1nr - Sharkfin Vs. Halogen

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 1NR

1 of 5

On-case.....................................................................................................................................................2 Uranium...................................................................................................................................................3 Analysis of the round..............................................................................................................................4

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 1NR

2 of 5

ON-CASE I’m not going for any of this. I don’t even need to. It doesn’t matter if 6 plants are built; they won’t even be able to do anything because they can’t get fuel. And when they can’t get fuel, they can’t produce electricity. When they can’t produce electricity, they can’t repay their loans, meaning they default, and that $37.5 billion is entirely wasted by the plan.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 1NR

3 of 5

URANIUM He says that there are 230 years worth of uranium in the world, and claims that it contradicts my argument that uranium isn’t being produced fast enough. This does absolutely nothing to contradict anything I said, but anyways... Both cards are factual. Let’s just look at a few of the facts mentioned in my card: a. Over the past 20 years, there was no investment in uranium production. b. The industry has been living off of near-gone uranium inventories. c. Worldwide, uranium production meets 65% of reactor requirements. d. The price of uranium inventories has increased by $75/pound over a few years. e. The US relies for half its fuel on a deal that will end in 2013. f. China, India, and Russia are trying to lock up supplies before the US can get them. If anything, mine is more factual than his. I draw a conclusion from all of these facts that the US nuclear industry will fail because uranium will be extremely hard to come by, and he tries to refute that with a single, basically unrelated fact. Elizabeth A. Thomson (not Thomas) is credible. Come on, MIT doesn’t just let any willy nilly person write articles for their news website. MIT News isn’t a site to host researchers’ personal writings; it’s the other way around – the research affiliates are just the people whom MIT chooses to write MIT’s news articles. Supply and demand mean nothing. He spent 48 words to assert that the law of supply and demand will magically increase uranium production, with no reasoning other than “Voila!” Contrast his unfounded assertion with my detailed reasoning: worldwide uranium production only meets 65% of reactor requirements, proving that demand isn’t enough to increase supply to the necessary level; the US will be fighting an uphill battle against China, India, and Russia; an entire half of the US’s fuel supply will be immediately eliminated in 2013; etc. The point where I’ve given plenty of reasons why the market fails to produce uranium at a rate necessary for new reactors, and his only answer is that the earth contains uranium and the law of supply and demand will magically increase production, is the point where you vote negative.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 1NR

4 of 5

ANALYSIS OF THE ROUND So, instead of going on-case, I’ll analyze the round and show you why I’m winning it. I won’t make any new arguments or responses here, so you don’t need to flow any of this. The most important aspect of this round is that I win everything pre-fiat. “Pre-fiat” means the aspects of the round that come before we analyze the hypothetical effects of his hypothetical plan on the world, i.e. topicality and the kritik. The thing about pre-fiat arguments is that they override the plan itself. No matter how good or bad the world would hypothetically be after the plan is hypothetically enacted, it doesn’t do a thing for Sharkfin if your affirmative ballot would have real, tangible disadvantages. You don’t have to imagine the consequences of voting for his non-topical plan and his advocacy of capitalism – you create them. On the other hand, voting negative would create advantages. Those advantages are that you discourage non-topical plans, bad interpretations, and capitalism. I’m winning topicality on “significantly reform” because I articulated the difference between the reformation of a policy and the use of a policy that isn’t reformed, and because I explained why this interpretation is necessary. Sharkfin tried two things – firstly, he tried to discredit my argument that the plan must substantially alter the shape and structure of environmental policy; secondly, he claimed that his plan changes how the government’s nuclear loan guarantee policy works. I gave a great reason in the 2NC why the plan must change the structure. There are two interpretations in this round – that the plan must change a policy’s condition or structure (Sharkfin’s), and that it must change at least the structure. If he tries to challenge my standard, I’ll just remind you of how great of a stretch it is to equate a change in condition with a significant reformation. Thus, his definition has been reduced to absurdity. Mine is the only one standing, so the debate is about whether or not his plan changes the structure of environmental policy. Read my explanation of how his plan changes the condition of environmental policy, but not the structure. In essence, he uses the policy of dealing out nuclear loan guarantees, but he doesn’t reform it. He changes the condition of it from “not being used” to “being used.” He doesn’t change what “not being used” and “being used” actually mean. He really has no way of refuting this. On “environmental policy” topicality, there’s no argument that he does meet my definition (only his attempt to challenge the fact that he’s effectually topical); thus, the only debate is about who’s definition is better. I think I win the round just in my explanation of what it means to address something. His 2AC had some questions about how the government can address environmental issues, but no refutation against my argument that his definition is all about intent. He tried in CX to refute my argument by saying that “address” is different from “do something with the intent to fix,” but I gave you a very solid explanation of why “address” really does just boil down to intent. Of course, he’s basically agreed that non-topical plans are bad. He hasn’t laid a finger on my arguments about how he kills research and competition-relevant education. Your ballot (or “RFD,” or whatever it’s called on the VDebates forum) is your tool for preserving research and education. Capitalism – wow. I thought for sure he’d argue that capitalism is good. But no, he agreed with how horrible capitalism is, and he used a very inadequate definition of “communism” to claim that his case opposes capitalism. Absolutely nothing about notions of capital, market competition, economization of nature, etc. He had his chance in the 2AC to argue that his case challenges society’s tendency to put a

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 1NR

5 of 5

price tag on everything and the economy’s tendency to be driven by greed. Anything in the 1AR will be a new argument in the rebuttals and I’ll ask you to ignore it. Yes, revolutionary communism. It’s in your hands, judges. I refer you to my 1NC alternative – all that prevents a communistic revolution is society’s lack of belief in it. A negative ballot is your tool to stand up for the revolution and make it more likely to happen. Revolution is when you act today as if communism is already at hand. And on the uranium shortage… yeah. “Supply and demand! Voila!” vs. unrefuted details on the uranium market’s failure. He can’t refute them in the 1AR, or I’ll ask you to disregard new rebuttal arguments.