Spinko Tournament - Conservative Showdown - Smoking Rights

==Resolutional Analysis==--Voluntary vs. Involuntary--Scope of the resolutionA. On Balance. Remember the resolution states “on balance.” This is particularly important because it limits the scope of the resolution to a majority within either a qualitative and/or quantitative weighing mechanism. I.e. both of us must prove “on balance/in the majority of circumstances or for some outweighing reason” there should be an imposition of regulations or lack thereof. B. Limitation. Roy keeps mentioning his confusion over the fact that he wanted only voluntary circumstances. But as I mentioned in the last round, the line between voluntary and involuntary is very very vague. His interpretation limits the scope of the debate and thus skews the debate. This is true because all Roy would have to prove is that X group of people who live in complete isolation within the forests of the US should not be regulated. At the same time I cannot say X people shouldn't force a cigarette into the mouth of an infant. In both instances the arguments are unfair and abusive. C. Reconciliation. Thus, the phrase on balance makes the playing field of the debate more fair since it allows both debaters to show how their side outweighs quantitatively or qualitatively. And moreover, the debate would center around not the obvious examples on both sides but the areas where the limes are gray such as public places, work places and private businesses. ==Framework==He conceded the consequentialist framework. So you will be evaluating the round via a state obligatory cost-benefit analysis==Contentions==C1: HarmsLet me first list the concessions of my opponent in reference to my evidence:1. He concedes both conclusions of the surgeon general, namely that (1) any exposure to SSM is dangerous and threatening and (2) exposure to SSM tremendously increases ones risk of cancer or heart disease. 2. He concedes the Barnoya evidence which tells us that SSM increases the chance of heart disease by 30%. Plus, the isolated pieces of analysis. Now lets go to his rebuttal:1. He says there is a threshold where regulations wouldnt be necessary:(i) He never gave a threshold to weigh the arguments with. At this point theres no way to link this argument to consequentialism since we dont know how to weigh it. So no quantification mechanism(ii) Regulations will always, ON BALANCE, be needed because as the conceded evidence tells us a decent amount of people will be effected by being around SSM. (iii) He gives you no argument to qualitatively weigh this argument. How do we know the violation of ones ability to smoke outweighs the harms? (Iv) Sure, some people beat the odds but the empirics I provided outweigh and the analytics give reason to believe the empirics are true. One example of a guy living to 100 doesnt negate the harms. So I outweigh here because quantitiatively more people are going to be harmed from even a minimum exposure to SSM. 2. Lowers health costs(i) The resolution states the US government so your empirical analysis doesnt apply. The US does not have a single-payer system that the Netherlands have. As such, the cost-benefit analysis the Netherlands uses (the rationing system) isnt applicable since the US wouldnt be allocating costs based on life-expectancy. The system in the Netherlands would cut health costs for those people which would have them die at a quicker rate. (ii) He doesnt link this argument to the framework. Unless he can show how the costs saved would have overriding benefit than the people which were pretty much sacrificed, he lacks a link.(iii) TURN: within the US system, health care costs skyrocket due to smoking. This is true because smoking and SSM causes high rates of cancer and heart disease. These arguments were conceded. And as such, high rates of cancer and heart disease put tremendous costs onto the system. “Two decades from now, the costs of treating heart disease will triple by 2030, hitting $818 billion, predicts an American Heart Association (AHA)study.” AND “Despite the successes in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century, even if we just maintain our current rates, we will have an enormous financial burden on top of the disease itself.” So more needs to be done. Affirming the resolution fiats a solution by helping prevent these harms. AND“In the nearer future, ten years from now, medical expenses for cancer will soar to at least $158 billion, according to projections from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) last week.That’s a 27% increase from current costs of $124.6 billion.What’s more, if new tools for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up continue to be more expensive, the costs could get as high as $207 billion – illustrating the importance of advancing the science of cancer prevention and treatment.” Thus not only will the system be heavily burdened, the costs will be absorbed by the people due to increased costs for procedures, tests etc. 3. Woodsmoke is just as dangerous.(i) Extratopical. Who cares if it is? As long as I link into an outweighing benefit by affirming the resolution you have reason to vote aff. And this will be the case because unless he subsumes the benefits this argument doesnt compel a negative ballot.4. Alternative: Commercial Air Filters(i) Only aff has substantial fiating power. This is true because it prevents neg abuse from simply saying well lets not do the resolution and do X instead. And this protect abuse on the level that the aff’s research burden would have been exploded to a very large amount. Thus, the neg cant fiat this as a solution.(ii) Politics Block. Whereas the aff can fiat the resolution into existence with a Pro ballot the con would have to show that the alternative would be passed. When an alternative is presented Con needs to show that the alternative would be passed through the government. And to access solvency the Con would have to get this passed nationally, i.e. in Congress. However due to the Republican majority in the House any mandate wouldnt be passed since it would be: (1) against the libertarian ideals of the Tea Party and (2) it would be politically deadly since it would be seen as controversial since the Republicans almost unanimously oppose the mandate for healthcare. C2: Solvency and Deterrence He concedes Sub-A. 1. The Richardi evidence tells you that regulations in public places saw an immediate drop in acute myocardial infarction and thus a decrease in heart disease and regulations slow down the carcinogen process which is exacerbated by SSM. 2. The second Barnoya evidence revealed the same thing except within an isolated example. As such, the pro is protecting against heart disease. B) Deterrence1. We can threaten with life imprisonment(i) The benefits of deterrence have to outweigh the consequences. Threatening with life is imprisonment would create high amounts of backlash. Those harms would outweigh since stability would be compromised. Thus, the government wouldnt be upholding its duty of a cost-benefit.2. He says volountary isnt topical(i) Your the one who wanted the debate to be about voluntary exposure. The evidence deals with the harms of SSM. But I think he meant involuntary. However the evidence refers to SSM as well and also as I mentioned the lines are blurred3. People wouldnt voluntarily enter a smoky area(i) This is where the line is blurred. But Ill provide some examples: public places such as a park where a kid is playing with his friends and they are in a very smoky area; a restaurant where it is generally a non-smoking area but the area is enclosed so the smoke circulates from those that are smoking; a workplace where smoking is allowed. 4. Gasmask alternative(i) XA the analysis on fiating power(ii) XA political bloc argument