I’m kinda the new kid on the ‘Ethos’ block—I moved in halfway through the school year, but it has been so much fun. I was asked to give my opinion on what I think my favorite/the strongest cases are out there this year and I have several, but not many (I have not seen every case that has ever been written thus far, though). My favorites this year are Thermal Depolymerization, Carbon Tax (of course), Sustainable Agriculture, Bottle Bill, as well as a very squirrelly little case about cows.
First off, I am not so completely in love with my own case, that it comes first in the list, which may seem odd, but the one case that I find rather intriguing and fairly defendable, however annoying for negatives it may be, is the thermal depolymerization affirmative that was just briefed in the latest Ethos update. There are some minor problems with the case, but I think it has lots of judge appeal and it pretty solid. The idea that you can turn huge, ugly, nasty landfills into a clean source of environmentally friendly energy is something that is most definitely attractive. I’m not entirely sure about the complexity of this case, but I would think it is not too intensely hard to understand for those who might still be looking for a case and want something simple.
My own case which, don’t get me wrong, is near and dear to my heart—carbon tax—takes second place. Honestly, despite the fact that, yes it is another tax, it really is beneficial for the environment, public health and safety, international diplomacy and the economy (you’re probably just bursting to disagree with me, but save it for the round J). It does reduce emissions, something which is fairly undisputed, and thus by reducing emissions it reduces their harmful and even devastating effects, improving health and safety, and it also shows the rest of the world that we aren’t going to default to the lowest standard of environmental quality, so to speak, but rather take the lead role in environmental protection. Finally the economic benefits manifest themselves in the cheap reusable resource of renewable energy, avoiding the economic consequences of not taking action at all, and the fact that it is a direct tax on one part of one sector and not a blanket tax at all. Of all the cases in this list this one is by far the. most. complicated. There are so many details, exceptions, rates, et cetera that need to be understood and defended that makes it complicated but also fun at the same time.
The sustainable agriculture case is quite a strong affirmative too. I have read some books and done some more recent research on it and the case does try to bring a solution to a problem that does deserve some attention. Also, the fact that there aren’t many disadvantages against the case makes it even more excellent. On a ‘complicated’ scale of 1-10 (one being most complicated, and ten being least complicated), I would say that this case is probably a 8 or 9—not too complicated, but you can’t just pick it up and run it, in my opinion.
Last but certainly not least is the bottle bill case, which basically is a case to provide incentives for recycling. This too is a fairly strong case, although I would not call it invincible by any means, but it certainly has strong and defendable evidence and refutation for apposing arguments and it not too complicated a case for debaters or judges to understand or vote for. J
The one squirrelly little case that I find really humorous is a case to butcher all cows in the United State, barbeque them, then send them abroad internationally for food aid. It claims advantages from the removal of cows who produce methane with is a m.a.j.o.r factor in climate change. If you want to read more about it look up this article from the William and Mary Law Review: 29 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 767. Would I have this as a primary case? No. But it is a little unusual, but not unfair, and it brings somewhat of a sense of strange humor/irony to the debate round.
Take all of that with a grain of salt; it’s just my personal opinion about cases this year. There are a lot of good cases and there are a lot of case that aren’t so great, but something that I have been told lots and lots of times, and am beginning to figure out, and let it ‘click’ is that its not the case that makes you win; a horrible debater with an unbelievably strong case is not going to do well and vice-versa. What matters is the effort you give, the attitude you decide to adopt, and ultimately the decision of the judge. There are lots of fun cases out there and plenty of bad ones—know the case you are running well, have a great attitude about it, your partner and debate, trust the Lord and you’ll have fun, learn lots, and do well.
What’s your opinion on using the cows argument as an alternate casualty argument against an AFF that uses global warming as a harm?
I do agree that it is a valid alternate cause, and have considered arguing it myself. However, I would personally go for the “Global Warming Not Happening” argument. Also, if you did argue the alternate causality, you would be agreeing with the affirmative that global warming is real, which many homeschool judges don’t believe anyway. Basically, you _can_ do it but I would chose something different. There are a lot of other ways to argue agaisnt warming (i.e Warming good, no warming, non-anthropogenic warming, et cetera).
Coolness.. thanks.
Cows: way to many people, even “expert” types, completely misunderstand the mechanics behind this. The problem is not that they emit greenhouse gasses; it’s how they emit them.
Consider this: Where did the carbon in the methane (CH4) come from? From what the cows ate. How did it get into their food? From being absorbed from the atmosphere. The carbon emissions directly from cows are thus cyclical – it’s being recycled from the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels, which are releasing it from subterranean storage, if you will.
Why is it a problem, then? As I mentioned earlier, the problem is how it’s emitted. Carbon is absorbed into the plants in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), but due to the enteric fermentation that occurs in the digestive system of a cow, the carbon is then emitted as methane (CH4), which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas.
In sum, cows’ net emissions (in terms of carbon atoms) are zero. The problem is that they convert CO2 to methane. A simple theoretical way to solve this would be to merely burn the methane, which break it down into hydrogen and carbon dioxide – making the whole cycle climate-neutral. This is, of course, easier said than done.
Regardless, extensive research is being done to reduce emissions from cows, so you may have inherency problems there.
On thermal depolymerization: I honestly cannot fathom why people like this case. In order to achieve any sort of solvency for landfills you would have to blatantly violate of the laws of physics. Think about it – oil is made of hydrocarbons, which (as the name suggests) are composed of hydrogen and carbon. Thus, to make “oil out of anything”, you have to literally convert, say, iron atoms to carbon atoms – which is physically impossible. Even if you were to somehow succeed, you would still have to reassemble said hydrogen and carbon into the correct molecules – which is most certainly not “depolymerization”. The best you can do is extract a small fraction of the input mass and process it into an oil-ish substance (this is pretty much what the only working TDP plant did – basically, it cooked turkey guts to extract some of the oils. Hardly the miracle process it’s hyped up to be.) I’ve yet to see a single chemist promote this process as a solution to anything, except maybe an oversupply of turkey guts.
Other processes conspire against TDP, even if it did work. The reason it’s economical is because the input matter is basically worthless – turkey guts, trash, etc. As soon as it has a use (making oil), it’s no longer worthless. The price spikes and TDP is no longer economical. This is pretty much exactly why the only running TDP plant shut down – they just couldn’t make it economically viable.