First, I Apologize For The Disgusting Organization In This Round.

INTRO First, I apologize for the disgusting organization in this round. However, it’s not entirely my fault, I have to pretty much go off of the 2AC organization, which wasn’t optimal. Second, also on the topic of organization, I’m going to be combining my framework argument and my impact shifting argument since they both come down to Will’s “influence solves” argument. Third, Topicality is really awesome. So awesome that it gets its own speech, the 1NR. Just a heads up. Finally, for anyone who’s actually bothering to flow, the order will be Impact Shifting Anthro Good Alt Links 2 K Public Engagement Species Hierarchy

IMPACT SHIFTING 1. WHAT MAKES DEEP ECO “RIGHT”? Will never clearly articulates why deep eco is the right thing to do. Essentially, his argument comes down to, it’s net beneficial over shallow eco. That doesn’t make it the “right thing to do” though. Just because Peets coffee is better than Starbucks coffee doesn’t mean I’m morally obligated to buy Peets. In the same way, being better than shallow eco doesn’t make deep eco a great idea. Since he doesn’t have access to his “right” argument, you have to evaluate the K based on the 1AC impact. 2. INFLUENCE Ø SOLVE · Ok, so now that Will has decided he does want to solve the impact, after stating in C-X that he didn’t, I can make this argument. He claims to solve for the impacts through “influence.” Problem is, he’s never given any warrant as to how telling five judges that deep eco is a really good idea somehow will stop the government from preparing for resource wars. Personally, I’m rather incredulous that the judges are going to tell all their friends, who are going to tell their friends, and so on, until the government hears about it and decides to reconsider. Until we get some cards on this subject, err neg because I have common sense on my side. 3. IMPACTS There are three reasons you should vote neg on this argument: a. He’s literally case shifting. In the 1AC, he has a huge resource wars impact. Then in C-X, when I ask him if the alt solves for resource wars he says “the ballot is key to uphold what is right, not what necessarily has an impact.” Now in the 2AC, he’s saying he solves the impact through influence. I can’t argue consistently against a moving target, so this should be a voter for fairness. b. His morality argument falls flat. The K hinges on the “right” mindset about the environment. But when Will can’t articulate why it’s the “right” mindset or what makes it “right” there’s no reason to vote for the K. c. He can’t solve resource wars. Again, the whole warrants thing. To the point that he gives us no logic or evidence to support the tenuous argument that telling the judges deep eco is a good idea will solve resource wars, he has no access to this impact. That leaves the K without any impact at all.

ANTHRO GOOD AT: PERM & Ø REASON TO PREFER · He argues that it’s possible to have a deep eco mindset and support anthro. Ok, fine. Except the whole point of this argument is not that the two are mutually exclusive. The point is that a human-centered view of the environment is just as likely to lead to environmental conservation as a deep eco view is. If status quo mindsets can achieve the same results, why vote aff? AT: MIS-TAG · His K argues that we need a deep eco mindset to make us more respectful of nature. The evidence I read essentially says that there’s no need for an ecologically centered ethic to explain our obligations toward nature because concern for humanity can achieve the same thing. To me, that’s pretty much the same as saying that we don’t need deep eco mindset to effect change. No mis-tag here. IMPACT If it aint broken, don’t fix it. If we don’t need to adopt a new mindset to solve environmental problems, why bother? He never directly answers the argument that status quo human centered mindsets can solve. That means there’s no reason to vote for the K.

ALT LINKS 2 K AT: Response #1 · He says that both deep & shallow eco link to the K because they both involve self-concern. To put it bluntly, he’s completely wrong. Shallow eco – as per the card I read – is about concern for the next generation. You can’t be wrapped up in yourself when you’re worried about making sure you’re not screwing up the world for your kids. On the other hand, he 100% concedes that deep eco is all about understanding the self & finding new meaning in the self. I’m winning the link here. AT: Response #2 · Will says I can’t speak for everyone who supports deep eco so I don’t know if it involves self interest. If he’s going to make this argument, I think it should be reciprocal: if I can’t make claims about what deep eco truly is because I can’t know for sure what it means to people, then neither can Will. That’s devastating to him because it means he can’t assert that it will lead to people to value nature more, because he can’t speak for everyone who supports deep ecology. So either he drops this argument, or he concedes that the alt doesn’t solve for people valuing nature. Impact The whole point of his K is that valuing self at the expense of nature causes exploitation of nature for the self. At the point where I’m clearly winning the link that deep eco leads to greater value of the self, the K falls apart, and he’s worsening his own impacts. You should be voting neg right here.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 1. CONTEXT IS KEY · Will’s answer to this argument is just plain sketch. Context is key. He presents a sound bite of the evidence and claims that his aff doesn’t link. LOOK AT THE WHOLE CARD! Just to refresh your memory, earlier in the card, the author argues that: In Chapter 1 it is claimed that in a way environmental philosophers have moved too rapidly away from anthropocentrism—mainstream ethical discourses—towards biocentrism and ecocentrism. My argument is that the public on the whole is not ready for this, and therefore many activists and potential supporters of the environmental movement become alienated from the philosophical discourse on the environment. With this context, the phrase that Will decides to read - “reasoning about the environment needs to include political and democratic philosophy” – means that rather than focusing on abstract ideas like biocentrism, we need to examine actual political solutions. The term “democratic philosophy” is a reference to De-Shalit’s argument that bio & eco centered philosophies are undemocratic because they exclude many of the public who can’t relate to these concepts. 2. THE AFF STILL LINKS · Will argues that since he mentions the government in one of his 1AC cards, he’s including political philosophy and doesn’t link. Wrong. This argument is about solutions: should we be discussing what mindset would be best for solving environmental problems, or what policy the government should implement? So even if he does identify policy problems, the fact that he doesn’t discuss policy solutions means his K links to this argument. 3. THE IMPACT · This argument is a one-shot kill for his K. On the link debate, I’ve proven that his aff focuses on psychological rather than policy solutions to environmental problems. The cards are pretty clear that this kind of discourse serves to alienate the public from the environmental movement, which means they’re now less likely to respect nature.

→ Kills Motivation Philosophical debates about the value of nature fail to motivate people to preserve the environment A. Light, (Philosophy & Environment Prof., George Mason University), 02 Andrew Light [Associate professor of philosophy & environmental policy, & director of the Center for Global Ethics at George Mason University], “Contemporary Environmental Ethics From Metaethics to Public Philosophy,” July, 2002, (Metaphilosophy 33.4) “Even with the ample development in the field of various theories designed to answer these questions, I believe that environmental ethics is, for the most part, not succeeding as an area of applied philosophy. For while the dominant goal of most work in the field, to find a philosophically sound basis for the direct moral consideration of nature, is commendable, it has tended to engender two unfortunate results: (1) debates about the value of nature as such have largely excluded discussion of the beneficial ways in which arguments for environmental protection can be based on human interests, & relatedly (2) the focus on somewhat abstract concepts of value theory has pushed environmental ethics away from discussion of which arguments morally motivate people to embrace more supportive environmental views.”

SPECIES HIERARCHY AT: RESPONSE #1 · He says we shouldn’t submit to what some consider an inevitability if we have the potential to change it. That’s great, but the whole point of “inevitability” is that there isn’t potential to change. He never demonstrates how it’s possible not to engage in species ranking, which only confirms the fact that it’s inevitable. You aren’t accused of “complacency” when you say that you’ll fall if you jump off of a cliff, so it’s ridiculous to argue that a mindset that accepts that some things in life are inevitable breeds complacency. AT: RESPONSE #2 · He claims that he doesn’t have to stop species ranking to solve his impacts. Actually, he does. First, if you value “intelligent species” (I suppose he means humans), over nonintelligent species, then whenever their interests conflict, human interests are going to win out. Since humans are intelligent and trees I guess aren’t, when there’s a choice between cutting down a forest and the humans getting cold, the forest is gonna lose. Under a system of species ranking then, wilderness doesn’t have a right to exist as long as humans have needs that can be met by exploitation of the wilderness. Second, deep eco is based on a system of egalitarianism, which obviously fails when hierarchy exists. W. Gray (Philosophy Prof., University of Queensland), 2K William Grey [Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Queensland], “A Critique of Deep Green Theory,” in “Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology,” MIT Press, 2000, (pp. 49) “Naess’ initial formulation of deep ecology was challenged as vague and unsatisfactory. His articulation was based on an appeal to what he claimed to be “an intuitively clear and obvious value biospheric egalitarianism, which affirms (“in principle”) the equal value of all life.”

original axiom:”

IMPACT Will never argues that species ranking is not inevitable, and never shows how it can be changed. That means he’s effectively conceding that regardless of whether we have a deep or shallow eco mindset, we’ll still value human interests over wilderness rights, and nature will always be exploited. Since this argument completely takes out the alts solvency for the 1AC impacts, it warrants a neg ballot.