Delta Fc 2ar

Delta FC 2AR Roadmap: New Arguments Topicality Kritik Economics Extension Inherency Significance DAs Round Voters

New Arguments: The fact that new arguments cannot be brought up in the rebuttals should be common knowledge to every experienced debater. It gives an unfair advantage and limits the opponents opportunities for response. Thus the separation of the debate into constructives and rebuttals. Contrary to what the Negative stated, I DID give an impact to making new arguments. I said in my 1AR, “This is abusive and only leads to unfairness and a diminished educational value to the debate.” No, I didn’t impact the new arguments every time they were made. I only did it once because it was superfluous and I was already running out of word count. But I’d like to repeat: NEW ARGUMENTs are Abusive!

Topicality: To be topical I must reform an existing environmental policy. I have shown that there IS an existing e-waste policy and that I am reforming. He dropped this argument in his last speech, (which was his only valid topicality argument) in favor of the new loan guarantees argument. CX Does Not count as a speech! You don’t make arguments in CX. I could ask in CX, “What would e-waste matter if aliens destroyed the earth?” Just because I might ask that question doesn’t mean I made the argument that aliens are going to destroy the earth. I could refute the loan guarantee argument, but I’ll refrain from doing so and committing the Negative’s heresy of bringing up new arguments.

Kritik: Link: As the Negative admitted, Eco-Imperialism is a mindset not an action. Just because the plan leads to certain events, it does not logically follow that the plan must have been created with a certain mindset. The Negative has not proven that I have an Eco-Imperial mindset in proposing this plan. Impact: Links that have disad-potential are not automatically disadvantages. The Negative only presented the Kritik Link as a Disadvantage in the rebuttals. Thus I could only respond to it as a disadvantage in the rebuttals. I probably shouldn’t have addressed it, except as a new argument, but since I did I’ll follow up on my killer responses.

Most exported e-waste doesn’t provide jobs, and those jobs that are given are in sweatshops and toxic conditions. Thus, we are benefiting rather than harming poor third world workers. Remember the plan allows exports to any country where e-waste will be recycled in safe conditions will. Also note, the Negative dropped all valid impacts that he brought up in the constructives.

Economics Extension: Yes there is an impact, and I DID bring it up! He provided no evidence of economic hurt to businesses or consumers. And this was another new argument drawn from CX, cross apply with impacts above. Also, he accuses me of raising a dropped argument. I don’t understand what he means by this, but my argument was certainly never dropped.

Inherency: The plan is needed. The plan is NOT in the Status Quo. Thus the plan should be passed, and you the judges should vote Affirmative. I have proven the need for the plan: Massive toxic exports. We must take responsibility for our actions. The Status Quo can’t solve the harms, because states can’t do anything about exports! Only a federal plan (which doesn’t exist) can solve this problem.

Significance: There is refutation. E-waste is toxic, and contrary to the Negative assertion it HAS caused problems. Lets look at part of the evidence from my last speech, “Exposure to these substances has been linked to severe health conditions, such as neurological damage, kidney and liver diseases, birth defects and, in some cases, cancer." E-waste has Already caused major problems.

DA 1: Cost My evidence did not contradict that it is cheaper to export. What it said is that it is significantly Cheaper than what the Negative stated, which diminishes his impacts. The impact of higher cost is obviously there, but it is insignificant compared to the harms.

DA 2: No evidence that FEDERAL fruitfly extermination funds should be used for sustainable agriculture. No evidence for this either. His earlier evidence was about research not extermination. No significant impact. Government should let farmers exterminate their own fruitflys.

DA 3: The Negative conceded that it is the federal governments job to regulate exports. He now has brought up a NEW twist on this and tries to worm his way out by saying that,

“But that’s not all that his plan does. He regulates where IN THE US you can dump ewaste. This is in the exclusive domain of the states, and taking it from the states is a blow to federalism.” Actually this is not wholly true. I don’t regulate Where it’s dumped. I regulate that it can’t be dumped until properly processed. No where does he prove this not to be within the right of the federal government.

DA 4: Non-Uniqueness is not a fallacy. What it means is: It’s already happening in the Status Quo thus we already get any impacts regardless of whether the Affirmative plan is passed. Thus there is no reason to vote against the plan.

Round Voters: In light of the values of Public Health and Net Benefits and the Criterion of Responsibility of Action, let’s look at the major issues in today’s debate round. Topicality: I have shown how I’m am topical according to his topicality press from the constructives. He brought up a new topicality press in the rebuttals. I have not responded to this since it is a new argument and I would like to stand firm against abusive and the devaluing of the educational value of debate. Kritik: Whether or not a certain result happens cannot determine whether the cause was created with a certain mindset. No proof that I have an Eco-Imperialistic mindset. The impacts (turned into a disadvantage) have been soundly refuted and this Kritik lies in tatters. DAs: So what happens if you vote affirmative? Cons: 1. Government funding fruitfly extermination will stop for a year. 2. Electronics will be a slightly higher price 3. The government will regulate exports and will pass a law banning landfilling of unprocessed e-waste. 4. One more loan guarantee program shall be added to a plethora of others. Pros: 1. We stop exports to countries that can’t deal with e-waste 2. We stop deadly toxins from entering our water and air 3. We take responsibility for our actions 4. We solve one of the greatest environmental problems of our times Net Benefits? You decide.