Delta Fc 2ac

2AC: Tie him to the Stake! Roadmap: Value Topicality Kritik On case

Value: The Affirmative concedes the Negative value of Net Benefits and will uphold it as well as our value of Public Health. The Negative said in his last speech, “For example, under the Affirmative’s value of “Public Health” a policy to kill and incinerate everyone who contracted the swine flu would help human health, but the other aspects of this policy would be devastating.” This would actually not apply to my case because of my criterion of Responsibility of Action, which he conceded.

Topicality: A. Interp: I concede to this interpretation, including the Negative definition of reform and exist. B. Violation: I have several responses to the Negative arguments here, because they are flawed on several levels. 1) The evidence brought up, from some environmentaljournalist, was talking about the fact that there is no National e-waste recycling bill as is apparent in the following sentences, not that there is no current policy on ewaste. 2) Here is my evidence that directly refutes his point:

US has e-waste policy, just weak INTERPOL ((International Criminal Police Organization) a Prestigious organization founded in 1923 for facilitating international police cooperation.), May 2009, "Electronic Waste and Organized Crime", http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/Wastereport.pdf Current US efforts to regulate domestic and international disposal and recycling of ewaste are relatively weak. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the primary piece of United States federal legislation regulating hazardous waste. 3) Reasons to prefer my evidence are multiple: First: the Negative evidence is specifically talking about a recycling bill, not e-waste policy in general. Second: Even if the evidence was talking about e-waste policy in general, the Negative evidence is from 2007. Mine is from this year. My evidence states that as of now there IS a US policy on e-waste. It doesn’t matter, even if his evidence means what he says it does, because it is outdated. Conclusion: So we see that the Affirmative plan meets the definition of reform, since current US e-waste policy meets the definition of exist. C. Standard: I don’t totally understand how the Negative using this standard here. It almost sounds like he is proposing a counter-definition of environmental policy, though he seemed to deny this in CX. Well here are my responses from how I understand what he’s saying: 1) NEPA may be a pure form of environmental policy, but that doesn’t mean that it is the one and only US environmental policy. Therefore, even if you accept that NEPA is the purest form of environmental policy, that does not make this case non-topical since it fulfills the only definition of environmental policy yet presented in this round, “any actions deliberately taken - or not taken - by government that are aimed at managing human activities with a view to preventing harmful effects on nature and natural resources, and ensuring that man-made changes to the environment do not have a harmful effect on humans.” 2) No, the Affirmative definition is not too wide. Restricting cases to the NEPA would make this one of the narrowest resolutions of all time and would prohibit tons of cases that are universally considered environmental policy. There is no abuse, since the number of cases that would be topical under my definitions is not significantly more than in other resolutions. 3) He said, “we’re debating policies that affect the environment which literally explodes

negative research round.” He seems to be implying effects topicality. But this is pure assertion, and has not been backed up in any way. D. Voters: 1. There does exist a current US e-waste policy (RCRA and regulations mentioned in above evidence). 2. We do reform an environmental policy. 3. The Affirmative definition of environmental policy stands, and this case is all around Topical.

Kritik A. Framework: Conceded. Mindset DOES matter! Which is why we should embrace a mindset of responsibility and be accountable for our actions. B. Link: 1) In this link the Negative commits the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (Wow! I love saying that! It makes me feel all importantish inside! :D ). He links the case to Eco-Imperialism by saying: If a rich nation cuts off income to a developing nation for environmental reasons it is therefore Eco-Imperialism. This is fallacious. The effects do not make the motives. Just because it may effect poor countries in a negative way does not mean that the motive is Eco-Imperialism. Nor is the effect, for that matter. Eco-Imperialism is a mindset that may have certain effects, but not everything that brings about these effects = Eco Imperialism. 2) Now let’s look again at the Negative linking evidence and see how the Affirmative plan does not actually link, even if the rest of the Kritik was fine. “But all this money and clout clearly puts environmental NGOs – and their allies in the media, United Nations and government agencies – in an ever-stronger position to use laws, lawsuits, regulations, pressure, lies and scare tactics to dictate to companies, citizens, communities and entire countries how they will live, do business, and address pressing human needs. I call it eco-imperialism – imposing the views, concerns, policies and agendas of well-off environmental elites on the rest of humanity.” Ok first of all, 1) the Affirmative plan DOES NOT dictate ANYTHING to any other country. It only dictates to US citizens what they can do with their e-waste. 2) The plan does not impose views, concerns, policies, or agendas on any other country. Conclusion: This whole Link is inherently flawed. It is based on a fallacy. Even the evidence used to link my case to the Kritik totally does not apply to e-waste legislation. The Affirmative team clearly is NOT upholding an Eco-Imperialistic mindset. C. Impact: Once again, like most of this Kritik, the impacts have nothing to do with

e-waste or the Affirmative plan. The Impact consists of two examples: 1) First of all the Example of Africa. Basically the evidence here says, Africa is poor and has lots of problems. Ok, everyone knows that and it has absolutely nothing to do with the plan. Doubtless, throughout this round, the Negative team will bring up that millions are dying from “Eco Imperialistic” policies in Africa. But the evidence says nothing about either Eco Imperialism or e-waste. In fact the part that talks about people dying says, “As a result, millions die every year from lung infections caused by pollution from wood and dung fires, and acute intestinal diseases caused by tainted water and spoiled food.” He only read the first 7 words in his speech, but notice it doesn’t say, “millions die due to the imperialistic intervention of western powers,” nor does it say, “without e-waste to burn millions would die in Africa.” Rather it says people are dying due to dung fires and other diseases. DUNG FIRES!!! This is totally irrelevant in today’s debate round. 2) Second, the Example of Electricity. Once again it nowhere mentions e-waste or “Eco-Imperialism,” and again it only talks about people dying from dung fires, and the need for electricity in Africa. No link, connection, or even correlation to the Affirmative plan. 3) There is no link to the impacts here. In fact, both pieces are Affirmative evidence in disguise. Both pieces talk about the deadly results of pollution in Africa. Pollution from e-waste burning in third world is one of my harms. Vote Affirmative and that problem is reduced. D. Alternative: The Affirmative plan already puts the people first. The massive Harms in this case hurt the people and only the people. We do not support a policy of “Eco-Imperialism” but rather a policy of Regard for Humanity. E. Conclusion: This Kritik is one incredible tangle of fallacies and failure. The Links are flawed, the impacts turned in favor of the Affirmative, and the Alternative being taken by this plan. We are not pursuing “Eco-Imperialism” but merely solving our health problems by regulating toxic waste that threatens the lives of millions.

On Case On case arguments are the truly important parts of every debate round. Off case arguments are sometimes necessary, but the arbitrary use of them and ignoring of the real issues distracts from the educational value of the debate. Unfortunately, the

Negative has, so far, not addressed the actual case at all (hopefully they will in the 2NC), but I’d like to point out a few things: Massive Harms in the SQ 1. 82% of all e-waste is improperly disposed of. Either in US Landfills, or in foreign dumps. 2. E-waste is incredibly toxic causing cancer, miscarriage, and death. 3. Less than 1% of that which is exported is properly recycled. That means 99% is killing people. 4. US allows the export of e-waste even to countries that ban it. We are, indirectly, forcing toxic waste on countries in which it is illegal. If this isn’t Imperialism, I don’t know what is. 5. These problems will not go away without action. In fact they are growing exponentially, as this evidence states, E-waste problems will grow exponentially CNN, August 10, 2009, "Sifting through the mounting problem of e-waste", http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/02/e-waste.recycling/index.html "The pollution and related health problems in countries where e-waste is dumped will increase massively as the amount of electronics used worldwide is growing exponentially and the number of countries used as dump sites will grow." There is no excuse for inaction. We must take responsibility for our actions, for the toxic waste that our country produces in the millions of tons per year. We must stop the dumping of deadly chemicals upon helpless poor, women, and children. The Affirmative plan solves these problems. Vote Affirmative for responsibility and for Humanity.