Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Disclaimer: Due to a limited amount of space, I am lumping and dumping a few points. I
apologize.
Topicality - Standards
A. The Brightline. Notice he dropped all my analysis of the brightline standard. Sure we
have a line, but how did it get there? With his standard we don’t know. Pull over my
arguments.
2. Is real world. He never gave us a reason to reject my analysis of real world. Legal
documents have a ton of definitions, but we need to have a common man understanding
of language to comprehend those definitions.
3. All standards are subjective. His brightline his just as subjective as common man
analysis. Common man is not the absence of definitions, but the presence of
understanding a definition. Notice how I have not rejected his definitions, I have only
rejected his analysis.
II. Voters
1. Over-limiting. In his violation standards he gives me all the fuel I need for my
argument. He says I can’t reform existing Acts and I can’t create new Acts. Therefore,
not one case is topical under his interpretation. That is overlimiting. His C-X answers
demonstrate this perfectly. Limits are good, over-limits are not.
2. The Bad precedent. Here what I am saying, by arguing that all cases are non-Topical,
he is creating a bad precedent. I am not saying it is abusive to run T, I am saying it is
abusive to claim all cases are non-Topical. It is sort of like a judge penalizing a plaintiff
for bringing frivolous case. The prosecution is discouraged from arguing frivolous cases.
T- Environmental Policy
2. Similar arguments do not implicate (It’s not guilt by association). To say as such
would be to implicate all arguments and reasoning. It is like saying Nietzsche liked
constructive dilemmas. Therefore, using constructive dilemmas = nihilist. The same is
true of words. Simply using a word/phrase does not implicate my case.
II. No impact
“He’s missing the argument” - Germany’s wildlife policy did not justify their genocide,
their corrupt philosophy did. The distorting lens hampered their wildlife policy is not
contained in my rhetoric. I don’t have a distorting lens of “racial purity” in the first place.
Like I said before, corruption is not reciprocal.
III. No Alternative
Cross apply my A. and B. point based on my C-X. I point-blank asked for a different
term he would like to use to replace “invasive species.” He said “something else.” So
either replace the term “invasive species” with “something else” or throw out his
alternative. This is critical. He cannot claim any benefit to rejecting the aff because, if his
argument that the term “invasive species” distorts discourse is correct, there is no
effective term to describe these… creatures. There is no way to avoid it.
Representation K
I. No Link
“To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew could save mankind
may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian
sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations
could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss
of a species affects other species dependent on it. Moreover, as the number of species
decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases
dramatically. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better
than simplicity. As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally
has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species
by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically
diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . .
. [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse
better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara
Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples
of what might be expected if this trend continues.”
3. Remember those three on-case impacts to invasive species (which he dropped BTW)?
That is the kind of biodiversity problem I am talking about. Cross-apply to my C. point
and the Alternative to the K.
B. Literature Misquote
1. My Link. From his link card “Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to
many nature lovers: that virtually everything must be protected.”
2. This completely de-links the K. Yes, the whole K is saying that the horror story is used
to justify crazy “OMG don’t do anything to the environment” actions. The case turn is
that the Ludddites have failed to find a place for humans in nature. My case allows for
humans in nature. I am advocating a conservation “be stewards” approach to nature, not a
preservation “do absolutely nothing” discourse.
I. Clarifications: My argument here is not just about conditionally, but also the fact that
he is running two contradictory cases. He has COMPLETELY DROPPED ALL of my
arguments on contradictions. So the round should end, right here.
II. Impacts
A. Game changer. It doesn’t matter if we drop an argument along the way. When you
present a Counterplan , the game changes. You are no longer merely against something,
you are now for something. It is like the difference between anti-abortion and pro-life.
His CPs are not just arguments, they are advocated solutions to a problem. When you
vote negative, you are not voting for the SQ, you are voting for the negative team.
(really…) He had the option of running straight-up negative. He chose not to do that.
“decision making/strategic thinking” is moot.
No it’s not. It is like a defendant changing his plea mid-trail. It is like a scientist changing
his doctoral thesis mid-paper. It is like a Senator changing parties mid-term. (oh wait…).
D. A/T perms
Totally irrelevant. a) his case is now entirely off-case offense. In other words, he brought
it up, it is his ground, he has fiat over his CPs, he had infinite prep time to prepare his Ks,
and b) C-X point: If you wanted to check confusing theory, preempt in the 1NC.
H. Voter. For the sake of logic and consistency. Vote against the negative advocacy.
CP Clean List Only
I. Net Benefits.
B. Corruption.
1) Quantification. Examples of government corruption abound, but until he can pull out
evidence that says that the pet trade can significantly influence risk assessments this is a
moot point.
2) Simplicity/Turn.
a) My case is simple. I am not talking about tax code blehness. (Made that up.) I am
talking about three lists. Try manipulating that H&R.
b) Oversimplifying is inaccurate. The more generic you get, the less
precise you get. With invasive species, it is critical that we remain
precise.
3) Tu quoque – He misses the point. If lobbyists wanted to corrupt RA, then they
wouldn’t worry about the lists. They would for the actual assessments. This undermines
both cases. Therefore, his point is moot.
I. A/T NB
II. Solvency
A. Application.
1. Brown evidence. Actually Brown does not advocate his CP, this card is merely a
presentation of one possible solution. Here is Brown’s conclusion on the matter:
Consistency, expertise, and more resources make a federal approach superior.
Robert Brown [J.D., Indiana University School of Law; Associate at the Arnold & Porter
LLP’s real estate group; former editor of the Indiana Laws Journal], Spring 2006
“Exotic Pets Invade United States Ecosystems: Legislative Failure and a Proposed
Solution,” Indiana Law Journal, [Vol. 81:713]
“A federal approach would offer greater protection against invasive exotic pets than a
uniform state approach. First, no guarantee exists that Congress could entice all fifty states to adopt
uniform state regulations, especially in states where the pet-trade industry has strong political influence.
Second, instead of requiring state and federal enforcement agencies to coordinate their efforts, strict federal
enforcement at both a national and state level would be more likely to have a widespread impact by
eliminating policy discrepancies between state and federal agencies. Third, using one federal agency,
instead of fifty separate state agencies, would result in economies of scale. Besides lower
operational costs, a federal agency would have greater potential to collectively develop
expertise to combat problems that individual states may not have the resources to
resolve.”
This is essentially good/better comparison. Brown does not approve of CP [-5 influence].
Vote aff. for the better approach.
2. Hill evidence.
a) Not a reason to reject. I am not preempting any fed/state cooperation. All that Hill
mentioned can oocur with my case.
b) Partnership exists already. Therefore, this point is moot.
3. Nutria. So? Yes states can eradicate invasive species, but they cannot prevent their
introduction. Vote aff to solve the root of the problem.
B. Won’t work. He just says we should try. Yeah, I’ve tried to fly. It hasn’t worked. Hill
actually proves. Florida actually has a big problem with illicit trade of outlawed pets.
(See Brown in 2AC.) This means his case has near zero solvency.