CSULA
1
NFA-LD 2009-2010
Evac Inf Neg
Evac Inf Neg ................................................................................................................................ 1
Neg Strat ...................................................................................................................................... 2
**********Frontline**********................................................................................................. 3
@ Solvency.................................................................................................................................. 4
**********Impacts********** ................................................................................................... 5
Redundancy is Racist................................................................................................................... 6
CSULA
2
NFA-LD 2009-2010
Neg Strat
On Case:
This aff is really solid so there is not much you can do as far as that goes. Rock the Time Frame
card as much as you can. That is really all you can do on solvency. If the “Personal decision”
card actually works you are awesome.
The racism card is bread and butter. This is how you will win the case debate. I think it is
probably the best argument you have on or off case. Do not lose racism. They have cards that
say they help minorities, too. Their card ends with saying minorities need Public transit to get
around. Their case does not give them public transit
This case is kinda hard to deal with because there are few terminal impacts, etc. There is no
advantage structure. It just says harms, plan, and solvency – goodnight. Get them to isolate
what their advantages are supposed to be in CX.
Off Case:
T – Run T on Substantial because they are only going to fix like 60k miles of road or something
but there are millions of miles of roads in the US
DA – Run Focus or Reverse Spending. Get them to admit they increase the economy in CX then
run reverse spending. You can probably ad-hoc the links on the fly and get a little leverage.
However, if you can’t get them to admit to increasing the economy??? Then run the focus DA
and you should be good.
K – Cap K FTW! The Capitalism K has a lot of good info in it to kill this case. Specifically, the
link that is in the shell already is focused on competition between states. The states will fight
over funding and resources which will lead to the impacts. The alternative is easy enough to
understand. Don’t be capitalistic anymore.
CSULA
3
NFA-LD 2009-2010
**********Frontline**********
CSULA
4
NFA-LD 2009-2010
@ Solvency
1) It will take 7 years to finish any project – the impacts of the Das happen 1st!
Michigan DoT July ’09 [Michigan Department of Transportation Retrieved: July 2, 2009
http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-
151-14011-28036--F,00.html. MJS]
Roads How
long does it take to build a new road? Answer: National experience indicates it
takes an average of 7 years to construct a new roadway from the time when the route
location is selected. However, it is often difficult to identify the time frame for a new construction project. The construction
of a completely new roadway involves a number of complex and involved processes such as land appraisal and purchase, environmental
assessments, soil conditions, economic impact concerns and local land use issues. Each of these must be carefully evaluated to assure
that any adverse impacts are minimized and that those people and businesses that will be impacted by the project receive the proper
assistance and advice. Additionally, litigations which include acquisition of right of way and condemnation proceedings often delay
projects for years.
2) Evacuation is a personal decision… gov’t can’t force it
Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Synthesis 392: “Transportation’s role in emergency evacuation and reentry”
March 30, 2009 p. 39 Avaliable Online at http://books.google.com/books?id=GVEfOp4kxsC&
pg=PA38&dq=transportation+redundancy+and+Hurricane+Katrina#v=onepage&q=&f=false JH
Separate from the level of involvement or roles taken by transportation agencies was the
fundamental findings that effective evacuations are founded on the concept of
individual responsibility and decision making. Officials from across the country echoed the
assertion that no matter what amount of planning and resources expenditure are allocated,
the primary responsibility for personal evacuations lies with individual evacuees.
CSULA
5
NFA-LD 2009-2010
**********Impacts**********
CSULA
6
NFA-LD 2009-2010
Redundancy is Racist
Spending on capacity just doesn’t make sense, it trades off with funding on public
transportation and hurts low-income and minority populations who rely on it
Coalition for Smarter Growth, staff researcher, June 29th, 2009. [“National report finds most state
stimulus funding decisions missed opportunity to address maintenance backlogs to make progress on 21st century transportation.” Available
online at http://www.smartergrowth.net/anx/index.cfm/1,187,687,0,html/National-Report-On-State-Transportation-StimulusSpending] JB Boyer/Christensen
“That
nationally nearly two-thirds of STP funding has gone to repairing existing roads
and bridges is encouraging,” said Geoff Anderson, president of Smart Growth America, “But given our huge
road and bridge repair backlog and inadequate public transportation system, $6.6
billion for new highway capacity just doesn’t make sense. It’s like adding a new wing
to your house when the roof is falling in.” “In aggregate the states spent virtually none of their flexible
money on these choices, losing the opportunity to shield Americans from future gas price spikes and limiting their freedom
In fact we're seeing the effects of cuts in public transportation
right now and it's often hurting low income and minority populations – the people
who most rely on this transportation to get to work, be self-sufficient, and participate
in the economy.”
to choose how they get around.
RACISM CAUSES DEONTIC HARM-- WE MUST EXPRESS SOLIDARITY WITH ITS
VICTIMS REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES.
Post '91 (Robert C., Professor of Law @ UC-Berkeley, William & Mary Law Review, Winter '91, p. L/N GAL)
A recurring theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression ought to be
regulated because it creates what has been termed " deontic" harm. 18 The basic point is that
there is an "elemental wrongness" 19 to racist expression, regardless of the presence or
absence of particular empirical consequences such as "grievous, severe psychological injury."
20 It is argued that toleration for racist expression is inconsistent with respect for "the
principle of equality" 21 that is at the heart of the fourteenth amendment. 22 The thrust of this argument is that a
society committed to ideals of social and political equality cannot remain passive: it
must issue unequivocal expressions of solidarity with vulnerable minority groups and
make positive statements affirming its commitment to those ideals.
CSULA
7
NFA-LD 2009-2010
**********Neg**********
CSULA
8
NFA-LD 2009-2010
Topicality
A: Interpretation
John T. Justice Curtin ‘03, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 2-23-03 (Gateway Equipment
Corp. -vs- United States of America - 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2942, United States District Court for the Western District of New York) p. lexis
The government cites Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary for the definitions of "limit"
and "impairment" as suggesting "meanings equivalent to restriction and reduction, respectively." Item 30, p. 3, n.1. It posits that
the word "substantially" suggests "an order of magnitude equivalent to 80% or
90%." Id. It concludes that "using those definitions, 'substantially limited' and 'substantially impaired' means that there must be an
80%-90% restriction and/ or reduction of use by virtue of the design of the CB-4000." Id.
B: Violation
1) 1AC doesn’t meet this definition because it is not reforming 80-90% of domestic
transportation infrastructure
2) Prefer my definition based on these standards
C: Standards
1) Predictability – The aff forces the negative to debate cases that are not substantial with no way
to predict what case they could run.
2) Brightline - the objective of every definition is to minimize confusion; a Brightline is the
ultimate topicality standard.
D: Voters
This is an A priori subject – comes before case
1) Rules – The NFA-LD rules say that topicality is a voting issue, if they aren’t topical they lose
2) Fairness/Ground - Debate must be fair to win, if the aff isn’t topical they should lose. Ground
is the fundamental impact to all theory arguments, if ground isn’t a voter you’ll never have
anything to vote on.