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

The cons argument will flow as follows: Cost State protection Trade ___________ Case offense answers Hurts biodiversity Cost The pro's claim that the demand by con to protect their case rather than amend it during a debate is invalid. As this is a policy debate, the entire point of this is to evaluate the Affirmative team plan to see if it is viable. These are not strict limitations by the con but rather a standard rule that is seen in policy debate. Were this something such as a Congressional debate, the pros actions of amendment would be perfectly fine; however, this is not the case. Pro then goes on to claim that the con is now fabricating prices. However, all the con did was replace the shortened amount of miles that the pro decided to use with the actual amount in the plan text. Therefore, the cons numbers is the only valid amount between the two sides. The pro came up with a new cost in this round, claiming that the final amount is 8.1 billion dollars, which still far exceeds their budget. To put this plainly, the USFG cannot create something that takes more resources than they give. The pros plan calls for a budget of 225 million dollars, the con has proven that the actual cost is significantly higher and pro, even when trying to cut the amount of land protected, still far exceeds their budget. Finally, addressing the breakwaters, pro has not proven that the cons definition is false. As the con has taken their own plan text and compared it to a definition, proving that these artificial reefs are technically breakwaters, con must assume the worst-case scenario and give the maximum cost estimate. State protection Pro refuses to answer the state protection as they claim that this is simply semantics. The con will reiterate that this is Policy debate. In this form of debate, we evaluate the pros plan, or policy. As their plan text explicitly defines the states to be evaluated, this plan is exposing states that the pros evidence shows are under threat from hurricanes. Trade Pro asked for proof that the ships would be running aground, the con will point to the Great Barrier Reef, a reef that has grown to be the largest of its kind in the world. These reefs obviously will present a danger to our shipping industry. As they grow to surround our nation, ships will hit them, causing massive amounts of environmental damage. http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.abc.net.au... Hurts biodiversity The pro claims that this will help the industries of fishing, tourism and coastal protection. However, the con will prove that the first two are short term at best (the coastal protection part is covered in State protection). Starting with fishing, the pros evidence on fisheries proves that the fishing industry destroys biodiversity. areas are too severely degraded to allow recovery of corals, fish, and invertebrates to former levels because the habitat quality is so badly degraded that reefs have lost most of their carrying capacity for these species. Even if every reef was strictly protected and all fishermen were eliminated today, the fisheries would still not be able to recover to former levels. There is no doubt that over-fishing has been disastrous almost everywhere (Pauly et al.,1998; 2000) This alone invalidates their solvency. Over-fishing has destroyed coral reefs. No matter how many we build, unless over fishing is addressed, artificial coral reefs will have to be rebuilt, as the marine life that usually inhabits them is dead or dying. Moving on to tourism, the con will reference material in the evidence below. Tourism may provide a small economic boost, however this will be short lived. As tourism hurts reefs in addition to overfishing, it may become difficult to keep them coming back when the reefs are skeletons from all the damage done by humans. Recreational activities also have a huge impact. For example, careless boating, diving, snorkeling, and fishing have substantially damaged coral reefs in many parts of the world, through people touching reefs, stirring up sediment, and dropping anchors. [Sic] The plan fails to address the dangers of human interaction with these reefs, so one must assume that the same dangers will apply. This means an increase in many factors including, but not limited to, seafood consumption, disturbing animals such as whales and sharks, and pollution. Therefore, this is not an advantage at all and flows con. http://wwf.panda.org...