Deep Ecology Aff (2ac)

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 1 of 11

2AC Index Topicality ...................................................................................................................................2 A. The nitty-gritty................................................................................................................................. 2 Interp: ..........................................................................................................................................................................2 Reason to prefer mine: ..............................................................................................................................................2

B. Why Aff wins the T-debate .............................................................................................................. 3 Step #1 is interp ..........................................................................................................................................................3 Step #2 is environmental policy................................................................................................................................3 Step #3 is substitution ................................................................................................................................................3 Step #4 is topicality is delicious ................................................................................................................................3

C. Why it doesn’t matter… ................................................................................................................... 4 1. Not applicable. ........................................................................................................................................................4 2. Not a voter. ..............................................................................................................................................................4 3. Case outweighs........................................................................................................................................................4 4. AT: Ground.............................................................................................................................................................4 5. AT: "AT: Rules" (this could get real confusing real fast) ...............................................................................4 6. AT: Education.........................................................................................................................................................4

D. A liddle clarifikashun....................................................................................................................... 5 Shallow eco:.................................................................................................................................................................5 Deep eco: ......................................................................................................................................................................5

K Framework..............................................................................................................................6 Individual VS Govt Action ................................................................................................................... 6 Tag: “Aff only has judge-created impacts. Government reform is not part of this.” .....................................6 Analysis: Neg is ignoring my Application. .............................................................................................................6 Impact/Voter: Tabasco sauce ...................................................................................................................................6

K Link/Impact.............................................................................................................................7 A. TURN: Human Centered Philosophy K2 Environment..................................................................... 7 1. This is similar to deep ecology, my alt: ...............................................................................................................7 2. Neg never proved the tag; the evidence said otherwise: ..................................................................................7 3. Neg gave no reason to prefer ................................................................................................................................7

B. Impact Shifting................................................................................................................................. 8

Alt Solvency ...............................................................................................................................9 A. TURN: Stifles Public Engagement ................................................................................................... 9 B. Species Hierarchy Inevitable .......................................................................................................... 10 1. Submission is not an option:.............................................................................................................................. 10 2. Impact? ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

C. Alt Links To K ............................................................................................................................... 11 1. ½ of the poptart is better than none ................................................................................................................. 11 2. omniscience? ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 2 of 11

Topicality A. The nitty-gritty Interp: I accept NEG’s definition of resolved and usfg. However, I’m contending “should” (impacts later). • My definition: "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions" (Oxford American Dictionaries, 1st definition) • His definition: “used to express probability or expectation.” (American Heritage Dictionary 2000) • His RTP: He says that my def justifies whole rez cases and counterwarrants. • Why mine’s innocent: My definition in no way justifies either of those. a) A whole rez case simply says ‘we need change’. Mine says ‘we need change in this specific direction.’ b) A counterwarrant attempts to find one instance where the rez isn’t true = negating the rez = rez debate. But we’re not debating the resolution, we’re debating the direction I’m taking the resolution. His own contentions (for example, Alt Solvency B. Species Hierarchy Inevitable) prove that neg still has ground and doesn’t have to prove the resolution untrue. Reason to prefer mine: a) I’m aff – in the 1AC under Resolutional Analysis I specifically stated that specific definitions were available upon request. Neg asked for should and I gave a def of should; I’m aff, I get to decide on what grounds we debate. Allowing the Negative to choose would be like asking them what case they want to face which doesn’t make any sense. b) Interp – His doesn’t make much sense. “used to express probability” only tells us that government probably will or is expected to do X, which recreates the resolution into a fact resolution (or a debate over whether it is a fact). c) It’s not too narrow or broad – his definition narrows the resolution too far. Whereas mine says that the USFG is obligated to do something, his says they probably will do something, which again is an entirely different debate. Out of the two definitions presented, mine is broader, yes, but 1] not as broad as he said and 2] not too narrow, like his.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 3 of 11

Topicality B. Why Aff wins the T-debate To prove I’m topical, I’ve got 4 steps: Step #1 is interp Let’s use his definitions of resolved and usfg + mine of should to interp the resolution. Here we get: “to resolve on a course of action: that the federal republic [etc.] is obligated to significantly reform its environmental policy.” Step #2 is environmental policy Like I said, in the 1AC I said any defs could be brought up on request. Since it’s become necessary, I’m bringing up one of environmental policy. Environmental policy: “Official statements of principles, intentions, values, and objective which are based on legislation and the governing authority of a state and which serve as a guide for the operations of governmental and private activities in environmental affairs.” [Definition Source: EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (The Agricultural Thesaurus and Glossary, first released by the National Agricultural Library in 2002)] Therefore, I interpret the resolution as (referencing Step #1 above) “to resolve on a course of action: that the federal republic [etc.] is obligated to significantly reform its official statements of principles, intentions, values and objective.” Step #3 is substitution Let’s apply this to the case. I support deep ecology – my role is to influence you to support deep ecology too. I also support and my role is also to influence you to be resolved that the usfg is obligated to significantly reform its official statements of principles, intentions, values, and objective – via deep ecology. QED. Step #4 is topicality is delicious

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 4 of 11

Topicality C. Why it doesn’t matter… …Because topicality’s not a voter in this instance. 1. Not applicable. Topicality is meant to check drastically unrelated cases that have nothing to do with the resolution, not an argument to be run against any case that deals with a different section, flavor, facet, or understanding of environmental policy than most others. Compare passing universal healthcare to deep ecology – universal healthcare has nothing to do with the environment, but deep ecology does.

2. Not a voter. a) Literature checks abuse – Neg claims that fairness is important. But if the negative team has literature on our case then this checks back all abuse – and they do! 1] their 1NC proves this. 2] there are a ton of backfiles about deep ecology (aff and neg) out there; they’re relatively easy to find. b) Reasonablity – There’s no reason to vote NEG if the affirmative case meets a reasonable interp of the resolution (which is in those steps).

3. Case outweighs. Neg never gave impact calculus in his topicality arguments – therefore I have to apply impact calculus to it. In light of this, solving for my case outweighs non-T: the future benefits are superior to any possible damage done by being non-T. Additionally, if there is no damage done by being non-T, then my case outweighs without question.

4. AT: Ground Neg claims they're left with no ground; but (referencing literature) he can easily bring up disadvantages to having a deep ecological mindset (again, this is very similar to the literature response).

5. AT: "AT: Rules" (this could get real confusing real fast) He says we need a level playing field and that's not true - I shouldn't have to pick a plan he can argue, I get to pick the plan I want. Besides, his own interp says T checks abuse.

6. AT: Education Neg contended I eliminate taking a position that one of us doesn't necessarily believe and that’s bad. Not so: a) I'm aff, I get to set the boundaries, I wanted to run this – I don't have to run anything I don't believe in. Same for Neg – they don’t have to argue things they do or don’t believe in. Their choice. b) Arguing something we don't believe in or that's just false doesn't increase education, it reduces it - by arguing the other side, we erode the values we originally had, which outweighs any benefit we get from looking through other people's vantage point. c) critical aff's aren't common – should Aff be force to run a USFG case every time? Doing that may give us an educational advantage w/USFG-related knowledge, but that's what happens almost every other round. A critical aff is a break from the norm which enhances education more than the normal fiat-the-USFG aff.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 5 of 11

Topicality D. A liddle clarifikashun Since it’s become necessary, here’re black-and-white definitions for deep ecology and shallow ecology: (derived from Naess, founder of deep ecology and ecosophy) Shallow eco: "We have a responsibility to protect Earth's resources for our future generations." Deep eco: "Wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake.” Sorry to Neg for not clarifying sooner – these definitions are similar to Neg interp, though.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 6 of 11

K Framework Individual VS Govt Action Tag: “Aff only has judge-created impacts. Government reform is not part of this.”

Analysis: Neg is ignoring my Application. If you look back at F. Application in the 1AC, it says: “By casting an affirmative ballot, you are upholding the mindset and practices of deep ecology and influencing real people…by changing people’s mindsets we can change government…” This is supported by A. Precursory Development i] Intro in my 1AC also – Neg never contested either of these; thus, they still stand: Voting AFF can change government and create government reform – the only difference is, I operate in the real-world and have real impacts as opposed to operating as Congress/the President and having imaginary impacts. Neg is also ignoring the fact that not only the judge’s mindset is affected. Impact/Voter: Tabasco sauce Negative only claimed that governmental reform doesn’t fall under this category but gave no impacts to that. However, seeing as governmental reform does fall under this category (above), whatever nasty ol’ impact there was is refuted.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 7 of 11

K Link/Impact A. TURN: Human Centered Philosophy K2 Environment Three main arguments: 1. This is similar to deep ecology, my alt: a) First, Neg supports evidence. b) Second, look at the very first part of the evidence: “The third view, which will be defended here…” Therefore, we know the author and the negative’s support is for “the third view”. c) Third, look at the end part of the evidence: “Hence we find ecological moralists who adopt this third approach, writing to the effect that concern for our duties entail concern for our environment and the ecosystems it contains.” Therefore, there can be “ecological moralists” (people who support deep or deeper etc. ecology) who also agree with what this guy is talking about. Effectively, what we have is a sortof perm: this contention is compatible with the affirmative case; it’s not offense. You can support deep ecology and the following: “A human-centered theory of environmental ethics holds that our moral duties with respect to the natural world are all ultimately derived from the duties we owe to one another as human beings.” Neg has never shown how these two are mutually exclusive; I have shown you how they are not, therefore you can either 1] disregard this argument or 2] flow it affirmative as there’s no competition here.

2. Neg never proved the tag; the evidence said otherwise: a) First, the tag was: “change is possible without adopting a deep eco ethic” b) Second, read the evidence: It never actually says change is possible without adopting a deep eco ethic. It only says that change is possible by adopting an ethic that is not in competition with deep ecology (see previous arg). This leaves us with the same impacts as above: disregard or flow it affirmative.

3. Neg gave no reason to prefer a) let’s assume that change is possible without adopting a deep eco ethic. b) neg gave no reason as to why this should be accepted instead of a deep eco ethic – they only said it could happen with out it. My response is, well, why not change with the deep eco ethic? c) There’s essentially no impact to this argument. d) Voter: Aff’s points stand.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 8 of 11

K Link/Impact B. Impact Shifting Neg contended that since I had no impact, doing what is “right” is a matter open to interpretation (“What’s the standard?”). This was answered in the 1AC (fmwk) – we solve for the case by influence (see fmwk).

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 9 of 11

Alt Solvency A. TURN: Stifles Public Engagement Neg’s basic arg here is that our original premise, influence, is going to be hindered by our discourse. However, their evidence said this: “reasoning about the environment needs to include political and democratic philosophy.” They never showed how I wasn’t including political philosophy, in fact, I am. That’s why I had the Link in the 1AC be about government; I was including political philosophy. Impact is that I still solve.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 10 of 11

Alt Solvency B. Species Hierarchy Inevitable

1. Submission is not an option: Tag: Neg says species hierarchy inevitable. Analysis: To fall victim of this kind of reasoning is shallow and complacent: why submit to what some consider an inevitability when you have the potential to change it? Impact: Neg’s complacency legitimizes this kind of reasoning which is why it comes about. Voter: On this alone you should cast your ballot for Aff – doing so rejects Neg’s apathy towards a perceived “inevitability” (forestalling progress). A ballot for Neg would cause the impact (above).

2. Impact? Tag: same. Analysis: Neg’s contention is that Aff can never solve for this kind of reasoning – however, why do we need to in this case? Why is it a bad thing? Deep ecology is "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake". What that means is, when it comes down to “one of us has to die for the other”, you have to use some other mechanism to determine who lives and who dies. This may or may not create a species hierarchy based on intelligence or etc. For further reference, read Mark Twain’s “Cannibalism in the Cars”. Impact: Basically, Neg’s arg has no impact in this avenue.

Deep Ecology 2AC

Page 11 of 11

Alt Solvency C. Alt Links To K

1. ½ of the poptart is better than none Tag: “Deep Ecology’s conception of the ecological Self is only expanding self-interest” Analysis: Let’s assume Neg’s statement to be true – by that logic then, deep ecology promotes deep ecology and expanded self-interest. However, shallow ecology promotes shallow ecology and selfinterest. You have either self-interest & shallow ecology or self-interest & deep ecology. Since selfinterest is in both of them, it’s not a factor, leaving only shallow vs. deep ecology: deep ecology wins is a better mindset than shallow ecology (see 1AC). Impact: Even if this argument stands scrutiny, it’s impact is only to make voting Aff a little less amazing; it’s impact is not a reason to vote against affirmative, only why it’s not as awesome as before. Voter: Aff still merits your ballot, regardless of any solvency-mitigation.

2. omniscience? Tag: same. Analysis: Neg contends that deep ecology is motivated out of self-interest. However, Neg can’t speak for everyone who supports deep ecology or everyone who will support deep ecology or is in the process of being persuaded by it. Impact: It’s a hasty generalization that doesn’t stand. Voter: same. Aff still merits your ballot.