2nc - Sharkfin Vs. Halogen

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

1 of 7

Topicality – “significantly reform”........................................................................................................2 Why the plan must alter structure.......................................................................................................................................2 Violation..................................................................................................................................................................................2

Topicality – “environmental policy”.....................................................................................................3 Interpretation.........................................................................................................................................................................3 Violation..................................................................................................................................................................................3 Standards................................................................................................................................................................................3 Plan-in-a-vacuum..................................................................................................................................................................3 Clarity and consistency.........................................................................................................................................................4

Capitalism................................................................................................................................................5 Sharkfin links.........................................................................................................................................................................5 I don’t link..............................................................................................................................................................................7

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

2 of 7

TOPICALITY – “SIGNIFICANTLY REFORM” Why the plan must alter structure Group his points A and B. He said there’s no reason to use an interpretation requiring an alteration in the structure of policy. Since he’s made it clear that he only requires his plan to meet one plank of his definition (put into a better condition), here’s why I say he also needs to substantially alter the structure. In other words, here’s the standard: My interpretation weeds out squirrels. Any plan altering environmental policy’s condition is topical according to Sharkfin. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “condition” as: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

A mode or state of being: "The Organization Man survives as a modern classic because it captures a permanent part of our social condition" This is the epitome of effectual topicality. For example, I’m cold right now – in a state of coldness. You could improve my condition by turning up the thermostat. By Sharkfin’s definition, you’ve reformed me. You do realize what that does to debate, right? You do realize that the resolution is just one word away from “Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly reform its policy”, right? Cross-apply the 1NC voters here – his interpretation destroys debate by unfairly skewing ground and by killing education. Mine solves this problem by keeping cases from straying too far from predictable and relevant ground. You vote either affirmative to encourage Sharkfin’s kind of debate, or negative to encourage fairness and education.

Violation Group the rest of his arguments. He said his plan changes how the government’s policy works because it allocates money for new loan guarantees when the government no longer gives them out. My response is simple: Loan guarantees still work the same. His mandate increases cash allocated to them – nothing about changing how they work, nothing about creating new loan guarantees. This isn’t a 180° turn from the current system. It doesn’t matter that the government currently isn’t in the process of giving guarantees. Only the current $18.5 billion allocation matters, because that’s all the plan increases. There’s neither a mandate to give new loan guarantees to banks, nor a mandate to change how they work when they’re allocated. Analogy time. Imagine a car that’s been driven 185 miles and has run out of gas. Therefore, it’s not moving. The plan puts 315 miles’ worth of gas into the tank, enabling its mode or state of being to change from “not moving” to “moving.” This doesn’t change the structure of the car. Likewise, Sharkfin’s plan changes the condition of nuclear loan guarantees, but not the structure of what they are or how the government uses a loan guarantee. He changes whether or not the government can be in the process of giving out loan guarantees, but not what that process is.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

3 of 7

TOPICALITY – “ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY” Interpretation I still define environmental policy as “Principles, policies, directives, and regulations enacted and enforced to regulate human treatment of the nonhuman world.” Honestly, even though it’s the Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of “environmental law,” it’s better at defining environmental policy than any definition of “environmental policy” I’ve ever read. My definition even includes the word “policies.” The standards debate is where to compare my definition with Sharkfin’s. Whoever wins topicality boils down to whoever wins the standards.

Violation His only real response is that reforming policies isn’t effectually topical because the resolution calls to reform policies, not the environment itself. Fine, but he misses my point. A policy that regulates human treatment of the nonhuman world differs from a policy only intended to affect it. For example, a law limiting the pollution that uranium mines are allowed to emit is a regulation of human treatment of the environment, and therefore is immediately topical. A policy governing the loan guarantees that the government is allowed to give to banks is a policy governing the government’s interaction with banks, and therefore is effectually topical.

Standards This is where one of us will win topicality. First, let’s be very clear that standards are about which interpretation is better, not about how well Sharkfin meets his own interpretation. It doesn’t matter that he meets definition if he uses a bad definition. Plan-in-a-vacuum Okay... so, he now limits himself to the policies similar to those specifically mentioned in his definition, since that’s how he tries to weasel out of the squirrelly implications of his definition. But that still doesn’t help him. Here’s why: Curfew – that would be an extremely significant decision with profound consequences for the entire economy and society. If the government does it with the intent to address the issue of pollution (from automobiles), then it’s environmental policy, because it’s the government’s chosen course of action or plan to address pollution. Population control – we know how significant the implications of population control are. If the government chooses it as a course of action or plan with the intent to address environmental issues, because less people mean less pollution, less land use, and less waste generation, then it’s topical. Mortgage bailouts – I honestly don’t know how he can admit that they’re non-topical, given how similar loan guarantees are to bailouts. Mortgage bailouts are a mechanism intended to help mortgage companies overcome market failures. They’re topical if they are intended to alter house development and thus intended to address land usage. Loan guarantees are a mechanism intended to help banks overcome market failures. In this case, they are intended to benefit the nuclear industry and thus intended to increase nuclear development and thus intended to address energy production and use and thus intended to benefit the environment. In each case, you have to take several steps of intention until you finally reach the environment.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

4 of 7

Anyways, none of this really addresses the main point of my argument. Write this down, because it’s at the heart of why Sharkfin’s definition is bad: His definition depends on intent because of the word “address”; mine doesn’t. I know he said in CX that his definition doesn’t depend on intent, but he’s wrong, unless he’s trying to change his definition in the middle of CX. WordNet defines “address” as: address or apply

oneself to something, direct one's efforts towards something, such as a question

The government can apply itself and direct its efforts towards environmental issues without actually significantly improving the situation. All that matters is that their reason for directing their efforts a certain way is to try to improve the environmental situation. I can direct my efforts towards moving a thousand ton boulder with my bare hands, but not actually get anything done. I could also direct my efforts towards moving it by buying a bulldozer, even though the bulldozer will never be able to budge it. His definition is really a cheap way to justify effectual topicality (which is precisely what he’s trying to do). He charts new paths into a vast territory of squirrel cases because he allows them to be topical by taking a bunch of extra steps toward being topical. This destroys debate by opening the door to a slew of squirrels, killin’ mah reasarch. My definition keeps affirmative ground to a reasonable size by forcing policies to be environmental at face value, without taking a bunch of additional steps. Clarity and consistency He basically admitted that his interpretation is subjective, unpredictable, and whimsically twistable to an affirmative team’s advantage. Mine is objective, crystal clear, and concrete. That’s why you vote for my definition. That’s why it doesn’t matter that he meets his interpretation. That’s why I win.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

5 of 7

CAPITALISM Kritiks are so fun, aren’t they? This is my second or third time running one, and I already love them...

Sharkfin links He said his plan is communistic because it increases the government’s capital. Here’s why that argument is simply wrong, and how he still promotes capitalism: Firstly, his definition butchers communism. Communism is far more than the government owning capital. Communism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition A theoretical economic system characterized by the

collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. There’s quite a difference between government-owned capital and a fundamentally collectivistic economic system where everyone owns everything. The entire conception of capital is what I’m advocating a communistic revolution against; this means the communism I advocate contradicts government-owned capital. Secondly, he advocates the free, capital-driven market. As he responded to question 6 in CX of the 1AC, the purpose of loan guarantees is to encourage banks to loan money to energy companies. Thus, he believes in encouraging the free market. The banks give out their own money, to gain their own profit through interest. Nuclear companies take those loans to build their own reactors, to gain their own profit by putting a price tag on energy and exchanging it to consumers for money. It’s all about money, money, money.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

6 of 7

Thirdly, his claim that he challenges capitalism masks the deeper issue that he still operates in a capitalistic paradigm. Liodakis 2001 (“The people-nature relation and the historical significance of the Labour Theory of Value, Capital and Class” Brackets added http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_200104/ai_n8940388)

The overall attempt to respond to the exacerbated ecological crisis, from the side of capital, entails extensive recycling, economising on natural resources, the development of new materials and non-polluting technologies, and an overall restructuring towards a `green capitalism'. This restructuring of capital encompasses `eco-regulation', which mainly consists of an attempt to formulate `ecologically adjusted prices'. These attempts and regulations, however, are usually proved ineffective insofar as they operate within the system's logic, focus[ing] narrowly on the sphere of market exchange, and fail to understand that all relevant phenomena (competition, externalities, etc.) are deeply embedded in capitalist production itself. They also face great difficulties in internalising production cost, enhanced by the competitive contradiction of capital and the contradictory character of state regulation (see Liodakis, 2000). As Marx has stressed, '[a] 11 thought of a common, allembracing and farsighted control' of the production and consumption of raw materials under capitalism is no more than a `pious wish', flatly `irreconcilable with the laws of capitalist production' (1967 III: 118-20). It should be noted though, that capitalism's only absolute limit is extinction of the human race (i.e., of exploitable labour power), and that the restructuring of capitalism can potentially ameliorate or postpone the crisis, ensuring thus, for a certain time span, the reproduction of the system (see Goodman and Redclift, 1991: 254). Given the law of conservation of matter and energy, however, there are more proximate, both quantitative and qualitative, limits which put the sustainability of capitalism under question (see J. O'Connor, 1988; Benton, 1989; M. O'Connor, 1994; Foster, 1995b, 1997).

All attempts at ecological restructuring basically concern the restructuring of property relations, through the market, the rearrangement of competitive conditions, and the rationalisation of capitalist accumulation, without essentially affecting the impact of capitalist rationality and private property on nature. The key thing for capitalism, however, is not the juridical form of private property, but rather the social separation of labour power from natural conditions and the use of the latter as conditions of capital accumulation. Independently of any restructuring of capital and property relations, or of any limited attempt at a valuation of nature, as long as the property of capital as a whole on nature is maintained, the squandering of nature and environmental destruction cannot be prevented. In other words, it is impossible to ensure the sustainability of capitalism and, within its limits, an essential reconciliation of people with nature. On the contrary, the currently proposed further commoditisation of nature and privatisation of natural resources (see Dasgupta, 1990; Chichilnisky, 1994), will most likely lead to an aggravation of the problem (see Liodakis,

Capitalist restructuring implies a certain modification of the law of value and not a qualitative conversion or a radical upsetting of the law itself. This modification derives specifically from the increasing internationalisation of production, the changes in state regulation, the increasing externalities and the ecological 1995,2000).

restructuring towards internalising these externalities, as well as from the continuous concentration of capital, which implies a greater divergence of prices from commodity values in branches with a pronounced monopolistic character. In other words, this

modification concerns the specific manner in which the law of value operates under contemporary conditions. Insofar as natural resources are taken as a `free gift of nature , competition leads to a permanent tendency to increase constant capital, as a crystallisation of alienated labour and natural resources through the labour process, and consequently to a rising organic composition of capital. This tendency, which also serves the needs of capital in increasing the productive power of labour and disciplining it in the context of the production process, creates

a crisis-generating pressure through the falling tendency of the rate of profit. This pressure tends toward an increasing externalisation of production cost and, combined with an over-utilisation of natural resources, leads to destructive consequences for the environment. Quantitative changes will be permanently converted into qualitative changes resulting in a degradation of the environment. On the other hand, the qualitative changes deriving from the real subsumption and capitalisation of nature (see M. O'Connor, 1993; 1994), the increasing socialisation (interdependence) of production on a global level and the competitive race for the increase of relative surplus value, will render further quantitative changes necessary, taking the form of technological modernisation and of an increase in the organic composition of capital, and thus reinforcing the above mentioned tendency. The overaccumulation crisis of capital tends, as the crisis unfolding since the mid '70s shows, to a serious environmental degradation, following a dialectical process from the part to the whole, the latter being the global economy and the planetary ecosystem.

His strategy of promoting environmental technology from the side of capital specifically leads to the squandering and destruction of nature.

Jordan Bakke Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NC

7 of 7

I don’t link I advocated a revolution against capitalism, and he said I’m advocating the current world. What? Just because I’m arguing that the plan is a bad idea doesn’t mean I ldike society’s economic system and dominant mode of thinking. My Žižek alternative still stands, since Sharkfin never touched it. Believe in the revolution, act as if the utopian future is at hand, and fight for happiness, since that’s how the revolution comes true. Don’t submit to capitalism like Sharkfin. I’m way more revolutionary than he is. You either vote affirmative to embrace the ecologically destructive notion of structured capital and, ironically, the idea that infinite growth is sustainable, or vote negative to embrace the revolution against an oppressive, wasteful, and unsustainable social order.