The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

Thank you for giving me a great first debate, let's get into the weighing mechanism debate. Let's break this down, we aren't saying it is bad to speak for everyone, but when it comes to the MMPA the Indigenous voice is particularly useful, because they are the group that is marginalized most by the decision. Not only that but my opponent drops the fact that if we speak for everyone we drown out the voices of minorities. Obviously a black minority wouldn't be represented very well in a white majority. Considering that settler-colonialism is still a widely accepted mind set the marginalized group in this circumstance would never get their voice out in the framing of the con. Let's move onto the CP. 1. They argue the CP is not abusive, because I wrote the resolution, however this is fundamentally wrong. If I had framed this debate as only the Makah Tribe I would have been abusive; the way the topic is framed allows healthy middle ground for both the pro and con such as whaling disads and cultural kritks. Arguing that I should have made the topic narrow would have just forced a ground shift in the opposite direction. You are still rejecting the CP on abuse, because it simply cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, positing my opponent between pro and con. Because they aren't actually assuming the role of con I can not have a fair debate on the CP. 2. We aren't going for the perm or the Native marginalization DA you can drop these. 3. Wholly extend across the flow the Historical Erasure DA. Even if you don't buy the abuse theory this is going to be the CP's fatal flaw. The say that the CP helps to restore the treaty of Neah Bay, but it obviously doesn't; read the CP text it is just to allow exceptions for the Makah in the instance of the MMPA. This is bad because it completely disregards the fact that the MMPA shouldn't even be necessary for the Natives to whale; you can consult our legalism observation here. Also BIG DEAL here they drop the impact story, so that means you buy that the CP further promotes colonial violence that is used to silence the Native; consult out sovereign violence impact. This is a solvency takeout to the CP and a DA to the con. Let's move onto the Whales DA. 1. While the debater seems to think they have proved whales are not resilient, resiliency isn't just about reproduction speed and is actually more about adaptability. At the point in which the con hasn't proven that grey whales are bad at adapting you err pro. If you really want good evidence on this check out D'Costa 5' here http://www.animallaw.info... 2. They make the mistake of bringing up an article to show that the MMPA is working. This article actually talks about how whales are actually still endangered in U.S. water by numerous things such as disease, ship noise, and depleted food. This is going to wind up favoring pro, because it shows that the impact to the DA will occur regardless of the pro side winning. 3. We will concede more than just Natives hunt whales. 4. The problem with their domino effect argument is that it assumes grey whales are keystone species when in fact they aren't. Many other species of whale such as hump back, and sperm whales are considered keystone, but never grey whales, because they aren't a big enough power player in the marine world. This means the impact of the DA is impossible and there is no way you are considering it at this point, because it is just more Eco-apocalyptism. Let's move onto case. They only respond to one point of defense which is going to prove a tragedy for the con here. They say: 1. There is no proof any violence is actually happening, but we isolate economic exploitation in which natives are forced to endure jobs outside of their culture to sustain living poverty, and nuclear wast being literally dumped on Native ground--If you really need proof look to Yucca Mountain, the biggest waste depository in the U.S. which also happens to be Native Land. 2. They say pro can't solve, but refer to out solvency contention that by rejecting the colonial violence of the MMPA on a rhetorical level we gain solvency for all imperialistic violence against Native. They concede that so that is going to be a pretty big deal. That being said even if you don't buy that We still solve at least economic exploitation through our first contention so you err pro on case. Because they drop the entirety of case it shows the cons attempt to omit the Native voice which proves detrimental under both framings because it shows that they don't care for the Native voice or everyone. Conceding case is also going to be game over for the con, because it means you HAVE to give pro access to all in round offense, such as economic exploitation, genocide, and poverty. Ultimately we remain holding the only standing internal links to offense, which means you vote pro on presumption if not anything else. Thank you for this wonderful opportunity. I really enjoy it.