1ar - Delta Fc

1AR - Delta FC Roadmap: Value Topicality Kritik Economics Extension Inherency DAs

Value: In today’s debate round, the Affirmative team upholds both values. That of Public Health for the obvious reason that we remove deadly toxins from the lives of millions; and Net Benefits because our Advantages outweigh the Disadvantages as we will see below.

Topicality: Though I conceded the interpretation I never conceded impacts, I said they were flawed since they had nothing to do with e-waste or this case. He said, “I’m still holding to the fact that since loan guarantees aren’t currently in the SQ, he’s not reforming it. Which means he’s creating it, and create =/= reform, hence the Tpress.” Whooaa!!! New argument here. This was only brought up in his CX of the 2AC, and was never brought up in any speeches! This is the Negative’s last ditch attempt to save himself on Topicality after I brought up our current e-waste policy. It should be disregard as a NEW ARGUMENT in the rebuttals. There IS a current e-waste policy and we ARE reforming it.

Kritik: Link: His statement IS fallacious. Just because a certain effect happens, does not mean that a certain motive must have been behind that affect. He has ONLY shown evidence of the effect. NONE on the motive. (BTW I didn’t concede to his definition of Eco-Imperialism in CX, I merely stated his definition). Impacts: His original Impacts had nothing to do with e-waste, so he decided to bring up all NEW Impacts in the 1NR. More NEW ARGUMENTS in the rebuttals! Also he states that he is turning his kritik impacts into a NEW Disadvantage. Let’s go back to CX I asked him, “Are you running your kritik impact as a disadvantage to the case?” He answered, ”No, I'm running this as a problem with the Affirmative's mindset. Hence the Kritik. The mindset that environmentally-friendly measures should be taken, at the expense of the poor in other countries.”

He is going back on what he stated and now accuses me of not responding to it as a Disadvantage. This is abusive and only leads to unfairness and a diminished educational value to the debate. That said, I’d like to read you some evidence on the subject of his impacts, "Sweatshop" recycling practices Phoenix Pak (Candidate for Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law), May 29, 2009, "HASTE MAKES E-WASTE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOW THE UNITED STATES SHOULD APPROACH THE GROWING EWASTE THREATs_ http://www.cjicl.com/issues/16-1-Pax.pdf Another important and related goal is to end the harmful practices currently employed by the e-waste trade. These harmful practices include the use of sweatshop labor in the processing of recycled e-waste, which occurs either through exports to developing countries or the use of prison labor programs. Most exports end up in dumps, don’t give jobs to anyone Nancy Weil (IDG News Service), October 31, 2005, "E-Waste Dumping Victimizes Developing Nations, Study Says", http://www.pcworld.com/article/123285/ewaste_dumping_victimizes_developing_nations _study_says.html Some of the equipment is repaired or refurbished for use in those countries, becoming important components in bridging the "digital divide," but much of the gear -- up to 75 percent, according to some estimates -- is beyond repair and ends up in dumps or landfills. Last of all I’d like to remind you that this case DOES NOT ban ALL exports, but only those which would be processed unsafely. The Negative cannot prove how much of these jobs would just start using safer techniques so they could keep their jobs. Conclusion: This Kritik died in the 2AC. The Negative is trying to save it by bringing up new arguments under the Link and the Impacts, and by trying turn the Impact into a Disadvantage. This practice is abusive and should be discounted. On top of that we see that e-waste is often “recycled” in sweatshops, and so contrary to the opinion of the Negative e-waste does not lead to better lives for the poor. In addition 75% of e-waste that is exported is merely dumped and does NOT provide jobs for the poor.

Economics Extension: Wow! He even admits this is NEW ARGUMENT! He says it came out of the last CX! We’ve seen that there is no reason to think the plan would cot many jobs in poor countries, above. He also provides NO evidence that the costs would significantly hurt consumers OR businesses! I’ll talk more about costs below in the DAs.

Inherency: 1. States: Only a few states have e-waste policies, but even if they all did it would have nothing to do with the Affirmative plan for one simple reason. The states are providing recycling, as his evidence states, not banning exports. That is the US government’s job as the Constitution commerce clause states: “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” He denied this fact in CX. Well, here’s the proof. The plan = ban on exports. The state laws = providing recycling. 2-4. Private companies taking action: Good! But 82% of all e-waste is still improperly disposed and is killing people.

Significance: Not Toxic: First I’d like to point out all this evidence is old. Next, evidence from this year: E-waste: Highly Toxic and cause major health problems. Phoenix Pak (Candidate for Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law), May 29, 2009, "HASTE MAKES E-WASTE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOW THE UNITED STATES SHOULD APPROACH THE GROWING EWASTE THREATs_ http://www.cjicl.com/issues/16-1-Pax.pdf The problems associated with the escalation of e-waste is greatly exacerbated by the fact that electronic devices often contain a number of highly toxic substances that pose serious risks to human health and the environment. An electronic product can contain a number of hazardous substances, including inter alia: lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants. All of these substances have a spot on the U.S. Department of Healths Hazardous Substance Priority List due to their high levels of toxicity. Exposure to these substances has been linked to severe health conditions, such as neurological damage, kidney and liver diseases, birth defects and, in some cases, cancer.

Disadvantages: 1. Cost: Cost is actually much less than the Negative states. He quotes the cost of recycling a computer and then links it to evidence on e-waste. Here is the average cost of recycling e-waste overall,

Cost to recycle e-waste Phoenix Pak (Candidate for Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law), May 29, 2009, "HASTE MAKES E-WASTE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOW THE UNITED STATES SHOULD APPROACH THE GROWING EWASTE THREATs_ http://www.cjicl.com/issues/16-1-Pax.pdf “It is estimated that the cost of recycling e-waste in the United States is $ 0.40-.50 per pound compared to $ 0.15-.30 per pound if the same e-waste is recycled overseas.” There is NO proven impact to this DA, life is more important than an extra 20 cents per pound.

2. Funding: NO IMPACT! Also funding is fruitfly extermination not research. This is not the federal government’s job

3.Federalism: All for reasons he presents of states being better have to do with “local needs,” not international exports. Federal action is necessary because states don’t regulate exports.

4. Loan Guarantees: There are once again NO IMPACTS! It’s a current practice, non-unique. Nuclear Energy Institute, News Release, February 12 2009, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/expansion-of-loan-guaranteeprogram-necessary-for-clean-energy-technologies-/ “Loan guarantees are a powerful tool for mobilizing private capital, Fertel said. He noted that the federal government has a long history of ensuring necessary investment in critical national needs such as shipbuilding and transportation infrastructure. The government today manages a loan guarantee portfolio of more than $1 trillion.” We see that loan guarantees are necessary to ensure essential investment, and are being used extensively. No Impact.