Hello everyone! I am posting my 1st Affirmative Constructive case I wrote for the National Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA) Team Policy debate on my blog for each of you to critic. Please, I would ask that if you find anything at all that you are curious about, or maybe an inconsitancy, or even just questions about what any of this means, please comment! Thank you guys very much! 
1ac
These days, citizens of the United States have begun to think of the Federal Government as some type of Superman. Here to solve the world’s problems, and “save the day”. Upon this false premise, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were imposed on car manufacturers. This legislation imposes more rules on an already struggling car industry by demanding that all cars manufactured in the US are created with a specific miles per gallon rating. The goal behind this law was to “save the world” from climate change, and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. But at what cost? The freedom of the manufacturers.
Because of the false premise adopted by the Federal Government, and because of the over-whelming failures of the CAFE standards to accomplish its goals, my partner and I stand resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.
In order to promote clarity in today’s round we offer
Observation 1: Definitions. (sources available upon request)
Significant: “Important; of consequence” (dictionary.com/significant)
Reform: “The improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.” (dictionary.com/reform)
Environmental Policy: “is any (course of) action deliberately taken (or not taken) to manage human activities with a view to prevent, reduce or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resource” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy)
Definition of CAFE (only if necessary)
CAFE website
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Observation II : Goal
With the definitions clarified, the affirmative will present a Goal for the round. Or, what this round is going to be focusing on, we would ask the judge to base (His or Her) decision on this at the end of the round.
We, as the affirmative team, present the goal of: Proper Role Of Government
The role of government being purely to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, the Affirmative team is confident that the US Government has twisted its purpose into something that it is not. This twist of purpose, as we will show during this speech, inevitably leads to dangerous consequences to the peoples rights to life, liberty, and property.
That said, we would ask you the judge to vote for whichever team, affirmative, or negative that best presents the US Government with the proper goals.
Observation III : Inherency, or the way things are..
1. Regulations
President Barack Obama recently enacted stricter CAFE standards, Referencing these new laws, The wall street journal reported-
Wall Street Journal, May 20th, 2009.
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124275189316335291.html)
Henry J. Pulizzi
“President Barack Obama said new government rules designed to boost fuel efficiency and slash greenhouse-gas emissions will give auto makers “clear certainty” at a time when their business is enduring a “historic crisis.”
-The rules would require new passenger cars sold in the U.S. to meet an average mileage requirement of 39 miles per gallon by 2016.
That’s a dramatic rise from current averages–27.5 mpg for cars, 23 mpg for trucks–and would bring the overall average of cars and light trucks to 35.5 mpg by 2016, four years earlier than current federal law requires.”
These new standards seize the manufacturers rights to liberty, and property as the government makes the decisions on exactly how the companies make cars.
2. CAFE ineffective.
National Center for Policy Analysis, Nov 27, 2006
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13892
“Washington spends more than $3 billion a year on renewable and alternative energy programs, clean coal technology, energy research and the like, according to the Government Accountability Office. Yet all these Big Government efforts have failed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, says Investor’s Business Daily (IBD).
In fact, the opposite has occurred. In 1970, imports accounted for about 20 percent of the country’s oil supply; today, they account for 60 percent. To understand why, take a look a few specifics.
Fuel economy:
The federal government has since 1975 required automakers to meet corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards; as a result, cars on the road today are 52 percent more fuel efficient than they were 30 years ago.
But that hasn’t cut gasoline consumption; average per-person spending on gasoline is up 4 percent since 1975 after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis; one key reason is that people are driving more, offsetting the gains in efficiency.”
Observation IV : Harms, or problems brought about by the way things are…
1. Added Cost
The new CAFE standards make vehicles more expensive. The Associated Press reports May 20, 2009-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/ny-bc-us–obama-autos-glanc0519may19,0,6427266.story
-”President Barack Obama is asking consumers to put their money — up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 — behind his plan for higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and tougher rules on their greenhouse gas emissions.
In return, Obama said Tuesday in unveiling the plan, drivers would make up the higher cost of more fuel-efficient, cleaner vehicles by buying less gas at the pump. It would take just three years to pay off the investment and would, over the life of a vehicle, save about $2,800 through better gas mileage, the president said.”
2. Death
Charlie E. Coon July, 2001 (Charlie E. Coon is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm
“Not only has the CAFE program failed to meet its goals; it has had tragic even if unintended consequences. As vehicles were being made lighter to achieve more miles per gallon and meet the standards, the number of fatalities from crashes rose.
The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards.
A 2000 study by Leonard Evans, now the president of the Science Serving Society in Michigan, found that adding a passenger to one of two identical cars involved in a two-car frontal crash reduces the driver fatality risk by 7.5 percent. If the cars differ in mass by more than a passenger’s weight, adding a passenger to the lighter car will reduce total risk.
The Evans findings reinforce a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution and John Graham of the Harvard School of Public Health, who found that the weight of the average American automobile has been reduced 23 percent since 1974, much of this reduction a result of CAFE regulations.”
Seeing the consequences of such perversion of the purpose of government, The Affirmative team proposes a
Observation V : PLAN
Agency: Both houses of congress, and any other necessary federal agencies.
To be passed immediately upon an affirmative ballot.
Mandate
1. Corporate Average Fuel Economy emission standards will be repealed, and the money saved from the abolition of this program will be returned to taxpayers.
Funding: This plan is purely legislative, and will cost you nothing.
Observation VI : Advantages, how our plan impacts you, the judge, and solves for the harms we presented in our case.
With the abolition of these standards, the disadvantages are no longer existent thus, they have been solved for.
1. No cost. As presented early in this speech, the CAFE standards make cars more expensive, which depresses our already un-stable economy. With the abolition, we will be saving up to 1300 dollars per vehicle.
2. Less deaths. Also discussed earlier in this speech, the CAFE standards make cars more dangerous, and have increased the death rate per car crash, when these standards are repealed, car manufacturers will be free to create larger, heavier, and safer cars.
3. proper role of government.
Remembering our goal of proper role of government, we ask you to decide if the current administration is fulfilling it’s real responsibilities or not, we believe that CATO says it best-
“Congress has no business dictating automotive fuel efficiency. That’s a job for consumers, not vote-hustling politicians. There are no problems for CAFE standards to solve. Hence, they shouldn’t be tightened; they should be repealed.”
Comments(0) | 
From this verse, we can obviously see what the next step should be.
