Page 1 Of 5

1NR

Will

Page 1 of 5

Index look @ mai awesum rodemappin’ skillz: =P 1. T-spec 2. GW DA 3. Morality DA The word count on this speech is going to be embarrassingly low: 796 (mainly ‘cause I covered most of it in the 2NC).

1NR

Will

Page 2 of 5

Timeline-Spec Oh, man. Aff completely concedes everything. All he says in response is “whaaaaat? When you vote aff, the plan passes. It’s as simple as that!” That’s arbitrary and fallacious. You need a timeline. Without one, we don’t know when your plan passes – refer to my impacts – it’s a voter (vote neg) because he has indeterminate solvency and he destroys negative ground. Also, no new in the 1AR: He can’t respond to this in any other way than to say “yeah, it passes.” Therefore, this is in effect the only response he gets – and his only response concedes everything I presented. On this alone you should vote negative – he concedes everything.

1NR

Will

Page 3 of 5

On-Case Harm 2: Aff missed my card’s point: “people aren't gagging or dropping dead in the streets”. See Purpose of Contention for impact.

Harm 3: His contention that he helps offset the loss is unwarranted – his evidence only says that they lost a lot of money. Nowhere, not even in the 1AC, has he proved that lifting the ban on CFCs will raise companies’ revenue (he says it will raise US revenue, but not companies). He’s never shown that the alternatives are more costly.

Purpose of Contention: This is just a follow-up: The reason I’m mitigating his harms is, again, to increase the impact of my DAs.

1NR

Will

Page 4 of 5

Global Warming DA I have two main responses to this. Below is #1: Impact Calculus First, he concedes my internal link that CFCs contribute to global warming. Second, he concedes my brinks. Third, he concedes my uniqueness - GW is not natural. Fourth, he concedes my impact - extinction. All that he's argued is that CFCs cause GW too, and that's bad, so we should lift the ban on CFCs. What he hasn't given is a brink or quantified his impact at all - he only says "CFCs increase global warming! Take note. I, however, did. Therefore, go with definites over possibilities - his plan WILL increase GW which WILL cause our extinction. Not going for the plan will NOT NECESSARILY increase GW to the point that we go extinct.

Main response #2: Actual Evidence I went to the article source and found this last paragraph that AFF didn't post: "If the successful control of ozone-depleting substances allows for a full recovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica, we may finally see the interior of Antarctica begin to warm with the rest of the world," Perlwitz says. His own source is saying that ozone recovery could cause Antarctica to warm with the rest of the world - it doesn't say that the entire world will experience a significant increase in global warming. It gives a few allusions to minor affects such as "Much of Australia would become drier", but it doesn't say "increased global warming" or something similar.

Summation/Voter: Aff’s only partially substantial response is that not lifting the ban on CFCs can cause some bad stuff. However, my impact to lifting the ban vastly outweighs his. Vote neg on the terminal impact.

1NR

Will

Page 5 of 5

Morality DA 2 Main responses: MR #1: “didn’t prove” He contends that I never proved pulling out of a treaty will alienate us from the community. First off, I did. I used analysis, which is evidence: evidence is a 1) warrant that backs up a 2) claim. I have the claim; I have the warrant. Emprics prove: we have continual pressure from the international community in regards to a lot of things (climate change is one of the most common). We’ve already somewhat ticked off the internat community, pulling out of a treaty ratified by nearly 200 countries is 100% guaranteed to have a negative impact. His only response in CX is that ‘well, it’s legal…’ – which completely fails. So what if it’s legal? Many developing countries are adhering to the treaty. And the US won’t? Like I said, they’re already mad at us. This just pushes it over the brink.

MR #2: Impact He says my impacts are starvation, poverty, etc… That’s a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Or, he just missed it and assumed. It doesn’t matter. Either way. My impact is that aff is working against the spread of Western Morality (which is inherently better than Eastern Morality) which saves millions of lives (human trafficking is rampant in other countries). The reason you want to stick with the status quo is that we’re helping to bring them along to a better mind – aff only hurts that process. This outweighs affirmatives advantages on every scale.