1ar

Please judge, save Burl….

Counterplan It was dumb of me to run 9 responses in the 2ac. I will drop most of them in favor of 2. 1. Solvency of the CP: I’ll be elaborating on the argument that hemp won’t replace coal. Let’s look at the points here. He claims the author says “can” rather than “will” because coal is currently illegal. This response collapses in the context of the card. The card is talking about the amount of energy that hemp can provide. I never disputed that hemp doesn’t have enough energy. My contention was that hemp won’t be adopted on the scale needed. The card doesn’t address this. In addition, Canada has legal hemp, yet according to the Energy Information Administration fact sheet on Canada: “The largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (32 percent), followed by hydroelectricity (25 percent) and natural gas (24 percent). Both coal (10 percent) and nuclear (7 percent) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix.” See? Legal hemp =/= replacing fossil fuels. In addition, the card I asked for saying hemp is cheaper then coal said no such thing. Sure, hemp may be cheaper than other Biofuels, but we don’t know that it’s cheaper, more efficient, or more profitable than coal. Until we see such a card, all his rhetoric about coal companies wanting to make dough has zero merit. In addition, the subsidies that we give to coal are way bigger than the 10 billion he can provide, so there is a bigger incentive for coal there too. 2. Exclusivity: Let me clarify the argument here. I’m not perming the CP. My point was merely that the CP doesn’t disprove our plan. Even if legalizing hemp is a good idea, it doesn’t mean that pollution control is a bad idea. The CP fails to meet the burden of the negative to refute the affirmative plan.

Kritik Now that I have finally figured out the link, let’s respond. He’s claiming I believe humans are more important than the environment. Let’s clarify what I mean by this, verses his claim. • •

•

I am claiming that when there is a choice, and when I can save either an animal or a human, I will choose the human. That is my position, and the neg agrees with this. The K links to a mindset of exploiting nature for man’s good, and only caring about nature so long as it benefits humans. I am opposed to this mindset. I merely believe that in a situation where the choice is necessary, we need to value humans. The neg agreed in CX that when the choice is forced, he would save a human too. The only possible link to the K has also been committed by the neg as well.

Topicality 1. Wait a cotton picking minute! Abolish a policy? NO NO NO! His original interpretation is that we need to abolish an abuse in the policy. Look at his original definitions. 2. Under our plan the loophole in the law no longer exists. SQ: Coal retrofits not mandated. Aff plan: Retrofits mandated. Loophole = bye bye. 3. Critical Issue: If the judges believe a glaring loophole/dysfunction/problem with the law is an abuse/malpractice, then aff wins. I think its obvious that a glaring legal problem that leads to widespread health impacts qualifies as a loophole.

O-Spec 1. Hypocrisy: He responded to this by claiming that he was pre-empting arguments with the O-Spec. NOT a response. He states in the response that the O-spec only matters if A) I run theory on the funding hijack, or B) He drops the CP. Neither of these have happened, so he admits the O-spec is a wash. I have no intention of committing option A, so unless he drops the CP, the O-spec is a wash. If he does, I should still win because of 2. Ground loss: I find it interesting that he made such a stink about losing ground against the plan, yet I lose the exact same ground against the CP. The O-Spec is a wash. Period.

On-case 1. How many diseases has ash caused? We don’t know. Why? Because there are 600 ash dumps that are UNREGULATED! The EPA has never done a comprehensive study on all of them. They have done some limited investigation and determined that out of the 100 ash dumps they studied, 63 of them had polluted the groundwater. They are asking us for numbers that don’t exist. We know its in the water, and we know its poisonous. 2. Enforcement: He wants to see a card that says the EPA is a tough enforcer. Fine. Here is a random card that says just such a thing. EPA pwns evil polluters with big fines and stuffs. EPA Press Release “EPA, NDEP enjoy strong enforcement, compliance assistance year” December 11, 2003 http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/55c61e 24a417b73b852570d8005e15d8!OpenDocument The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection worked together to bring businesses in compliance with environmental regulations through enforcement and technical assistance activities over the past year. In 2003 the EPA and the NDEP fined Nevada businesses more than $600,000 last year for violations of air, water, mining and pesticide regulations. Nevada's long-standing technical assistance program, operated under contract with the University of Nevada, helped many businesses not only remain in compliance with environmental regulations but also reduce the amount of hazardous and industrial waste they generate. In 2003, the program helped five industries reduce or eliminate 47,000 lbs. of hazardous and industrial waste. Through their respective enforcement programs, the EPA and the NDEP required industries to pay penalties and take actions in their daily operations to improve the environment. Also, empirical success. EPA’S Nitrogen and Sulfer reduction programs that were very similar to our plan worked. 3. Existing vs Future: He wants to see evidence that coal ash can be moved from an unlined landfill to a lined one. Fiiine. Look at the big ash dump that ruptured this January. It costs 1/10 as much to move the waste to a safe landfill as it does to clean up the mess Christian Science Moniter, January 9, 2009, “Coal Ash waste poses risk across the nation.” Averting the problem might have cost one-tenth as much as cleanup. At the Kingston facility, TVA officials did not pursue a $25 million proposal to dry out their sludge and ship it to properly lined landfills, despite evidence that the lagoon dam was weakening, according to published reports.

4. Agency: Notice he didn’t really run an A-Spec. Why? Because as I pointed out in CX, he doesn’t specify agency either. This argument, like the O-Spec, needs to be a wash because both the plan and the CP do it.

Bottom line: The CP has zero solvency. The K doesn’t link but if it does, then it links to both teams. The O-Spec and Agency argument are both washes, because both the CP and the plan do it. T is met by his own definitions.

Last Note: The Merits of the Plan go UNADRESSED!