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

1. Pro has never claimed that this is policy debate (From the Government agency rebuttal) 1.) The plan will be carried out through Normal Means, Just as Every Single Policy Debate Plan Is. Policy: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body http://www.merriam-webster.com... Plan text: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US Therefore, as the United States Federal Government is accomplishing this and it is a high level plan, this is a debate on policy making it policy debate. The pro stating that they never claimed to be doing a policy debate does not excuse the fact that the resolution implies it. 2. The ‘entire point’ of policy debate is NOT to evaluate a plan, but is to promote education and learning. Policy debate is a form of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org... While the con generally frowns on the use of Wikipedia as a main source, the description is accurate and relies on multiple debate organizations for their definition. More importantly, it’s more evidence than the pro, who holds the burden of proof, has provided. 3.Con wishes to implement his own price, which I will later explain doesn’t make sense anyways, thus making the round literally impossible to win The pro has not explicitly stated in any round how the con is fabricating prices. As the con made sure to use the evidence provided by the pro, in addition to simple mathematics, it’s impossible for the con to have fabricated a price that was not equal to the actual cost of the plan. This destroys the educational value of the debate because there can be no education if there is no round in the first place. Not only this, but it wastes space in the debate reducing the amount we can argue that actually has educational value. The educational value is elicited by those viewing this debate. It will teach them to not amend their plan or otherwise change rules without stating them in their 1AC, thereby destroying the structure of policy debate. In order to maintain the future of education, infractions must be addressed so as to keep them from becoming the norm. This also hurts the sportsmanship of the game and promotes tension between the players. This clearly also hurts educational value. This tension is irrelevant if any is felt. As the point of the debate is to evaluate the Affirmative teams plan, the con is not obliged to sidestep possibly sensitive subjects to the pro in order to keep their emotions manageable. However, the con recognizes that antagonizing the pro, or con for that matter, is not acceptable and apologizes if it appears that that was the goal. Thus, Con’s propositions are abuses which far outweigh any abuses which I have committed and the second price should stand. Con has disproved abuse by the Negative team, therefore the issues that were stated previously still stand against them. Price 1. Artificial reefs are NOT artificial breakwaters just because they have a similar sounding definition. Actually, that’s exactly how something falls in to a category. The con has provided evidence of a category and used the pros own evidence to prescribe the actual cost resulting from this. The pro has failed to provide evidence that artificial reefs are not a type of artificial breakwater, thereby refusing to provide clash which is an integral part of education in a debate. 2. Thus the price of artificial breakwaters is NOT the same as the price of artificial reefs See Price-1 for analytics that disprove this statement. 3.I also have provided quoted evidence from a massive study which declares artificial reefs of the mineral accretion assortment only cost 50,000-$100,000/ kilometer which equals about $75/meter, giving us a grand total of 8.1 billion dollars for the plan The pro provided evidence on a possible cost of artificial reefs. However, as they never disproved that these man-made reefs were not a type of artificial breakwater, the con must assume the worst as the possibility of over 9 percent of the USFG budget being lost is still very real. 4.Thus because I have professional evidence and because Con is using completely flawed logic for his calculation, my answer is the one should remain in play The con has used the pros own evidence and simple mathematics to determine the cost, unless the pro is claiming that their own evidence is actually flawed analytics. In that case, the pro argument is negated as they have then failed to provide any evidence of cost and con arguments still stand. States 1. The plan literally states: “the plan will take place on all feasible coastal states” Again, the con reiterates that this is twisting the plan text by avoiding what is really said. The real plan text is as follows: The plan will take place on all feasible coastal states: (California, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine) are all up for consideration As the judges can see, the full sentence significantly changes the context. Instead of saying all feasible coastal states of the USA, it specifically defines the states up for consideration. This is an issue when there are specific states, defined earlier in the debate, that have been hit by hurricanes and are not protected. 2. The plan doesn’t Ever state: “only the listed states will be up for consideration” This is correct, the plan does not state this. However, the plan ends up doing what this sentence implies as proven in States-1. 3. This means that the con is using semantics and assumptions which aren’t based on what is literally in the plan text, while I am. The con disagrees that it is using semantics when the subject is whether or not the plan actually does what the pro claims it will do. Considering the plan is supposed to protect people endangered by hurricanes, the blatant dismissal of threatened states must be addressed. 4.Finally the plan also states that I affirm the right to clarify my case as necessary, meaning if there is a simply word confusion, like this, I can clarify what it really means. Clarify: to make (something) easier to understand http://www.merriam-webster.com... The pro implies that this is difficult to understand, however the con is having no issue in reading the text. The dilemma is the fact that this plan is explicitly defining the states that can be evaluated. In fact, the line below it specifically excludes Alaska. 5.Thus my and the literally states interpretation must be the accepted version The pro never provided a definition. Their interpretation is that the con is wrong which is not a counter definition nor a clarification. 6.Thus please strike out the states disadvantage Using evidence from above, pro argument is effectively dropped, flow to con. Government agency 1.The plan will be carried out through Normal Means, Just as Every Single Policy Debate Plan Is. http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org... The con recommends that the pro browse through the open evidence project. It has plenty of policy debates that have actual funding programs and agents of action. This means that the plan will be carried out in the normal way that congress would pass/fund/and operate any given plan. Congress funds and operates any given plan by finding a source for the money and an agent of action. As the Pro has never been able to define either, con argument stands. 2. Thus the agent of action and funding are all taken care of See Government agency-3 3. the agent of action is not critical to supporting the educational value of the debate As pro never defines what is actually educational, the con will state that the agent of action is critical to supporting the educational value of this debate, thereby negating them as they are using analytics as well. 4. Thus it doesn’t matter in any case This is an unreasonable jump in logic, suggesting that no entity in the USFG acting as an agent of action matters. The con will call this untopical and leave it at that as it provides no worth to debate this under the resolution. 5. There is no rule which mandates that an agent me named The con will assume that the pro meant ‘an agent be named’. And this is true, no one has to execute the plan by your text, therefore no one will, therefore billions will be wasted on a plan that no one is executing. 6. Thus I have not broken any rules and no abuse has been done The abuse lies in the claims that the con is fabricating claims in addition to complaints about the con not allowing amendments to the plan text at the whim of the pro. The con assumes that the pro is at least somewhat familiar with the basis of policy debate to respect the base structure of it and demands that it be given so as to allow for structured debate instead of letting emotional bias take effect. Trade Pro failed to provide counter evidence. The plan also does not establish the distance that they claim the reefs will be at from shore. Fisheries The fisheries evidence came from the pro, so the pro trying to discredit their own evidence is not showing a healthy and well made plan. The con has already provided the evidence and quotes needed to negate the pros arguments in the previous round, extend them and note that the first quote from con in the previous round still negates the pro arguments as they came from the pros own evidence. The shore protection, as stated in the previous round, is covered under the state protection disad. Tourism Pro evidence claims that artificial coral reefs are made of the same material as a coral reef, calcium. Therefore the same dangers to biodiversity apply unless the pro had proven that these man-made reefs would be stronger.