Here is a flow of our case--However, I must warn you, our case doesn't really follow any sort of traditional structure. It's kind of like a complicated criterion/analysis case--we just present reasons why the plan should be enacted. However, due to the complaints of certain judges and competitors, we now have added advantages.
Definitions are boring, so we'll skip into the case.
Value: free market environmentalism. A. Helping environment made a commodity B. Possession precedes possessiveness.
INHERENCY: Federal biofuel subsidies (all corn) total 9.5 billion in 2008.
REASONS FOR ENDING THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY:
1. Ethanol is anti-green
2. Technology fails--will never be able to replace oil
3. Anti-capitalist. Subsidies hurt innovation overall, because we lock out potentially better alternatives.
PLAN: Mandate: remove federal ethanol subsidies and mandates over a period of 5 years
1. Decreased environmental harm. The federal government stops promoting pollution, which is a good idea.
2. Increased innovation. People will invest in the absence of the government, and investment will be directed towards finding successful fuels.
So there you have it folks: This will be the structure of our case that you will see at Regionals.
We have a backup case of Underground Storage Tanks. (UST's.) Basically, underground gas tanks (Like the ones at gas stations) have big problems with leaks, and so they release a lot of carcinogens into the ground and aquafiers. The EPA is focused right now upon cleanups , but our plan is to take the example of Europe, and be focused upon prevention, mandating some specific technology requirements for companies to comply with.