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

Let's begin.. Case Defense I-Cost I would like to say that I am truly apologetic for the misunderstanding concerning cost however the con’s demands are very unfair and limiting. I will agree that it is abusive for me to change the cost and the distance in the plan during the second round but the change comes far from the middle of the debate; so what is the impact of my abuse on the round itself? Whatever it may be I would like to point out that it should not be that the con team gets to fabricate their own price, that is unfair and that is abusive. If the con should get to decide his own price then the debate is literally already over because he can fabricate a price as high as he wants, is that fair…remember that I Never said that the price listed was wrong, I simply showed that I couldn’t support the price because I don’t have the proper evidence I Do have evidence which supports a cost though, and I have presented that evidence. The con team cannot deny this. Con wants to label me a cheater and an abuser because I have been forced to alter the plan, yet he wishes to create a falsified price in order to make it impossible for me to win thus ironically being the abuser himself. This is the resolution to the problem which I will propose and like it or not this is simply the only reasonable option remaining in the round. I see that it is abusive to change things in the round. I have changed 2 things, the distance and showed proof for a different cost. Thus I will keep the distance at 49,515 miles of construction for a cost of 8.1 billion dollars. This does nothing but help con, it may not help him as much as letting him fabricate a price but it still definitely helps his case while hurting mine. To be honest I have no qualms about this price because it can still get paid off if 1 hurricane with the median cost strikes the US. This really only extends the payoff time to 4.5 years as well which is really not bad. Take it as my word, the plan will not be changed any longer. I would also specify that the plan will be paid for through normal means. II-Cost II Here is exactly why your price is invalid, again I will reiterate. Con is literally claiming that because artificial reefs have the qualities of an artificial breakwater that they actually are artificial breakwaters. This is simply illogical and is analogous to claiming that a sponge, for instance, is the same as a straw because they both suck things up. It is completely irrational and should be invalidated as any sort of point. III-States I dislike that con and pro are playing some sort of sematics/interpretation game but here is the fact on this. I clearly stated that the plan will take place on All Feasable Costal States, I then gave some Examples of a few costal states, If con misinterpreted the plan text then that is unfortunate but the way any rational person would understand it, is as I would in my opinion and thus I wont go into this very much. IV-Trade Con has ignored my evidence. It is impossible to for a ship to get caught on any reefs I will build as they will be from 12-30 miles off of the coast line which is as deep as 400 meters deep. It would literally be impossible for any ship to get caught on our artificial reefs at this distance as I have proven. If con disagrees he cannot prove the contrary by citing cases where a ship has gotten caught on a Regular Reef that is not even between 12-30 miles off of the coast. Really con needs to find quoted evidence proving that artificial reefs which are never more than 10 feet tall would somehow block all trade in the US while in water that is at least 300 meters deep. Case Offense Aids/HIV A.) Staggering numbers of people have HIV and are dying from the epidemic World Health Organization [Since the beginning of the epidemic, almost 78 million people have been infected with the HIV virus and about 39 million people have died of HIV. Globally, 35.0 million [33.2–37.2 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2013.] B.) As stated in first round, Coral reefs provide a plethora of cures to diseases. The government has literally found a protein derived from coral reefs that prevents the spread of HIV National, April 29, 2014, "Coral reefs provide potent new anti-HIV proteins," EurekAlert!, http://www.eurekalert.org...# [Testing the proteins against laboratory strains of HIV, the researchers found that cnidarians were highly potent, blocking HIV at miniscule concentrations—one billionth of a gram. They worked by binding to the virus and preventing it from fusing with the CD4 membrane. “It’s always thrilling when you find a brand-new protein that nobody else has ever seen before,” senior investigator Barry O’Keefe, PhD, deputy chief of the Molecular Targets Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, said in a release. “And the fact that this protein appears to block HIV infection—and to do it in a completely new way—makes this truly exciting.”] Furthermore [Researchers will now look to produce larger amounts of the proteins for further testing. “Making more of it is a big key,” O’Keefe said. “You can’t strip the Earth of this coral trying to harvest this protein, so our focus now is on finding ways to produce more of it so we can proceed with preclinical testing.”] Now folks, logically, what might be the result of creating a utopia of coral reefs in the U.S.? Simply put, the preventative cure for HIV. The evidence above states that the only thing needed is More Coral Reefs, the plan provides and thus will significantly reduce the amount of HIV/AIDs in the world and US given more time to do research. Fisheries I-Status quo of the fishing industry and environment A.) Fisheries Doomed If every coral reef in the world was a strictly protected area, and if every fisherman was prevented from fishing, unlikely as these options are, coral reef fisheries could still not recover. Many or most reef habitats are already so badly degraded that they cannot regain the carrying capacity for economically valued species that they formerly had. B.) Fishing methods are unsustainable, industry wont change The richest countries like the European Union, the United States, Japan are the most damaging, and 90% of the top predatory fish are now gone (Myers and Worm, 2003)...the coral reef habitat and thereby the future fisheries are permanently destroyed C.) Situation is getting worse the degradation of marine ecosystems and fisheries can only be expected to worsen D.) The situation is getting worse II 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) II-Significance/Harm of Reef Degradation A.) impact on countries Over 100 countries could lose their major source of marine biodiversity, beach sand supplies, tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection in the next few years if current trends continue, with severe but incalculably high economic losses (Goreau and Hayes, this volume). III-Solvency: what do we do now and what are the benefits? A.) Now is The Time to Start Saving Reefs The tools are now in our hands for saving coral reef and oyster reef ecosystems from extinction from over-harvesting, global warming, and pollution, protecting coastlines from global sea level rise, increasing fisheries, and saving beaches and tourism economies. There is of course a real cost, but the sooner large scale investments are made in marine ecosystem restoration the greater the benefits will be and the lower the expenditures needed. There is now no other alternative to effectively reverse global marine degradation that is accelerating out of control except to do nothing. B.) Mineral Accretion is now the only effective way to revive our reefs and fishing industry Large-scale habitat restoration of degraded areas is now the only hope for recovery of the coastal fisheries, biodiversity, sand supplies, and shore protection that only large healthy reefs can provide. Unless the vast wastelands of degraded reefs are restored, all tropical coastal countries will soon face crippling economic losses. Unfortunately, at this time there is no serious funding for large-scale coral reef restoration. C.) Healing Powers of Mineral Accretion In the Maldives Biorock [Mineral accretion] reefs have effectively absorbed wave energy that they have turned an eroding beach into a growing one (Goreau, Hilbertz, Hakeem and Hameed, 2000). In Indonesia dense schools of fish in Biorock [Mineral accretion] structures have caused fishermen to start building similar structures to increase catches (Goreau and Hilbertz, 2001). Settlement of larval corals can take place at exceptionally high densities, hundreds per square meter, under conditions where poor water quality has prevented all settlement on natural substrates (Goreau and Hilbertz, 1996). Larval and adult fishes are attracted to these structures at exceptional densities, quickly forming schools so dense that one cannot see across the structures. D.) The Value of Reefs While most benefits of coral reefs can not possibly be quantified in monetary terms, such as the value of biodiversity, biogeochemical cycling services, and esthetic beauty, three of them are amenable to direct economic valuation: fisheries, tourism, and shore protection E.) Monetary Estimate of the value of reefs When considered as earnings per kilometer of reefs, the values for fisheries and for tourism typically ranged from several thousand dollars to several million dollars per kilometer of reef per year no space for a summary, but citations in comments section. Thank you