Deep Ecology Aff (1ar)

Deep Ecology 1AR

Page 1 of 1

Topicality A. Standards 1. Res Debate Analysis: Neg missed the point of my argument completely: "Will never contests that his interp does indeed allow res centered debate to happen". I do! In the 2AC under “Why mine’s innocent”. Voter: I'm flowing this as unaddressed - no reason to reject my definition of should. 2. Aff's right Droppin’ this. 3. Confusing Interp Analysis: neg interp = “fiat USFG!”, but he has no definition to back it up. Should: “used to express probability or expectation.” USFG is probably going to change its enviro-pol? Reference 2AC: “AFF has to affirm that USFG is probably going to change etc.” His def doesn't say "a plan is expected" at all. Impact: Neg's interp needs a def that supports it. W/o one, his interp falls - go with my interp. 4. Narrow vs. Broad Analysis: he's misstating my argument. My argument is that his interp is so narrow as to change the debate style completely. His 3 points fail – they’re only applicable when you have a limiting def, not one that changes the debate style altogether. Voter: vote aff to preserve our form of argumentation.

B. 4Stesp2T 1. Substitution Analysis: Substitution rocks: Of course Neg is going to argue substitution doesn't work because mine does and his doesn’t! No voter here.

2. Def of enviro-pol Analysis: well...yeah! it says legislation. It works with my def of "should": "resolved; that the USFG [is obligated] to significantly reform its [values...based on legislation..which serve as a guide...in enviroaffairs]". I'm arguing they're obligated to put these values into legislation – that's the whole contention. Impact: this doesn't kill my position at all: it is my position.

Deep Ecology 1AR

Page 2 of 2

C. Voters 1. Applicability Agreed. 2. Lit Gonna concede this. 3. Reasonability The purpose of this arg was: if we fulfill the four steps to T, there's no reason to vote against aff - we meet those four steps and thus are T. a) Abuse - neg has to prove interp like I did. There's no abuse here. b) Common Sense – Reasonable = the four steps! c) Unlimiting - judge jurisdiction checks abuse. d) Clash - nonono. look back @ 4 steps. e) Judges - this is completely non-unique. We get judged by judges with weird interps all the time. 4. Case outweighs a) Definite Impacts - Neg's arg here hinges on him winning violation&standard - but he doesn't. There are no “definite impacts of fairness”; thus vote aff. b) Proves Abuse - he contends that if my advocacy can be considered without topical action, it proves "the unique topical education arguments". what? you can approach a lot of things in several different ways. Just because something's possible with change other than enviro-pol doesn't mean it's not an enviro-pol. (ANWR or offshore drilling as an example). 5. Ground-loss Neg can't extend lit arg here - my arg was that lit checks abuse and thus they have equal ground. This is specifically about ground - which they still have. 6. Rules The playing field should not be leveled - what if I have an impenetrable case? Should the field be leveled to help neg? Never. 7. Education a) Neg's argument about aff getting to set the boundaries does not apply at all here - this is different. I argued that I should get to run what I want. I'm flowing this as unaddressed. b) His response totally fails - "when we take the positions of people...disagree with...respect them even more." This is just untrue. I've taken the viewpoint of people who think the opposite of me and didn’t respect them more; if anything it was the opposite. c) lolwut? Neg is picking and choosing what words in my response to read: look at the end of my response: "which enhances education more than the normal fiat-the-USFG aff." My intention is clearly talking about fiating the USFG. I'm flowing this as unaddressed - a break from the norm > regular old case; key to education.

Deep Ecology 1AR

Page 3 of 3

K Framework Tag: “Judge-made” Neg says I only have access to “judge-made” impacts –he’s right… directly. In other words, I have judge-made impacts which lead to government-made impacts. Analysis: Real-world Neg never contended that government wasn’t a reflection of the people. I prove this point (1AC), which makes it not an issue. flow this aff – a discursive framework can have real-world impacts and solve for my case. Impact: My discursive framework stands. And, it can prevent the 1AC impact, which has gone uncontested.

Deep Ecology 1AR

Page 4 of 4

K Link/Impact (Neg labeled this “Anthro good”) 1. AT: Perm & Ø RTP Tag: “squo has necessary mindset” Analysis: Neg never gave RTP: only contended we can leave squo the way it is. However, apply my 1AC link: resource wars are still happening. Impact/Voter: Vote AFF here – we clearly have NB over squo by solving resource wars. 2. MIS-TAG He clarified. 3. IMPACT Tag: “If it aint broke, don’t fix it.” Analysis: yes, unless the “fix it” is better than the “aint broke” – squo doesn’t solve (see above)! Impact/Voter: There is reason to vote for the K.

B. Impact Shifting 1. What makes deep eco “right”? Agreed (impacts). 2. Influence ø solve Tag: “…he’s never given any warrant…” Analysis: I explained both in the 1AC and 2AC how changing people’s mindsets can change government. refer back to CX: even if I don’t get max amount of influence, some is better than none – attempting to solve is better than not trying. Impact: see framework: influence does solve. 3. Impacts a) Tag: “…case-shifting.” Analysis: I’ll clear this up: 1AC: “I solve with my discursive framework.” 2AC: same. 1AR: keepin’ wid it. Impact/Voter: Not a voter for fairness if there’s no abuse. There’s no abuse = there’s no voter. b) Tag: ‘no reason to vote for the K if Aff can’t articulate why it’s the “right” mindset.’ Analysis: superfluous – see response to “what makes deep eco ‘right’” Impact/Voter: If we have NB over squo, then aff merits your ballot, QED. c) Tag: “He can’t solve resource wars. … leaves the K without any impact…” Analysis: Actually, I can, and I do. (See framework)

Deep Ecology 1AR

Page 5 of 5

Alt Solvency A. Stifles Public Engagement 1. Context key Tag: need to examine political solutions. Response: the evidence didn’t say that: it says people aren’t ready for discussion on ecocentrism without political application… which I have. 2. THE AFF STILL LINKS Tag: “…he doesn’t discuss policy solutions…” Analysis: See above: I do have an application. 3. THE IMPACT Tag: “…this…alienate[s] the public…” Analysis: sure, some people are gonna become alienated. But what it doesn’t say is everyone. Even a small impact is better than none: my (uncontested) 1AC evidence proves government is a reflection of the people; my (also uncontested) 1AC analysis shows that people influence other people which eventually leads to government. Voter: no reason to reject aff – only why voting aff wouldn’t be as awesome. 4. Kills Motivation Analysis: evidence fails via last sentence. It says nothing about how this discussion pushes people away, only how it pushes away discussion of how to motivate people. Impact: this arg fails; aff motivates. B. Species Hierarchy Inevitable RESPONSE #1 Analysis: This is just plain wrong – no reason we need it. French 99 evidence merely says ‘in a conflictof-interest case, people revert back to a species hierarchy’ – it doesn’t say that we have to, only that people have. Voter: Vote aff on definites, not possibilities. RESPONSE #2 Analysis: No; I said I don’t have to stop a weighing mechanism in determining who lives or die in a man-ornature-gets-it. Example: a hunter v. a charging bull. Weighing mechanism here could be intelligence (hunter jumps, shoots) or strength (hunter stays, gets hit). Nature has a right to exist for its own sake – so do humans. A weighing mechanism will be circumstantially defined: not one of species but of situation.

IMPACT Even if it there will be a species hierarchy, you should still flow this aff based on above responses. C. Alt Links To K General response: If both have “self-purpose” in them, factor that out – deep eco v. shallow eco. Deep eco wins; vote aff.