Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

c  c    c c    

 

a   
 
 
  
  


  
 

  



 
 
 
 



¦  
c

 
 
   


!
 
" 

"#
" 

  #
$ 

 
%

&

  
 '

&
()
 
£


c 


 
  

!



 
* 
"

 
+
  
$
a, 
  

  
- 
  
, 
,

 *

  



!
*

  
, 
..
"*
, 
*
 
 
"*
, 
$

 $

/


!
*
"  
/ c
  
 

/)0

)0
1
/)0

)0

2 
  


   

 
  
*

  


$  
* 
234#
+#
556
/

  

 
  

7*
  
*  

* 

2

 
 

 
  

"$
8*  
5"  #
5 " 
9

*
 "
%


 
 *
  
* 
"
* 
 


  

:*;*

<




=+a
c

7*
- 

- 
 
 
*"
   




 

(c >
$ 
 *
 


- 
 

 
234
/
c     c  c   


 
a) policy - plan of action Part to whole, not the whole phrase
b) res
 
   Aff changes Act of Congress no warrant, no examples of policy distinction from act
     

A. Birghtline to what?
B. Artificial barriers
   
A. need to find how to set
1. Brightline. RTP: B. R2P Common Man
a) Key to def 1) Real world
b) Best education 2) Key to brightline
c) Ultimate goal
d) Preserves comm
e) Void for vagueness
f) Key to language
g) Makes T a question of degree
2. Fxt bad
     
1. A priori issue. 1. Negative over-limits
2. Prima facie burden.
3. Destroys debate. Turn - Destorys merit of debate round
4. Sets a bad precedent. Turn - Neg sets bad precedent of running T on T cases
  

 
 
  - non mandates concerning relationship and their We meet. No warrant.
III. Voters - X-app ditto
ÿ   
    Metaphors shape understanding (Goldstein 09)
   
1. ³Invasive species´ rhetoric = nationalization of nature Goldstein 09 Not comparing to immigrants
2. The µcommon traits¶ = immigrants Goldstein 09 So? I'm not drawing that comparison, doesn't apply.
      
Justification for genocide (Goldstein 09) Philosophy of genocide --> German invasive policy. Not vise versa.
 
 - Balanced approach. Don't nationalize A. Either his alt is non-existent.
B. Or his alt. is my case.
 
   
BioD = ecological horror story Doremus 2k A. Not a horror story. Not claiming end of world.
B. Literature misquote - His Lit = Luddite/preservationism
C. Fact, not fiction - loosing biod bad, but other reasons besides extinction
    
Current political discourses fail to preserve nature (Doremus 2k)
 

! 
nature as an integrated part of life rather than a security threat. Doremus 2k 
   Ev. Says include people in picture. That's what aff does.
c     c  c   

   
u  His CPs contradict and they are condi
uu u

A) Advocacy.
B) Time Skew
C) Not reciprocal
D) Infinite regression
E) Is a Voter
   

ë    no dirty list, only clean list Here's how my case works


uu 
uuu  
1. clarity/efficiency True of my case: know what goes where.
2. corruption/lobbying a) no quantification
b) turn - easier to wiggle because of nebulousness
c) tu quoque - undermining is at science, not listing
u 
 see aff No advocacy for clean list only
   
ëandates A) gray list feds B) devolve species listing C) 50 states have clean list
uu 
uuu   A) either it links to his Ks
applying federalism to homeland security is cool Giuliano 07 B) or it doesn't apply
u 

Four reasons why states are better (Adler 07) A) Card doesn't apply - its not specific to interstate
B) Won't work. Pet trade circumvents (Brown 06)
C) Logistical nightmare