Notes

1AC:
Wind production is stalling, new investment needed -- USA Today 2014
Plan: US govt should create tax credits for offshore wind
Tax credits key to investment -- Clean Energy Leadership Institute 2013
(insert various solvency cards here)
US relies on fossil fuels, leads to CO2 emissions -- Savtiz 2010
Not too late to reduce emissions -- Nuccitelli 12
Warming leads to extinction through ocean acidification, political instability, food shortages, etc -- Thaler 2012
Economic growth is sluggish, new jobs needed -- Foley 14
(1AC shouldn't skip around so much...makes it incoherent)

Cross ex: Aff failed to answer many neg questions about timeframe, probability, and any specific aspects of the plan.

Neg prep left: 4 min, 56 sec

1NC:
(insert various cards about how the plan leads to higher electricity prices, and how natural gas is already reducing electricity prices, and how low electricity prices are key to manufacturing)
The plan is too expensive, and offshore wind is unreliable. Wind isn't constant, and there's no evidence that wind will always be blowing. Natural gas is already working. If the electricity went out in hospitals, then that would harm patients. We shouldn't take that risk. Plus, they're plan hurts manufacturing, which leads to economic collapse on nuclear wars.
(need some kind of carded evidence for econ collapse from high commodity prices, nuclear wars, unreliability, etc)

Cross ex: (repetition of same talking points stated in the speech). Aff asked very generic questions.

Aff prep left: 5 min

2AC:
Economic decline leads to conflict -- Royal 10
Economic growth prevents collapse of US heg -- Khalilzad 11
Oil supplies are tapering off, leads to famine, resource wars -- Ahmed 2013
Wind power will replace coal, oil -- Parkinson 2014
Lack of oil leads to nuclear wars -- Heinberg 2004
Offshore wind leads to job creation -- Clarkson 13
Offshore wind creates millions of jobs -- Clarkson 13
Obama working to implement offshore wind -- Clarkson 13
Offshore wind key to shipping -- Clarkson 13
(no response to neg arguments. No extensions of cards from previous speech (this applies to both teams). Cards were a bit repetitive...)

Cross ex: Aff doesn't know how wind turbines are going to be physically created. Odd questions from the neg...Aff also doesn't know how much maintenance costs. Aff isn't able to properly answer neg questions.

Neg prep left: 2 min, 49 sec

(Teams need to flash each other files of just the cards they're going to read. Not just a whole file)

2NC:
Wind turbine construction hurts birds, bats and plankton -- ?
Plankton are huge part of biodiv, key to carbon sequestration, fish life, etc -- Birko and Ree 10
(Don't have large periods of no talking)
Aff said wind power can replace gas, but it will require a lot of money. Everything is run by gas, so it's virtually impossible to switch to wind. Aff said that turbines will be drilled into seabed, but this hurts marine life. There's plenty of energy resources available, so there's no need for offshore wind.
Offshore wind creates habitats for invasive species -- Langam 12
Fishery collapse leads to mass starvation -- Science 11/02
Aff doesn't solve for overfishing, overpopulation -- Ferwin 11
(Good biodiv DA cards. No response to aff arguments...)

Cross ex: Aff asks how overfishing relates, and neg says that wind turbines kill biodiv, which leads to overfishing. Not great questions asked by the aff...Aff asks what is on the seabed, and neg says there's coral, plants, fish, etc, and that building these turbines would destroy this habitat (but aff said they were going to be floating....and what about the offshore oil platforms? shouldn't the impacts have happened already?)

Neg prep time left: 2 min, 49 sec

1NR:
Aff said that jobs would be created, but the plan uses up a ton of US money, which means the economy will be hurt (the plan is a tax credit though...and deficit is already high...$18 trillion...). Aff said that they would put it on the seabed (did they?), which would kill biodiv (good line-by-line). If wind turbines break, because they are close to land, they will lead to floods, release of waste, etc, and US would be blamed for it. Wind turbines are likely to break because waves. There's already plenty of wind resources on land (but offshore wind is better though...90% more strong blowing and consistent), so we need to focus on maintaining those resources. Aff said in the cross ex that there were other disads to the plan, and they implicitly agreed that the plan had disads. No need to waste money.
(Where are the cards to back this up?)

Aff prep time left: 2 min, 59 sec

1AR:
Neg never addressed warming, and warming leads to extinction. Neg said that aff conceded disads, but aff was just wondering if there were any other impacts, and warming outweighs anyways. If the plan isn't passed, the animals will be dead anyways from warming. And we'll be dead, so money won't matter. Neg said the biodiv will be killed by the plan, but without the plan, ocean acidification will kill coral reefs, which kills tons of fish. The plan also leads to less oil dependency, which leads to nuclear conflicts. Neg said that plan will break the economy, but plan creates jobs, which stimulates recovery (good line-by-line). The CO2 emissions are very high, which will trigger the global warming impacts, which leads to extinction. Because there's so much CO2 emissions right now, we need to implement the plan right now. Plan is a priority over biodiv.

Neg prep time left: 0 min, 0 sec

2NR:
We aren't just talking about biodiv. It's about too much spending and economic collapse. Keep the wind turbines onshore. Aff's impacts take too long to occur, neg's impacts will happen now. Aff said that they create jobs, but what happens when you finish those turbines (there are maintenance jobs...). The aff's cards were opinionated, and there weren't any specifics to the plan. Aff doesn't know what materials go into the wind turbines, which might result in biodiv loss. The cost of the plan is immense, which kills economy. The judge should vote neg because of immense costs, loss of biodiv, disturb marine life, the people will lose jobs after the turbines are built. Neg wants to preserve the economy, and preserve biodiv. US economy is key to the world, so US economy is key.
(Like the judge said, people don't all get dropped at once. There's always the next project to work on)

Aff prep time left: 0 min, 0 sec

2AR:
The neg is arguing that we shouldn't do the plan, but that means warming will increase a lot, which will cause humans, plankton, fish, etc. Their impacts don't matter. This is why the judge should vote aff. There is an annual investment in wind of $10.6 billion. The plan will lead to improved shipbuilding, which leads to an improved economy. The wind turbines will create tons of electricity. The offshore wind project off the coast of Denmark provides electricity for 1.3 million homes. If we increase global warming, we're all going to die (100 tons number is wrong...). Neg said that we will lose tons of jobs after construction. The word "million" is a complete exaggeration. By 2030, we'll have 500,000 jobs (manufacturing jobs are permanent...). Neg says to depend on oil, but we must do the plan, because of the impacts of: warming and nuclear war. That's why the judge should vote aff. Aff's impacts outweigh.