Db8r0x V. Wraith Leader 2ac

Bottle Bill 2AC

First off, the K. – Page 2-3 Then, the counter K. – Page 4-5 Second, the framework. – Page 6 Then, the on case. – Page 7 Then, Advantages and solvency and additional reasons to vote aff. – Page 8-9

The K. Basically the Negative team has brought forth a Kritik on my case that says managerial solutions are evil and will lead to world destruction and so we should instead advocate doing nothing in order to achieve some higher understanding of what doing something actually is like. Several responses. First: The link. The affirmative team’s case is not some top down managerially imposed solution to the problem of bottle waste. Instead, it’s an incentive for recycling. The negative contention here is that the affirmative team’s case is turning people into enlightened animals because they are forced to cooperate with a governmentally imposed solution. However, people don’t have to cooperate with the aff case. Instead: it’s voluntary – if people want to save money, they can recycle. If they want to throw their bottles out the window, they can lose their deposits and fund state level environmental programs. Additionally, the aff case allows people to actually profit from picking up other people’s trash. We can see that the aff case isn’t turning people into ‘cooperative animals’ – all we’re doing is placing a price on doing the wrong thing. So: after looking at the link: I win the link. The link to the K is that the aff case turns people into some form of cooperative animal. That’s simply not true. Next: Let’s look at how managerial solutions are often the only way of accomplishing change: The negative Kritik is a utopian kind of ideal stating that no government should impose regulations and that people themselves will somehow motivate themselves to do things that need to be done. In the Llanos card that Wraith Leader quoted, he conceded that people wouldn’t recycle on their own making government action necessary. The K is based on the assumption that non action somehow will lead to a revelation concerning action. This is absurd. Managerial action is needed as people don’t always do what is needed. James Madison wrote on February 6, 1788 in the famous 51’st Federalist paper, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. We see that men aren’t angels and that imperfection in man’s state/lot causes a need for managerial controls. I agree with me opponent that in a perfect world, our plan wouldn’t be needed. But looking through a realistic view of the world, men aren’t changed into enlightened beasts by following government regulations – instead, the regulations provide

incentives to do the right thing even though it may be less convenient. However, it is important to note that free choice still exists. People have a choice. They can recycle their bottles or they can trash them. Our plan simply makes it more expensive to trash the bottles and we’ve seen that this plan actually does work. [And the people in bottle bill states aren’t currently mindless animals for complying with a container deposit law]

Next: Let’s look at even if the aff team links to the K, that the alt is a very bad thing. British Philosopher and member of Parliament Edmund Burke said in the 1700’s, “No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” This sums up the stance of the affirmative team in response to the K’s alternative. The alternative calls us to do nothing: to waste our talents while hoping for some elusive revelation that will enlighten the world about doing something. The contradiction is apparent… and terrible. We must reject the alternative presented by the negative team. In fact, the very last thing we should do is uphold the value propagated by the negative team – it assumes that man is his own master and that the meaning of life is for man’s own satisfaction. If a person sits around and wastes their talents, they are being lazy and satisfying their own selfish interests. This is something that we should reject.

Nor for the counter K - Nazism First let’s look at the link between the negative team’s K and my K.

1.

Heidegger is essential to resisting the logic of enframing Michael A. Peters (Michael Peters is Research Professor of Education at the University of Glasgow and holds a personal chair in the School of Education at the University of Auckland. He has research interests in education policy and contemporary philosophy.) Published at http://books.google.com/books? id=fHccIneCJq4C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=logic+of+enframing&source=bl&ots =rYrfGSMkys&sig=pqeAnxEhliIW_CIC3lhxqyDtdo&hl=en&ei=_VLwSr3WCoSVtgez4uT4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct =result&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=logic%20of %20enframing&f=false. "Heidegger, education, and modernity" Accessed November 3, 2009 "Standish focuses on "the kinds of resources that the enlightened teacher might be thought to bring back to the cave" which he discusses in terms of Heidegger's turn to the poetic and the ways that the poetic offers resistance to the logic of enframing. Standish maintains, following Heidegger, that the poetic as poisis and language as apophantic, "is critical not only for the kind of world and education there is to be but for a necessary and integrally related ontological reflection on the very possibilities of that poiesis.""

The logic of enframing is the very thing that the negative team calls us to reject. Further, in the K evidence that the negative team read, their position is supported by Heidegger. Quote from wraith leader’s speech, “If humanity avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise.” Basically, The negative team is adopting a Heidegger-istic approach to the world and is adopting Heideggerian alternatives. Now let’s look at how Heidegger’s philosophy lead him to Nazism

— HEIDEGGER'S NAZISM DERIVED FROM HIS VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE

Stanley Rosen, philosopher, Perm State, NIHILISM, 1969, p. 121-2.

During Heidegger's brief tenure as rector of Freiburg University, he delivered a number of speeches and official pronouncements which may fairly be described as an effort to justify national socialism by assimilating the terms of his own philosophy to those of the popular Nazi vocabulary. One of the most useful attempts by a student of the period, J-P. Faye, to demonstrate this point seems to be virtually unnoticed by English writers. In his analysis of Heidegger's language, Faye shows, for example, how Heidegger accommodated to the rhetoric of the vulgar and to that of the academic community

depending upon the occasion, and how his own rhetoric permitted him to introduce revolutionary and demagogic political idion into theoretical speeches. The least one can say is that the ease with which Heidegger succeeded in accommodating the teaching of Being and Time to the resolute choice of Hitler and the Nazi party provides us with an essential clue to the political philosophy implicit in his ontological analysis of human existence.

So basically the stance the negative team is calling us to adopt is nothing short of Nazism. Nazism is terrible! The stance that the negative team is propagating leads us to all out genocide. Heidegger’s philosophy supported the killing of the six million Jews in Nazi concentration camps. The alt. Reject Heidegger’s and McWalter’s ideas (reference my direct response to the Kritik above.)

Now for the framework Sure – evaluate the K’s first. Weigh their alt of not ever following managerial actions (which is hypocritical because the negative speaker himself stated in CX that he obeyed managerial actions) with the implications of their philosophy (a.k.a devaluing Human life and killing millions in genocide). You’ll see that their philosophy is flawed so you should vote for my K against theirs and then evaluate the policy and vote for me because the on case was barely touched.

Now. The on case.

The case debate: 1) Irrelevant – flow my response for the next argument in here. 2) We did show that 20% of our waste stream comes from bottles – that’s significant and that’s something we need to solve. We don’t need to show the total percentage of oil we’re saving. Look at it this way. For every single bottle that isn’t recycled, it’s like filling it a quarter full with oil and then throwing that away. That’s the magnitude of the energy savings we achieve for every of the 40 million bottles thrown out on a daily basis. 3) We took into account the failure to have a cohesive bottle bill on the state level and the necessity for a nationally mandated program to set the standards and then allow small deviation among the states. 4) All the state level programs mandate was talking about is that unclaimed deposit money gets given to the states to fund state level programs of their choice. 5) Michigan’s bottle bill actually achieved a 95% recycling rate for containers that had deposits on them and the evidence that the negative speaker read was talking about recycling as a whole and curb side recycling rates – our case only addresses bottles and beverage containers because they are the majority of the litter and waste in the SQ. 6) Actually the Michigan bottle bill was very comprehensive and that’s what we based our case on – From the Container recycling Institute: Info on the Michigan bottle bill. http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/michigan.htm Containers Covered

Any airtight metal, glass, paper, or plastic container, or a combination, under 1 gallon

Now, more reasons to vote aff. 1. The bottle bill in a nutshell. The Sierra Club (Since 1892, the Sierra Club has been working to protect communities, wild places, and the planet itself. We are the oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States.) Published at http://www.massbottlebill.org/ubb/ubb%20flyer.pdf. "The Bottle Bill: Our Most Effective Recycling Program" Published August 7, 2009; accessed October 7, 2009 "80% of deposit containers are redeemed or recycled. 80% of non deposit containers end up as litter or trash." 1.

Bottle bill recycling stats (from a state with a 5 cent bottle bill) The Sierra Club (Since 1892, the Sierra Club has been working to protect communities, wild places, and the planet itself. We are the oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States.) Published at http://www.massbottlebill.org/ubb/ubb%20flyer.pdf. "The Bottle Bill: Our Most Effective Recycling Program" Published August 7, 2009; accessed October 7, 2009 "Recycling: The Bottle Bill complements curbside recycling. About 68%1 of covered beverage containers are redeemed under the Massachusetts bottle bill; an additional 10% are estimated to be recovered through curbside programs, totaling almost 80%. In sharp contrast, only 20% of noncovered containers are recycled."

2. 10 cent deposit creates a bigger recycling rate The Connecticut Post (The Connecticut Post is a daily newspaper located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. It serves the greater Bridgeport area, Fairfield County, and the Lower Naugatuck Valley. ) Published at http://ctgreenscene.typepad.com/ct_green_scene/2009/01/new-bottlebill-considered-increase-deposit-to-10.html. "NEW BOTTLE BILL CONSIDERED: INCREASE DEPOSIT TO 10¢" Published January 26, 2009; accessed October 14, 2009 "Currently, 70 percent of soda and beer bottles and cans are redeemed for the nickel deposit, resulting in about $24 million in unclaimed deposits, called escheats, which distributors have kept. An increase to 10 cents could result in an 80-percent return rate or higher, Williams told reporters in the Legislative Office Building."

3.

Bottle bill provides happiness Miguel Llanos (Miguel Llanos handles many of the top, breaking stories that appear on the Web site. He also specializes in environment issues. He has a master’s degree in international journalism from the University of Southern California, and a bachelor’s in economics and Latin American Studies from the University of California, Berkeley.) Published at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279230/. "Plastic bottles pile up as mountains of waste - Americans' thirst for portable water is behind drop in recycling rate" Published March 3, 2005; accessed September 12, 2009 "Tom Kinnaman, an economics professor at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Penn., believes that while recycling is expensive the debate needs to reflect what he calls the "happiness" value of seeing litter cleaned up. Factor that in and a deposit law can make sense, says Kinnaman, whose research includes household recycling trends. "It turns out recycling also provides utility," he says. "It benefits society because it provides happiness for people in excess of what it costs to provide the happiness.""