2ac T its

1. we meet the US owns the land that gets developed.

2. Counter-interpretation its means belong OR associated with

Cambridge Dictonary NO DATE ( Its, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/its)
Definition

belonging to or relating to something that has already been mentioned

The dog hurt its paw.

Their house has its own swimming pool.

The company increased its profits.
I prefer the second option - its advantages are simplicity and cheapness.

Prefer our interpretation

a. grammatically its has to mean MORE than possession internal link turns predictability
b. checks back limits US still has to own the land.

3. No topical affs under development no one advocates US doing the developing

means only exploration affs thats worse.

4. Their definition is bad POSSESSIVE refers to a way of defining a pronoun

NOT as it must be owned by thats in cx.

5. We meet congressional grants would fund plan just helps them do it.
Del FRANCO 12 National Wind Power Staff [Mark Del Franco, DOE Offshore Wind Grants
Provide Impetus To Get 'Steel In The Water',
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10818#.UTebP6V2H04]
The DOE provided a major boost for the fledgling offshore wind industry by announcing grants for seven U.S.
offshore wind projects to ensure commercial operation in state and federal waters by 2017.
The projects will receive up to $4 million to complete the engineering, design and permitting phase of this award. The DOE
will select up to three of these projects for follow-on phases that focus on siting, construction and installation and aim to
achieve commercial operation by 2017. These projects will receive up to $47 million over four years, subject to
Congressional appropriations , according to the DOE.

6. Counter-interpretation Development includes USE OF OCEAN SPACE

means the aff does do ITS DEVELOPMENT since it uses the space
JIN 98 Japan Institute of Navigation, Ocean Engineering Research Committee, http://members.jnavigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm
2. Aim of Ocean Engineering Committee
Discussions of "Ocean Engineering" are inseparable from "Ocean Development." What is ocean
development? Professor Kiyomitsu Fujii of the University of Tokyo defines ocean development in his
book as using oceans for mankind, while preserving the beauty of nature. In the light of its significance
and meaning, the term "Ocean Development" is not necessarily a new term. Ocean development is
broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources , (2) Utilization of ocean spaces ,
and (3) Utilization of ocean energy . Among these, development of marine resources has long been
established as fishery science and technology, and shipping, naval architecture and port/harbour
construction are covered by the category of using ocean spaces, which have grown into industries in
Japan. When the Committee initiated its activities, however, the real concept that caught attention was a
new type of ocean development, which was outside the coverage that conventional terms had implied.

7. No limits explosion since all affs still have to have the US act, and maintain
ownership, those are MEANS of funding which is T under theirs.
8. Counter-interp increase means to make greater if there is no current USFG
owned development then they eliminate that part of the topic.
9. Reasonability checks good is good enough

1ar T its overview

Two framing issues
A. ITS does not exclusively mean possessed by
it can just as easily means RELATED to their choice of a particular definition is arbitrary. It being
arbitrary internal link turns their reasonability argument. Even if it is less affs it isnt predictable
because its arbitrary.

B. Their limits impact is made up for 2 reasons

FIRST the possibility of doing development doesnt make an aff they still have to have solvency
evidence. Which would make those affs predictable but since that evidence doesnt exist, were fine.
SECOND all of those affs still have to have the USFG start the development which means they
would lose to the PIC out of the USFG to have the states do it or another actor that means the debate
hasnt changed the aff still has to win USFG action is good

Ext Counter-Interp of Development

Their interpretation of ITS begs the question of development. Even if they win it
has to be possessed by the USFG, the question is what has to be possessed. JIN 98
defines OCEAN DEVELOPMENT as the utilization of the resources and the space.
The plan meets this interpretation because we give permits for the use of space and
the resources of the ocean.
2 reasons that means you vote AFF
A. they dont have a better definition of development they have to win that to win what has to be
POSSESSED.
B. makes the impacts to their its interpretation inevitable since the only thing that has to be done is
development.

Ext We Meet already funded

The federal government is already agreed to fund Wind Energy projects thats Del
FRANCO 12 which means they are prepared to fund them. Thats important
because their only argument is that the USFG has to be the one that pays for it its
a trump card to all of their ground args about US involvement. Couple of args:
FIRST no impact to their limits arg it still gets funded by the USFG.
SECOND we are the only ones with offshore wind specific evidence that
conclusively says the DOE and Congress would have APPROPRIATION POWER
for all offshore winds.

AND this doesnt make us effectually topical it just means that things the USFG has
already agreed to fund can still be topical thats the real world since the NOAA
budget has already been set for exploration.