Willmalson Vs. Frank Flow

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 1/15 My notes in blue; Will's text in black; Frank's text in red. I've extracted some key quotes from each debater and compared them line-by-line. The “flow” stops at the 1AR because that's really where the line-by-line ends and the summary begins.

Page 1/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 2/15 1AC: Precursory Development government is a reflection of the people. not doing so would make us guilty of allowing others without such morals and values to influence government The most important thing in today’s debate round is the resolution Environmental policy is just that – a policy that is deemed an environmental policy, whether or not it sounds like one. the framework is one of real-world impacts, a recognition that fiat is illusionary and that the audience of the round (including the opposing team and the judge) is who we’re really affecting. 2AC: K Framework Neg never contested either of these 2AC: A liddle clarifikashun 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.” 1AC: Link The United States military is already preparing for resource wars The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a state of continuous war competing for natural resources and markets. 1AC: Analysis This embodies ecology in its shallow form Shallow Approach: The emphasis is upon re- sources for humans, especially for the present generation in affluent societies. 1NC: K Link/Impact Human-centered ethics necessitate protecting the environment—change is possible without adopting a deep eco ethic there is no need for a specifically ecological ethic to explain our obligations toward nature our moral rights and duties can satisfactorily be explained in terms of traditional, human-centered ethical theory. our moral duties with respect to the natural world are all ultimately derived from the duties we owe to one another as human beings. 2AC: K Link/Impact Page 2/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 3/15 there can be “ecological moralists” (people who support deep or deeper etc. ecology) who also agree with what this guy is talking about. this contention is compatible with the affirmative case 2NC: Anthro Good If status quo mindsets can achieve the same results, why vote aff? 1AR: Anthro Good apply my 1AC link: resource wars are still happening. (!!!) Why didn't you elaborate on this earlier? In your 2AC, instead of spending all those words on why anthro isn't “competitive” with deep eco (and not to mention the hoard of words you spent on why you think you're topical), you should have analyzed the status quo, given more examples of shallow eco's consequences, and leveraged that as offense against the idea that anthro solves for conflict. I would have loved to see arguments about how consumerism is inherent in human nature, and how this means that while anthro works in theory, power over nature eventually accumulates in the hands of the egocentric elite. Vote AFF here – we clearly have NB over squo by solving resource wars. 2AC: K Link/Impact 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 2NC: Anthro Good 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. 1AR: Anthro Good He clarified. 2AC: K Link/Impact why not change with the deep eco ethic? 2NC: K Link/Impact 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. 1AR: Anthro Good squo doesn’t solve (see above)! A bit late for that now, don'tchya think? 1AC: Impact This shallow ecology threatens every ecosystem on Earth and our extinction Protection of wilderness and near-wilderness is imperative. Page 3/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 4/15 Modern technocratic-industrial society threatens every ecosystem on Earth 1AC: Alternative Alternative: Deep ecology. Rather than having consumerism drag us along, evaluate ecosystem impacts and alternative action. 1NC: Alt Solvency – Stifles public engagement Focusing on philosophical rather than political aspects of environmentalism alienates potential supporters biocentrism and ecocentrism. the public on the whole is not ready for this, and therefore many activists and potential supporters of the environmental movement become alienated reasoning about the environment needs to include political and democratic philosophy. 2AC: TURN: Stifles Public Engagement They never showed how I wasn’t including political philosophy, in fact, I am. You've shifted the word from “democratic” to “political”. Look at how Frank refuted this: 2NC: Public Engagement 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 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. This analysis devastates Will's response. even if he does identify policy problems, the fact that he doesn’t discuss policy solutions means his K links to this argument. *applause* 1AR: Stifles Public Engagement the evidence didn’t say that: it says people aren’t ready for discussion on ecocentrism without political application… which I have. No. You don't have political application. I've read each constructive speech several times, and you don't. You have a discursive application. 2NC: Public Engagement they’re now less likely to respect nature. 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 1AR: Stifles Public Engagement But what it doesn’t say is everyone. my (uncontested) 1AC evidence proves government is a reflection of the people; my (also Page 4/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 5/15 uncontested) 1AC analysis shows that people influence other people which eventually leads to government. 2NC: Public Engagement 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. 1AR: Stifles Public Engagement It says nothing about how this discussion pushes people away, only how it pushes away discussion of how to motivate people. 1AC: Alternative The concern here is with re- sources and habitats for all life-forms for their own sake. From a deep perspective, there is an emphasis upon an ecosystem approach rather than the consideration merely of isolated life-forms or local situations. 1NC: Alt Solvency - Species hierarchy Situations where species interests conflict are inevitable – require species ranking Biospherical egalitarianism breaks down when dealing with the necessary choices that must be made under the conditions of life. no ecological ethic that attempts to be comprehensive can dispense with some sort of hierarchical ranking of moral priorities based, at least in part, on critical evaluations of the different capacities, needs 2AC: Alt Solvency – Species hierarchy Aff – doing so rejects Neg’s apathy towards a perceived “inevitability” (forestalling progress). 2NC: Species Hierarchy He never demonstrates how it’s possible not to engage in species ranking, which only confirms the fact that it’s inevitable. 1AR: Species Hierarchy ‘in a conflict-of-interest case, people revert back to a species hierarchy’ – it doesn’t say that we have to, only that people have. 2AC: Alt Solvency – Species hierarchy 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. 2NC: Species hierarchy

Page 5/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 6/15 if you value “intelligent species” (I suppose he means humans), over non-intelligent species, then whenever their interests conflict, human interests are going to win out. This is what kills the affirmative idea of deep ecology. Hierarchy goes right back to anthro. deep eco is based on a system of egalitarianism, which obviously fails when hierarchy exists. I'd be careful with this – the card refers to Naess' “initial formulation.” Will's definition of deep ecology, “wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake,” doesn't necessitate egalitarianism. His understanding could come from a theory that was formulated after Naess' original idea. I think your previous point suffices. 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. Great place to vote neg. :-D 1AR: Species Hierarchy A weighing mechanism will be circumstantially defined: not one of species but of situation. 1NC: Alt Solvency – Alt links to K Deep Ecology’s conception of the ecological Self is only expanding self-interest the protection of nature appears to stem not from a desire to protect others who are worthy of moral concern, but from a desire to protect ourselves. deep ecology theorists have urged only an expansion of our self-concern, via an expanded sense of self. 2AC: Alt Solvency – Alt links to K You have either self-interest & shallow ecology or self-interest & deep ecology. 2NC: Alt Links 2 K 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. he 100% concedes that deep eco is all about understanding the self & finding new meaning in the self. 2AC: Alt Solvency – Alt Links to K Neg can’t speak for everyone who supports deep ecology 2NC: Alt Links 2 K 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. 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. Beautifully done. 1AR: Alt Links to K General response: If both have “self-purpose” in them, factor that out – deep eco v. shallow eco. Deep Page 6/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 7/15 eco wins; vote aff. LOL. They don't both have “self-purpose,” so I'm not even considering what you wrote after the comma. 1AC: Application By casting an affirmative ballot, you are upholding the mindset and practices of deep ecology and influencing real people This application via AFF ballot and subsequent influence of people solves for the case – by changing people’s mindsets we can change government 1NC: Impact Shifting His discursive framework means that he only has access to impacts that the judges can bring about. I know this was put under the Framework debate, but the framework really comes out in the application. in C-X, he says that he doesn’t really solve the impact Right now, it’s not justified b/c it doesn’t solve the impact he’s identified. 2AC: K Framework you are upholding the mindset and practices of deep ecology and influencing real people…by changing people’s mindsets we can change government… I operate in the real-world and have real impacts as opposed to operating as Congress/the President and having imaginary impacts. governmental reform does fall under this category (above) 2NC: Impact Shifting Since he doesn’t have access to his “right” argument, you have to evaluate the K based on the 1AC impact. 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. 1AR: K Framework Neg never contended that government wasn’t a reflection of the people. A reflection of 5 people who just witnessed deep ecology get murdered in cold blood? Chyeahhhhh. a discursive framework can have real-world impacts and solve for my case. 2NC: Impact Shifting I can’t argue consistently against a moving target, so this should be a voter for fairness. 1AR: Impact Shifting “I solve with my discursive framework.” Now you're just blatantly repeating yourself.

Page 7/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 8/15 2NC: Impact Shifting 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. 1AR: Impact Shifting superfluous – see response to “what makes deep eco ‘right’” he has no access to this impact. That leaves the K without any impact at all. 1AR: Impact Shifting Agreed (impacts). even if I don’t get max amount of influence, some is better than none – attempting to solve is better than not trying. OK, but how do we know it's the right thing to attempt if you have no way of arguing that it's the right thing to do? Your K relies on the pre-fiat impacts to show that deep eco should be attempted (according to Frank); you've conceded that (according to Frank) you can't measure the impact because your K doesn't even have access to it. Tag: “He can’t solve resource wars. … leaves the K without any impact…” Analysis: Actually, I can, and I do. (See framework) What? 149 words ago, you agreed with him about impacts, and now you're 100% contradicting yourself. 1AC: Application a vote for the way things are would be a vote for shallow ecology’s mindset and practices, thereby legitimizing the inevitable destruction in the status quo. 1NC: T - Interpretation the affirmative must have a topical text and defend a policy alternative to the status quo Resolved expresses intent to implement the plan United States Federal Government is a federal republic Should denotes an expectation of enacting a plan 2AC: T – The nitty-gritty used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions 1NC: T - Violation WILL HAS NO PLAN. aff is violating our interpretation of both “Should” & “Resolved.” 2AC: Why Aff wins the T-debate I agree with Frank; you're probably not topical if you have to take 4 steps to prove you're topical, especially if you can't flow them in direct response to his T press.

Page 8/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 9/15 Besides, arguing that you're topical is completely not the way to defend a kritikal affirmative. All of these words on topicality should have been spent on why it's more important to uphold good philosophy in its purest form than to run a topical plan. You vaguely hinted at this in “case outweighs” and “kritikal affs aren't common.” to resolve on a course of action: that the federal republic [etc.] is obligated to significantly reform its environmental policy. Environmental policy: “Official statements of principles, intentions, values, and objective It's basically game over when you use a definition with the word “official”. I'm not sure it's possible to avoid, though, given that you're trying to defend the topicality of a kritikal affirmative. 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. my role is to influence you to support deep ecology too. 1NR: We Meet/4Steps2T (What's with the weird “4STEPS2T” abbreviation? :-S) substitution of definitions into the resolution does nothing to prove topicality and simply makes the debate even more confusing. Uh... Will just showed how substitution works, and how it can be done the *right* way... 1AR: 4Steps2T Of course Neg is going to argue substitution doesn't work because mine does and his doesn’t! I buy this. 1NR: We Meet/4Steps2T That’s the part he decided not to underline out because it 100% kills his position that he doesn’t have to present a plan of action. gud jawb. 1AR: 4Steps2T I'm arguing they're obligated to put these values into legislation – that's the whole contention. Impact: this doesn't kill my position at all: it is my position. Oh wow. You just admitted that you're supposed to be arguing a USFG case. 1NC: T - Reasons to prefer Only def in the round. His definition of “should” justifies whole res cases & counterwarrants. 2AC: T – The nitty-gritty – why mine's innocent Mine says ‘we need change in this specific direction.’ But we’re not debating the resolution, we’re debating the direction I’m taking the resolution. Doesn't matter – Frank said your definition *justifies* whole res cases.

Page 9/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 10/15 1NR: Standards if you let him use such an extremely vague interp, you’re condoning that kind of bad debate. 1AR: Standards "Will never contests that his interp does indeed allow res centered debate to happen". I do! In the 2AC under “Why mine’s innocent”. *sigh* repeating yourself isn't getting you anywhere. 2AC: T – The nitty-gritty – reasons to prefer mine I’m aff, I get to decide on what grounds we debate. 1NR: Standards That means T never gets run and the playing field is inevitably skewed aff because the aff can come up with definitions that justify squirrel cases 1AR: Standards Droppin' this. 2AC: T – The nitty-gritty – reasons to prefer mine “used to express probability” only tells us that government probably will or is expected to do X Good point. Frank's definition of “should” is really a probabilistic definition – as in, “If the USFG should enact X plan, then Australia's always a nice country...” = “If the USFG enacts X plan, then Australia's always a nice country...” 1NR: Standards when you say “the USFG should change its environmental policy,” the next thing we expect is an explanation of what area of policy is going to be changed and how it’s going to be changed. Good explanation of your definition, but I think you're missing the point. You're not refuting the argument that with your interp of “should”, you're framing policy debate as speculation about what the government will probably do. 1AR: Standards His def doesn't say "a plan is expected" at all. Errrrrrr... “used to express probability or expectation” 2AC: T – The nitty-gritty – reasons to prefer mine It’s not too narrow or broad – his definition narrows the resolution too far. You should have combined this point with point (b). It's kind of redundant. Plus, it just fits nicely in point (b) because it actually compares the two definitions. 1NR: Standards Without strict limits, more cases are topical, and the I’m never able to prep enough, screwing me out of a fair playing field and destroying my social life. we learn a few things really well instead of having a shallow knowledge of 500 topics. Page 10/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 11/15 The aff has forever to prepare, limits give the neg at least close to as long. Where's the fourth reason? :-P 1AR: Standards My argument is that his interp is so narrow as to change the debate style completely. Ok, HOW does it change the debate style? All throughout his T arguments, Frank has given ample examples of the consequences of bad standards on debate. 1NC: T - Voters There‘s no way for the neg to predict what elements of the text and case they will and will not defend as their advocacy is nebulous and conditional … to avoid disads. This doesn‘t just leave the neg with bad ground: it leaves us with none. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter – AT: Ground (referencing literature) he can easily bring up disadvantages to having a deep ecological mindset While this is a decent response to the idea of ground loss due to your spiking out of the USFG, you should have refuted his point about unpredictability. He basically said that your non-topicality is unfair because he can't predict what you'll kick later in the round, but you could have easily said that you're holding yourself to your word and defending the entirety of deep ecology throughout the round. 1NR: Voters C-Apply the lit responses jut like he did. 1AR: Voters Neg can't extend lit arg here - my arg was that lit checks abuse and thus they have equal ground. This is specifically about ground - which they still have. 1NC: T - Voters We need a level playing field for both the aff and the neg, and the rules don’t guarantee that. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter 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. There was something I was going to say about this, but I forgotz it. sry. Besides, his own interp says T checks abuse. Not sure where you're going with this – unless you're using it to argue that unreasonable cases get killed on T anyways, but that completely negates everything you're saying about why T doesn't matter... 1NR: Voters the reason topicality is here is to ensure that the neg has a chance against aff who have infinite prep time. 1AR: Voters Page 11/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 12/15 The playing field should not be leveled - what if I have an impenetrable case? Should the field be leveled to help neg? Never. 1NC: T - Voters The aff‘s activist turn destroys switchside debate because it eliminates taking a position that we don‘t necessarily believe. I would have liked to see this as its own objection to the framework. It's really a consequence of kritikal debate, rather than a consequence of non-topicality. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter 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. Hold that thought... 1NR: Voters No he doesn’t get to set the boundaries. Cross apply my argument under standards point 2. 1AR: Voters I argued that I should get to run what I want. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter by arguing the other side, we erode the values we originally had … and this is where it gets interesting. This line was the right response – the previous line basically dismissed the entire 1AC framework. What you're doing with the kritikal framework is setting the round up so that it *does* matter what side you argue. You should have spent some more words on why it's more important to argue what's right than to obtain switchside education. This line and the previous one contradict each other somewhat. 1NR: Voters When we take the positions of people we tend to disagree with, we see things from their point of view and respect them more, even if we still disagree. Again, great response, but it would have been stronger as an argument against the framework itself. 1AR: Voters I've taken the viewpoint of people who think the opposite of me and didn’t respect them more; if anything it was the opposite. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter A critical aff is a break from the norm which enhances education more than the normal fiat-the-USFG aff. I'd like this response... if you weren't trying to prove that you're topical. 1NR: Voters Oh wow. He just admitted that he’s not running a USFG case. Yeah. 1AR: Voters Page 12/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 13/15 a break from the norm > regular old case; key to education. In light of Frank's response, you're basically saying that it's good to be non-topical because it's educational. Uh huh. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter (beginning with point 1) Topicality is meant to check drastically unrelated cases that have nothing to do with the resolution What I *was* gathering from the arguments (from both sides) about T voters is that Frank believes fairness = equal playing field, whereas you believe fairness = obeying formal debate rules. But while in CX you basically said that non-topical cases aren't unfair, now you seem to endorse the view that the purpose of topicality is to ensure fairness. 1NR: Voters That doesn’t make your case any more reasonable. Claiming that at least he’s sort of on-topic is like claiming he’s sort of pregnant: doesn’t work. 1AR: Voters Agreed. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter the negative team has literature on our case then this checks back all abuse 1NR: Voters If you as judges ok this instance of a non-topical aff, people assume it’s ok, run non-topical affs, and screw other people over who don’t have cards on everything. He’s been able to pick apart every single card I’ve read because his aff took me by surprise & I had to rely on some dumb camp files. o_O What camp? 1AR: Voters Gonna concede this. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter There’s no reason to vote NEG if the affirmative case meets a reasonable interp What? You're saying “there's no reason to vote NEG if I'm topical” in a section about why topicality doesn't matter? 1NR: Voters Any aff team can decide their personal idea of the resolution on a given day, making it impossible for the neg to prepare. 1AR: Voters neg has to prove interp like I did. There's no abuse here. I have no clue what this means. 1NR: Voters

Page 13/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 14/15 It can be misleading b/c the practical view of the resolution is inconsistent between people. Excellent, but it's basically the same as the first reason why reasonability is a bad standard. 1AR: Voters Reasonable = the four steps! *sigh* 1NR: Voters that explicitly undercuts our limits arguments, allowing a lot more cases. Common use has no precision. 1AR: Voters judge jurisdiction checks abuse. OK, thanks for making it easy for me by completely agreeing with Frank's fifth reason why reasonability is a bad standard. 1NR: Voters we now slip into the gray area of arbitrary reasonability where every debaters definition silences debate on the issue. I love this. 1AR: Voters nonono. look back @ 4 steps. -_1NR: Voters If the plan only has to be reasonably topical the neg will be in for a surprise when folks with a weird interpretation of reasonability give a disclosure no one could have predicted. Again, beautiful. 1AR: Voters this is completely non-unique. We get judged by judges with weird interps all the time. Wow. You just granted him the fact that some judges have weird interps. Judge jurisdiction doesn't look so good now. I'm left with rigid, black-and-white interpretations as being the only solution to judges' weird personal interps. 2AC: Why topicality doesn't matter Neg never gave impact calculus in his topicality arguments – therefore I have to apply impact calculus to it. GOOD. This is the critical aspect that was missing from Frank's T press. You should have gone into some more detailed impact calculus rather than explaining why you're topical, and I would have believed 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. 1NR: Voters you know for a certainty that if I win my violation & standard that there is unfairness, and you know a neg ballot will solve that. Vote with certain impacts before uncertain ones. See, this could have been resolved if Will would have spent more time on calculating the impact comparison of topicality and the K. Page 14/15

Jordan Bakke willmalson vs. FRANK (3 Oct 2009) – FlowPage 15/15 1AR: Voters There are no “definite impacts of fairness”; thus vote aff. 1NR: Voters It discourages original research and decreases our depth of knowledge about the topic. 1AR: Voters you can approach a lot of things in several different ways. Just because something's possible with change other than enviro-pol doesn't mean it's not an enviro-pol. This does absolutely nothing to answer his argument.

Page 15/15