8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

1/12

1AR - Let it Rock.

Under 2500 words. (too late to run stats)

Same order as 2AC.

Disclaimer: Due to a limited amount of space, I am lumping and dumping a few points. I

apologize.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

2/12

Topicality - Standards

A. The Brightline. Notice he dropped all my analysis of the brightline standard. Sure wehave a line, but how did it get there? With his standard we dont know. Pull over my

arguments.

him: I like lines. ^-^

me: Me too. How do you draw them?

him: By making them. :Dme: -_-

B. A/T Common Man = evil.

1. What it is He seems to misunderstand my standard a little bit. I am not saying that we

start pulling out common man definitions at random. I am saying that we need to

interpret definitions with a common man perspective. In other words, use common sense.

This is simply an exercise of understanding semantics.

2. Is real world. He never gave us a reason to reject my analysis of real world. Legaldocuments 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 mananalysis. 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.

4. Dropped K2 brightline. We need some understanding of definitions, without a

common man perspective, we do not even know where to start. He effectively concedesthis.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

3/12

T- Policy

I. Violations. He clarified, I will do the same. I understand whathe is saying, but I amsaying there is no reason to accept what he is saying. The Affirmative is reformingthe

Lacey Act (a plan of action to deal with invasive species) to a proactive three list

approach. This is the only Act that deals with the importation of exotic species, thereforeit is the only policy on this issue. We change the policy by changing regulations.

II. Voters

1. Over-limiting. In his violation standards he gives me all the fuel I need for my

argument. He says I cant reform existing Acts and I cant create new Acts. Therefore,

not one case is topical under his interpretation. That is overlimiting. His C-X answersdemonstrate this perfectly. Limits are good, over-limits are not.

2. The Bad precedent. Here what I am saying, by arguing that allcases are non-Topical,

he is creating a bad precedent. I am not saying it is abusive to run T, I am saying it isabusive 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.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

4/12

T- Environmental Policy

I. Violations.Natural environment is understood to mean All living and non-living

things that occurnaturally on a particular region. [http://www.biology-

online.org/dictionary/Natural_environment]. In less words, the ecosystems. The onlyreason the word their is in there is because the author wants to exclude

extraterrestrial environments and limit the discussions to paticular regions. Besides,

invasive species (such as the African clawed frog.) are present in cities. I directly regulatethose species. So even his interpretation makes my case topical.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

5/12

K Invasive species

I. No Link

1. Goldstein and my discourse is noting an association with demonizing immigrants and

invasive species. He is not saying one leads to the other or vise versa. Yes some make thearguments that Goldstein implicates. However,I am not advocating the ecological

purity argument. My stance is that invasive species are a problem because 1) they

damage ecosystems and 2) were spending too much money trying to correct this problem.I claim no ecological purity in my case. Just because some people use eco. purity

does not implicate my case. I would like to say more thing on this. Most non-native

species are incredibly beneficial for Americans (think wheat, corn, etc.) Those species are

not the problem. The problem is the small amount of non-native species that are invasive(i.e. harmful.)

2. Similar arguments do not implicate (Its not guilt by association). To say as such

would be to implicate all arguments and reasoning. It is like saying Nietzsche likedconstructive 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

Hes missing the argument - Germanys 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 dont 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 hisalternative. 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.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

6/12

Representation K

I. No Link

A. Not a horror story

On his Diner quote:

1. Diner does not advocate the horror story he is explaining it. That is why he uses

phrases like theoretically and this discourse has taken the form of.2. I actually only read this part of the card:

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 lossof 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 betterthan 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. Biologicallydiverse 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 examplesof 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 usedto justify crazy OMG dont 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 apreservation do absolutely nothing discourse.

II. The Alternative

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

7/12

a) Im not claiming that invasive species threaten human security (survival). I am saying

they threaten ecological health. A threat is not necessarily a security threat.b) Too much nature can be a bad thing. yo. (see my three impacts)

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

8/12

Condi/Contradictions

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 doesnt matter if we drop an argument along the way. When you

present a Counterplan , the game changes. You are no longer merely againstsomething,

you are nowforsomething. 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 youvote 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.

B. What we say. He is advocating three contradictory arguments at once. This is logically

impossible. He might say that as long as he rectifies it, its okay. However, this ignoresthe significance of advocacy. If we can contradict ourselves, as long as we clarify later,

then there is no weight to our words. If we cannot trust what one says from the very

beginning, there is no reason to trust them later. This time skew is unique because I have

to spend time combating multiple worlds.

C. A/T multiple worlds is real world.

No its 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

On three occasions Malson mentions perms as a check/reciprocation. Heres the problemwith that.

1) Perms check non-competitive CPs. When I permute a CP I am saying that the CP

doesnt compete with my case. I cant do that on either of his CPs so the perms cant

check.

2) Perms are a theory test not actual advocacy. The CP does not actually get passed

with an aff ballot. Thus, a perm does not create multiple worlds.

E. A/T dont reject team.

Exactly. Reject their advocacy. That it is okay to logically contradict.

F. A/T All is condi

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

9/12

First, see my advocacy point. Second, if all argument are condi, thenI am kicking myfirst mandate and my first justification. That means he now looses his Representation K,

and both his CPs. If he says I cant do that, then he is conceding my advocacy argument.

G. A/T err on neg

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.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

10/12

CP Clean List Only

I. Net Benefits.

A. The difference. My 2AC A point is critical to understanding my case. BOTH my case

and his CP shift the burden of proof to the importers. (see first mandate.) The onlydifference is how we classify. With his CP, it is only yes. With my case it is a yes, no,

no. The reason NZ is epic is because it shifts the BOP. Bean even says New Zealand has

a dirty list. He has no examples ofjusta clean list.

B. Corruption.

1) Quantification. Examples of government corruption abound, but until he can pull outevidence 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 amtalking about three lists. Try manipulating that H&R.b) Oversimplifying is inaccurate. The more generic you get, the lessprecise you get. With invasive species, it is critical that we remainprecise.

3) Tu quoque He misses the point.Iflobbyists wanted to corrupt RA, then theywouldnt worry about the lists. They would for the actualassessments. This undermines

both cases. Therefore, his point is moot.

C. Advocacy. My mandates are directly advocated. That should be evidence enough. Itdoes matter because he is making several arguments based on a non-expert view. I haveguys who know how the system works, he doesnt.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

11/12

CP States Clean List

I. A/T NB

Your card mentions national security. If it applies to my case, you

assume invasive species are a security threat. Simple. That means youlink to both your Ks. Also he dropped my B. point so he basicallyconcedes we should toss the card.II. Solvency

A. Application.

1. Brown evidence. Actually Brown does not advocate his CP, this card is merely apresentation of one possible solution. Here is Browns 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

LLPs real estate group; former editor of the Indiana Laws Journal], Spring 2006Exotic 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 adoptuniform 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 loweroperational 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.

8/9/2019 Debate 1AR

12/12

B. Wont work. He just says we should try. Yeah, Ive tried to fly. It hasnt worked. Hill

actuallyproves. Florida actually has a big problem with illicit trade of outlawed pets.

(See Brown in 2AC.) This means his case has nearzero solvency.