Resolved: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US

The cons arguments will flow as follows. AnalyticsCostState protectionTrade disadvantageAnalyticsThe fact that the plan was premed does not excuse a lack of familiarity with the subject by the affirmative. The pro, in this debate, is expected to provide a plan and defend it. They may not claim that they copy-pasted this and therefore should receive leniency.CostFirst off is that the con will not let the changing of costs stand. Insofar that the plan defines a specific amount of coastline to protect and the pro may not simply amend their plan in the middle of the debate. This destroys educational value and makes it flat out impossible for the con to win when the pro may patch holes at will.The con will also observe that these new claims from the affirmative very much exceed the 225 million dollars that the plan originally allocates to this endeavour. Using this in tandem with the first cost argument, this raises the cost of the affirmatives plan using their equation to $7,968,666,800; something that is significantly greater than what was allocated in the funding and even claimed in the previous response by the pro.Moving onwards, the plan calls for artificial breakwaters. "Coral reefs serve as an effective first line of defense to incoming waves, storms and rising seas," said Dr. Michael Beck, lead marine scientist of The Nature Conservancy and a co-author of the study[sic]This is directly from the plan, falling under the definition of a breakwater. breakwater: a wall that is built out into the sea to protect a harbor or beach from the force of waves. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, as the DOI evidence does not explicitly limit the use of mineral accretion, the cons numbers of over 1 Trillion USD still stands. The pro tries to use Katrina as an example, claiming that over 100 billion dollars in damage is to be expected. From their evidence, the con recovered two lines that negate this. -There were also engineering problems. Katrina was especially damaging because the levees designed to protect the below-sea-level city burst under the hurricane's 25-foot high storm surge. -Since 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent $14.5 billion to improve New Orleans' system of levees, floodwalls, pump stations and surge barriers.Therefore, this is irrelevant as the USFG has already solved this issue Pouring money in to a fixed problem is a waste of money that the pro must justify under their plan text. State protectionThe pro is twisting the plan text instead of defending it. The verbatim text is as follows: -The plan will take place on all feasible costal states: (California, Louisiana, Texas, South Caronlina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine) are all up for considerationThis explicitly defines the states to be considered, con arguments still stand.Trade disadvantage The pro has provided no evidence stating that this is not a real risk. In fact, all the pro side has done on this subjectis claim that the con is presenting false evidence without providing counter evidence. As the pro has the BoP, it is their duty in this debate to prove the validity of their case.However, the con will present two more examples of ship groundings on coral reefs.http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...Summary The pro has failed to provide acceptable measures on cost, even changing their plan to come up with a cost that is well over their budget. In addition, Pro has not proven that the other states will be protected. Finally, Pro has not fulfilled their Burden of Proof to show that US naval trade is in no danger. As it stands, the United States of America stands to lose over a trillion dollars with billions more lost in trade.