult to vote Neg. In the end, I thought the cases the Neg argued met their interpretation had the same form of plan that the Aff has.
The 1NC started with a basic argument claiming that exploration is the process of searching for resources and that development is the means of extracting them.
Exploration means the process of searching for resources and development means extracting them
US Code ‘14(43 USC 1331: Definitions, current as of 2014, From Title 43-PUBLIC LANDS CHAPTER 29-SUBMERGED LANDS SUBCHAPTER III-OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS, http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:43%20section:1331%20edition:prelim))
(k) The term “exploration” means the process of searching for minerals, including (1) geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to detect or imply the presence of such minerals, and (2) any drilling, whether on or off known geological structures, including the drilling of a well in which a discovery of oil or natural gas in paying quantities is made and the drilling of any additional delineation well after such discovery which is needed to delineate any reservoir and to enable the lessee to determine whether to proceed with development and production; (l) The term “development” means those activities which take place following discovery of minerals in paying quantities, including geophysical activity, drilling, platform construction, and operation of all onshore support facilities, and which are for the purpose of ultimately producing the minerals discovered; (m) The term “production” means those activities which take place after the successful completion of any means for the removal of minerals, including such removal, field operations, transfer of minerals to shore, operation monitoring, maintenance, and work-over drilling;
They also claim that its is a possessive pronoun, arguing that it has to be the federal government that directly searches for resources and/.or extracts them
‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownership
English Grammer, 5(Glossary of English Grammar Terms, http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronounsused to substitute a noun and to showpossession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that’s mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)
There isn’t much development of the standards debate in the 1NC, other than to argue that treaties Affs could unlimit the topic and that there needs to be a limited topic.
<Blake creates a treaty that doesn’t directly increase the US’s development – you should vote negative
a) predictable limits – they allow hundreds of insignificant treaty affs, which explodes 2N burdens – exploitation creates a predictable and stable interp for how students should guide research
b) ground – we lose ocean sphere of influence DAs, which are some of the only net benefits to international actor CPs – they elimate any substantive disad to development, rather than treaty negotiation
c) extra T – they claim advantage ground off of how the treaty functions in the context of other countries – independent reason to reject>
The Negative did develop this argument more in the 2NC, with a specific emphasis on the claim that LOST doesn’t directly increase exploration but only enables it. They read this card to support that argument:
Langer, 12- Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, “The War on Small Business”. He is also the host of “The Liberty Line” podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, “The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty”, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
Myth: Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will create a United Nations bureaucracy. Fact: Not true. Ratifying the LOTS creates nothing.Ratifying the treaty will give the United States a seat on the already-formed International Seabed Authority.The International Seabed Authority has existed for over 20 years. The ISA is the international authority that grants exploration and mining and drilling permits to all nations. The ISA also creates clear, legally binding, protocols for ships while navigating foreign waters. This is long established, current international law. The U.S. opting not to join the ISA does nothing except prevent America from receiving mining and drilling permits, while also creating a gray area legally for our military and for U.S. companies when dealing with waterways belonging to foreign nations. That is why every U.S. business association, including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and every sitting military leader of a U.S. Command – including the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – supports the treaty’s ratification.
The rest of the Negative debating really developed in response to the Affirmative’s arguments, so let’s look at those arguments.
No case meets. The 2AC argued that the USFG never directly engages in exploration and/or development and that there are no advocates for it. The Negative didn’t directly respond to this claim, but read evidence for three cases that meet their interpretation.
Johns, 13 — J.D. Candidate, USC Law 2013 (March 2013, Kristen L., Southern California Law Review, FARM FISHING HOLES: GAPS IN FEDERAL REGULATION OF OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE,” 86 S. Cal. L. Rev. 681, JMP)
Thus, aquaculture will inevitably move offshore from state-controlled to federally controlled waters. However, without a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework giving aquaculturists the incentives or legal assurances to operate in federal waters, developers are discouraged from taking their operations offshore. At the same time, the lack of any comprehensive regulatory framework has allowed some of the environmental risks of offshore aquaculture to go unchecked. Regulations are needed, then, to ensure not only that the industry is developed, but that it does so in a sustainable and precautionary way.
2) Data collection
FIND 14 – Federal information and news dispatch (FIND, “House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Hearing”, federal press release, http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/02/07/house-transportation-and-infrastructure-subcommittee-on-coast-guard-and-maritime-a-457472.html#.U6xpufmICQo, HW)
Congressional appropriations and authorizations should be directed toward commercial contracting for data collectionrequirements, rather than capital equipment. Creating a pathway to greater utilization of the private sector and forming public-private partnerships will result in cost savings to the tax payer, improve the economy, enhance navigation, reduce duplication, and make programs more efficient. We commend Congress for its leadership on ATON, hydrography and nautical charting programs. Important steps have been taken, and progress has been made, but we must continue to strive to bring the full expertise, innovation and efficiency of the private sector to all of the federal government’s mapping and charting activities. In summary, the ATON of the future can and should be smaller, lighter, more agile and more self-sustaining than the current LNB’s we know today. A new public-private partnership is the key to such success.
3) Off-shore wind
Schroeder, 10 — J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
Given a policy of such strong local control, and the absence of a firm federal mandate for offshore wind power development, local interests have been able to stall both federal and state permitting processes, often through litigation. Proponents of offshore wind have little federal support, and no guaranteed source of state support, on which to rely. Cape Wind presents a compelling and frustrating illustration of this problem.
The 2NR argued that supporting natural gas development would meet their interpretation.
The problem with this case list for the Negative is that the Affirmative argued that these cases are no different than the plan. The Affirmative argued that establishing a framework to promote aquaculture just leads to ocean e/d. Ditto for Offshore wind and natural gas development. This is the same thing that LOST does (according to the Aff), and the Negative never responded to say that these are (a) distinct from LOST and (b) things that the USFG directly (“its”) does – meaning that the cases the Neg cites are also inconsistent with the Negative’s interpretation.
Now it is the case that data collection is consistent with the Neg’s original interpretation and would allow at least one case under it, but the Negative never said this and that argument would inherently be clouded by the arguments that these other cases are topical.
Anyhow, I think the Aff wins (by default) that their aren’t any cases under the Neg’s original interpretation and that if the Neg is right that the cases the Neg cites do meet their interpretation that LOST also meets it.
LOST supports development – it provides a framework for ocean exploration and development. .They read this card.
CIDA No Date [“The Canadian International Development Agency’s STRATEGY FOR OCEAN MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT” http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/strategy.htm, accessed 8-10-14, TAP]
This document presents a strategic framework for the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) Official Development Assistance (ODA) in ocean policy, management and development, and in fisheries, including aquaculture and mariculture. The purpose of the framework is to serve as a tool in the planning of ODA-related activities. Specifically, it provides CIDA with guidelines for designing and implementing of programs in ocean policy, management and development, as well as in fisheries, where such activities fit into the wider development strategy for a given country or region. The framework will also serve as an information source for all those interested in ocean development. The need for CIDA to develop this strategy reflects three global trends: Vastly-increased international recognition of the importance of oceans and their resources to global sustainable development and of specific related issues, such as climate change, sea-level rise and food from the sea. In recent years, this concern has been expressed in many international agreements and other instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the UN Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly-Migratory Fish Stocks, the Global Programme of Action (GPA) on land-based sources of marine pollution, and the 1995 Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action, which deals with the sustainable contribution of fisheries to food security; Increased potential value of ocean resources to developing countries. Considerable potential value has been transferred to the developing world by the creation, under the UNCLOS, of 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), in which coastal and small-island developing states have jurisdiction over their off-shore resources. This has brought valuable social and economic assets under the control of many developing countries while confronting them with new responsibilities and opportunities; and Increased pressure on oceans and their resources. There has been a relentless increase in
The Neg argues that this is an unlimiting interepration. I don’t’ know if it is completely unlimiting, but it certainly has some limits issues. Nonetheless, this proves that LOST is NO DFFERENT than wind and aquaculture (and even natural gas) and the Neg says those are all topical. According to this card, LOST sets a regulatory framework for ocean development. This is the same thing that Aquaculture and Wind Affs do (even by the explanation contained in the evidence the Neg reads).
Counterinterpetation: Ocean development includes all activities related to exploration, exploitation, and the use of ocean space
UNESCO 86 [Partnered with the Government of India Department of Ocean Development, Intergovernmental Oceanic Commission, Training Course Reports, “IOC-Unesco Regional Training Workshop on Ocean Engineering and Its Interface with Ocean Sciences in the Indian Ocean Region” http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Training/085239eo.pdf, p.12, accessed 8-10-14, TAP]
The has often been used to denote all activities, including ocean sciences, ocean engineering and related marine technology, directed term “ocean development” to resource exploration and exploitation and the use of ocean space. The underlying guiding principle in all these activities has been that these be conducted in a manner that insure the preservation of the marine environment without detriment to its quality and the resources with which it abounds. From the statements given by the participants, it became apparent that in some countries, such as China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, ocean development programmes and activities, over the years, have evolved from fisheries oriented needs towards mineral resources exploitation. In some of these countries exploitation of these resources has brought about new adjustments to their priority needs which have progressively involved the strengthening of their marine scientific and technological capability demanded by these new situations.
The Neg is right that this is unlimiting.
Counterinterpretation: its means associated with
Oxford Dictionary 10 (“Of”, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/its?view=uk)
Pronunciation:/ɪts/ possessive determiner belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified:turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere
The Neg is right that this is rather unlimiting.
Neg is prepared. The Aff makes some general arguments about how the Neg has case arguments, they have to debate it as a CP, that there is Neg ground. While some judges may find these arguments compelling, I really don’t. If the Aff isn’t topical, they aren’t topical. The Aff has to prove that they are topical under some RESASONBLE interpretation of the topic, not that the Neg has files on their computer to read. And in this debate, the Neg does argue it is outside the realm of normal topic preparation.
Anyhow, to the decision…
The focus of the Neg’s argument is that the Affirmative’s interpretation(s), or at least some of them, are unlimiting. They are right about that. And the 2NR does a good job of explaining that the Affirmative interpretation would allow the Aff to align with any treaty or international agreement (that supports ocean e or d) and the 2AR didn’t address this well – 2AR just said, well, you could run some generic counterplans.
Despite the limits problems with the Affirmative interpretation, the Negative has no interpretation of the topic that is a viable way to interpret the resolution. In response the Affirmative’s claim that there are NO cases under the Negative’s interpretation of the resolution, the Affirmative reads a case list that doesn’t meet it (data collection does but they don’t argue that) and are no different than LOST (maybe they are, but the Neg doesn’t must an argument as how they are). Given this, I think that the Affirmaitve’s interpretation of the topic (though quite broad) is better than the Negative’s that doesn’t allow any (or any that are different than the form of the Aff).
Also, and finally, the Neg said the Aff’s plan has to be “topical in a vaccum.” Sure, it has to on-face increase ocean e or d. That’s the Neg’s “its” argument.. The problem is that no case meets (see the previous discussion).
I think that this is a winnable debate for the Neg, but they need to have a more consistent interpretation of the topic that allows for cases like wind and aquaculture but excludes LOST. This probably means eliminating “its” from their violation and going more for LOST is extra T and (perhaps) not targeted (?) at ocean e or d. Alternatively, they could keep their “its” argument and produce a case list, excluding versions of wind and aquauculture that don’t have the federal government directly develop it.