POLICY RESEARCHERS—FOLLOW THESE
EXPECTATIONS
ALL FIRST TIME WEST COAST
RESEARCHERS—you need to turn in two pages of work to Aaron to be reviewed to
assure you are doing your work right. This is recommended for returning workers
too.
Use this Template: westcoast.dot
1) USE UP-TO-DATE EVIDENCE.
--When people look at
the evidence, we want them to think “this is new stuff.”
--If the issue is
timely (e.g., uniqueness, current policy)—it should be VERY RECENT.
--Otherwise, the more
recent, the better but not absolutely critical (USUALLY, THE PAST 2 YEARS but
salient, important works that aren’t as new should not be overlooked).
2) USE DIVERSITY OF QUALITY SOURCES.
--Don’t overuse
one source for your evidence
--Minimize the use
of less credible sites such as blogs, Reuters, “crazy ideologue websites,” etc.
--TRY TO GET
QUALIFIED EXPERTS
--You may not turn
in material from sources such as Lexis if you do not have legal access to use
that source for BUSINESS PURPOSES such as our handbooks.
3) USE QUALITY EVIDENCE THAT GIVES WARRANTS
4) INCLUDE AT LEAST 3 PIECES OF EVIDENCE ON A PAGE.
--Evidence longer
than that is too long for our market—our customers don’t like it. Need an
exception to use just one or two cards? Contact the editor.
--Got a page that
isn’t filled up? Fill it up with evidence please.
5) CITATION
FORMAT. Make sure your citations look like this:
For regular
citations:
June Jones,
District Attorney, September 12, 2006, The Legal News, p. 12.
For web citations:
Harry Bustamente,
Professor of Psychology, April 1, 2006, Mental Health Web Page, accessed
6/4/2006, www.mentalhealthweb.com/psycho/helpers/tips23.htm
NOTE: YOU DO NOT NEED
A PAGE NUMBER FOR WEB PAGE CITATIONS.
NOTE: YOU DO NOT
INCLUDE TITLES OF JOURNAL/NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
6) REMOVE FOOTNOTES!
Remove ALL footnotes
that were in the original articles; that includes footnotes that look like this
*83
[76]
19
7) ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY.
Email it to Aaron.
8) USE TIMES ROMAN 10 POINT FONT.
Use 1 inch margins
ALL THE WAY AROUND.
9) DO NOT FORMAT YOUR DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO BOLD
TAGS.
Please do NOT use
styles, formatting, italicizing, etc. in your document.
10) WHAT TO INCLUDE IN YOUR ASSIGNMENTS
Keep in contact with Aaron for details.
Exact page expectations vary depending on the topic and specific assignment.
AFFIRMATIVE
1AC 5 pages
Backup 19 pages*
--backup for harms,
inherency, solvency
--answers to disads,
counterplans, kritiks
--answers to
topicality args
*may be less if the
handbook has a shared section for harms/solvency.
NEGATIVE
16 pages*
--frontlines against
harm/inherency/solvency
--frontlines against
the 2 to 3 likely advantages and extensions
--specific links to
the generic disadvantages
--specific
disadvantages, specific counterplans and extensions
--topicality shells
and extensions
*may be less if the
handbook has a shared section for harms/solvency.
DISADVANTAGES
Shell 1-2 pages
Backup with
uniqueness, generic links, impacts, 12-13 pages
Responses to the
Disad (not unique, no link, turns), 7 pages
COUNTERPLANS
Shell 1 page
Backup for solvency,
links to net benefits, 9 pages
Responses to the Counterplan
(perm, no solvency, disads), 7 pages
IMPACT/HARMS/SCENARIO ARGUMENTS
(e.g. warming
bad/good; happening/not happening)
Frontlines and
backup—contact editor for expected pages
Frontline responses
and backup—contact editor for expected pages
KRITIKS
Explanation Text: 2
pages
Shell 2 pages
Backup 12 pages
Responses to the
Kritik (perms, no link, turns): 8 pages.
If you have more or less—we can work around that BUT WE
NEED TO KNOW. CONTACT AARON.
|
A Typical Affirmative Handbook has: A Table of Contents Topic Analysis and Affirmative Cases Paper 5 Affirmative Cases Answers to the 5 WC Disadvantages Answers to the 2 WC Counterplans |
A Typical Negative Handbook has: A Table of Contents Topic Negative Arguments Paper Definitions Responses to 5 WC Affirmative Cases 5 Disadvantages 2 Counterplans |
|
A Typical Kritik Handbook has: 6 Kritiks 6 Answer Files to Kritiks |
The Updates are ad hoc but focus on
negatives |
11) WHAT EACH BRIEF THAT YOU TURN IN SHOULD LOOK LIKE:
Note: “Briefs” do not go over a page. If you
have too much evidence on the same issue for just one page, then make a new AND
DIFFERENT brief title for the next page and put the extra evidence there.
|
Alternative Energies Increase Consumer Costs 1. Tax credits for alternative energy increase consumer
costs Charli Coon, JD, Senior Policy
Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 18, 2002, The
Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1590.cfm Regardless of the way they
choose to meet this mandate, electricity suppliers will pass the costs on to
consumers in the form of a new "tax"--higher monthly electric
bills. Taxpayers will effectively be forced to pay twice for the electricity
they use: once as a government subsidy to favored renewable energy sources
and, again, in the form of higher monthly electric bills. In fact, the Energy
Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency
within the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that in 2020 the RPS proposal
will cost about $12 billion a year. 2. Mass subsidies on alternative energy waste important
government revenue Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy
Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, February 14, 2008, The
Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1816.cfm Much of the extra revenue
generated from these taxes would go toward subsidizing politically correct
alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. However, the
30-plus-year history of federal attempts to encourage such alternatives
includes numerous failures and few, if any, successes. Indeed, many of the
recipients of tax breaks and incentives in the bill have been subsidized for
decades—ethanol since 1978, for example—originally with the promise that they
would become viable within a few years and then go off the dole and compete
in the marketplace. But this has never happened. Instead, Congress just
passed a huge expansion of the ethanol mandate, essentially forcing Americans
to use more of it even as it continues to be heavily subsidized. Wind and
solar are doing no better. 3. The money spent on tax breaks for energy companies
decreases the ability to create a sustainable economy and end suffering Charli Coon, JD, Senior Policy
Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 18, 2002, The
Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1590.cfm As Danish statistician, Bjorn
Lomborg has pointed out, "We should not spend vast amounts of money to
cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a
poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more
effectively in the developing world." He continues, "Resources squandered
to solve what the best science says is a small effect that may appear in the
distant future has the certainty of increasing human suffering and
environmental harm in the near present." Given that "the most
substantial authority--science--has weighed against the fear of potential
human-made global warming," the conferees should stop excessive spending
on climate change, strike Title XIII of the Senate-passed energy bill, and
allocate taxpayer dollars more responsibly. 4. Alternative energy increases consumer costs Roy Innis, national chairman of
the Congress of Racial Equality, 2008, Grassroots Institute, Accessed April
8, 2008,
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/AltEnergy032608.shtml Every week brings new claims
that clean, free, inexhaustible renewable energy will soon replace the
“dirty” fuels that sustain our economy today. A healthy dose of reality is
needed. Over half of our electricity
comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36 percent of our electricity.
Barely 1 percent comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically
costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more
money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare. By 2020, the |
|
Ethanol Doesn’t Help The Environment And Hurts The
Economy 1. Ethanol subsidies increase consumer costs and don’t improve
the environment Charli Coon, JD, Senior Policy
Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 18, 2002, The
Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1590.cfm In addition, ethanol must be
denatured by gasoline during the course of its production. This raises production costs, significantly
devalues ethanol as a renewable resource, and contributes very little to
enhancing the nation's energy security. Moreover, a recent study by 2. Ethanol is not commercially viable Knight Ridder Tribune Business
News, July 1, 2007, p. 1 Congress, meanwhile, appears to
be betting heavily on the development of next-generation ethanol sources -- switchgrass,
biomass, wood chips and agricultural waste among them. The technology looks
promising in the laboratory, but has yet to make the leap to commercial
viability. Some investment in this research is prudent, but it cannot yet be
considered an alternative to corn- based ethanol to reach the bill's
ambitious mandates. Along with the
mandates, the Senate approved another liberal helping of taxpayer subsidies
for the ethanol industry, much of which will benefit agribusiness giants like
Archer Daniels Midland. The bill also renews tariffs that keep cheaper
ethanol from countries like 3. Cheap biodiesel will be exported, this
nullifies any economic advantage and increases consumer costs Scott Susich, senior partner at
Energy Management Institute, February 2008, International News on Fats, Oils
and Related Materials, INFORM, Vol. 19, Iss. 2; p. 127. Recent figures show there are
165 biodiesel plants capable of producing close to 2 billion gallons of the
fuel [in the |