Resolved: The United States of America should create coral reefs along its coastlines(Policy debate)

I'll start with some overviews. OV1: It's concerning that Pro is inserting extra rules into the debate in R2. These are overly restrictive. As long as we are both clear enough to be understood, voters can ignore rules 2 and 3. Rule 1 is a mainstay: no responding to previously dropped arguments in the final round. OV2: Pro's sourcing is unclear. He doesn't provide any clear numerical breakdown for how any of his sources from R1 apply, using none of those numbers in this round, and, despite providing a very long list of studies, has failed to source even one of them directly. This makes it extremely difficult to follow his facts. His 3 is literally just "n/a" (I don't know what it applies to, so I can't know why it's not applicable), his 4 assumes a concession for some unknown point, and his 11 is incredibly vague, as the WHO has a very large website. OV3: The fact that he doesn't even provide background for what biorock is and how it's formed are huge deficits for anyone reading this without prior knowledge. Pro is seeking to use this technology very broadly, and yet he's not informing anyone of what that technology is and how it functions. He cannot rely solely on his links to provide that information. Pro is only contributing to misconceptions when he fails to provide this background. Inherency Pro's inherency is entirely based on natural coral reefs, and yet he's not supporting conservation. Pro is right to cite misconceptions and their effects on initiatives. However, he's missed Goreau's point: this is a global problem, and one that cannot be handled unilaterally. As such, I propose a counterplan: let's pursue the wide-scale conservation initiatives as a country, and join our efforts with numerous national and international bodies. There are plenty working on it already.[1] The commitment would be time, resources and attention, not just a down payment but a continuous resolve, and while putting a price on this is difficult, the $8 billion Pro requests should be sufficient to start. The scientific community would have the perfect opportunity to address misconceptions in this atmosphere. Now, let's compare to Pro's plan. Plan This plan is extremely vague. He doesn't say anything about how that money will be spent beyond arguing that it goes into "reef development". I don't see any assessment of what it costs to set the electrodes necessary for biorock to form, nor any way to monitor that growth. It's not readily apparent where the funds are even going. He doesn't talk about how these reefs will be constructed, who will be doing the work, how long it will take to complete, how long after completion it will take for the biorock to form, how thick these formations will be, or even at what depth they'll be placed. What is "baffled form" and how can biorock be made to fit it? No one should vote for such an ill-defined plan. While Pro has the right to define and clarify, he does not have the right to expand his case. Hold him to what he's presented here. Advantage 1 For subpoint b, Pro misread his source. It does say that the median is the most accurate. It also says that $9 billion is the average cost, and shows that it's faulted because Hurricane Katrina dramatically skews the data.[2] Stick with the most accurate number of $1.8 billion. Grant Pro's subpoint c. This is a huge problem for Pro " he admits that the vast majority of hurricanes hit Florida or Texas, yet left off Florida from the list of states covered under his plan. Including Florida (or any other states not on his list) now would be a case expansion. Despite his evidence that the problem mainly applies to 2 states, his case spreads the distribution of these biorock formations across 9 states. Maine hasn't experienced a hurricane since 1987, Georgia since 1985, New Jersey since 1944, and California has never had one.[3] He can't add the other states that have experienced hurricanes more recently " Alabama (2005), Connecticut (1991), Mississippi (2005), New York (2012), or Hawaii (1992) " leaving these states vulnerable without reason and potentially creating a political storm in the process. On subpoint d: Pro spends little time here, despite this being the only point that establishes any reason why his case could reduce hurricane damage. It doesn't. Pro should reread his source. Beck says that "[m]ost (86%) of this wave energy reduction happens at the reef crest, a thin narrow band at the highest point of the reef where the waves break first."[4] Biorock can't substitute for this formation. Considering that depth of placement isn't even defined, it's likely that they won't provide any wave attenuation at all: "The depth of reefs, particularly at the shallowest points, is critical in providing wave attenuation benefits."[5] Pro will have to show the depth of placement is shallow enough to see any benefits, and that the height of the biorock reefs themselves is sufficient to attenuate. It's also a very slow impact, as the biorock formation is gradual, and without constant monitoring of 50,000 miles of ocean during its formation, it wont happen. But it gets worse. The author states: "we don"t suggest creating new reefs in places they did not naturally occur. Reef restoration will almost certainly require adding to the height and complexity of existing reefs in order to enhance their wave-breaking power."[4] In other words, he's arguing for conservation, restoration and recovery, all of which I support, and against deposition of new reefs, as Pro is arguing. Advantage 2 On cancer, I'll grant that these sources provide possible medical benefit, though it's rarely realized and minimally effective. Death tolls are still high, and major shifts can be attributed mainly to better screening practices rather than chemotherapies.[6, 7] On HIV, all this protein does is block transmission, and unless this is made incredibly cheaply, it will never substitute for other means of prevention (e.g. condoms, abstinence, not sharing needles). Moreover, in order for Pro to get any solvency on this, he'll have to show that artificial reefs garner similar marine life to that found on natural reefs. Not so: Numerous "studies have shown that the communities that develop on artificial reefs remain quite different from those on natural reefs."[8] No matter how well they're crafted or how carefully they're used, and that is largely the result of the complexity involved in how these communities form: "...restoration sites are different from those where secondary succession occurs after disturbance (Zedler 2000b), and restoring or creating an ecosystem of specific composition becomes quite difficult. Most successes appear to be only transitory (Lockwood and Pimm 1999)."[9] So even if biorock garners communities, it's never going to be similar to the natural thing, and therefore we're never going to get the same benefits as natural reefs. In fact, as we're likely to do damage to natural populations and reefs, we're going to reduce the biodiversity that makes such pharmaceuticals possible. Solvency Pro really should have spent more time here. All he manages to show here is that artificial reefs can be colonized, and that they're durable. That's not enough; Pro cannot fiat his solvency. He provides absolutely no evidence that biorock formations are adequate substitutes for the natural coral reefs he touts. In fact, I'd say that the exact opposite is true. The sheer amount of influencing factors, which include "water quality, wave interaction, bottom composition, reef profile and materials used for construction" make any artificial reef project a risk, and one that can even "potentially cause harm to adjacent habitats", thus worsening our impact.[8] It can even have direct effects on the ecosystem, "runn[ing] the risk of degrading our marine resources."[10] Despite 50 years of research, we can't even determine if they're beneficial,[11] and yet Pro wants to expand their usage dramatically. Artificial reefs may only be pulling marine life from other habitats, rather than nurturing a higher prevalence of life overall. Several studies have shown that proximity to other reefs is an important factor that can affect density of reef fishes, which means it's likely that they're simply drawn off of these sources.[9] The net effect is not an improvement to growth and reproduction.[12] It also puts that life at risk, which may have initially be disparate, or at least focused in deeper waters, concentrating it in well-known, publicized spots closer to shore. That's great for fishers, but really bad for the aquatic life.[13] For activists, the plan will mask any harms to marine lives, and reduce any political clout they have. For law-makers, this is a major investment towards the environment, which will lead to reduced political will to fund marine conservation projects, which will be viewed as virtually identical despite the realities involved. The main purpose of artificial reefs is to ensure that we can preserve and increase populations of various marine creatures. If there's a substantial effect on marine life, especially life that's currently in distress, it should be taken very seriously as some of them may even disappear completely. That loss of those life forms can have drastic consequences for ecosystems throughout the oceans, dramatically altering species present at numerous depths and thus harming ecological diversity. As these impacts can and do affect humans (see Pro's Advantage 2, as well as financial harms), and as they have a much broader effect that goes well beyond humanity, these impacts should always be preferred. Back to Pro. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://wapo.st... 11. http://bit.ly... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://bit.ly...