The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

You're welcome. "Not only that but my opponent drops the fact that if we speak for everyone we drown out the voices of minorities" You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have spoken for the Natives just as much as you have with the CP. Also by speaking for everyone we are not just speaking for the majority. By everyone I mean everyone. By speaking for everyone I speak for minorities as well as majorities. This is a better framing model than your framing model because 1. My framing INCLUDES the indigenous people, and not just the Makah. 2. You leave out countless other minorities while I speak for all of them. Now onto the CP 1. Idk why you use the word they, I'm only one person... I think. Now onto seriousness. "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". Well no, you wouldn't be abusive. You wouldn't be abusive because anyone who would accept the debate would be 100% aware of what they would be debating, therefore the debate would be completely fair. In other words calling abuse on CPs is rather ridiculous in this model for debating because you can write the resolution however you want. If you leave a loophole that's your fault. If your opponent takes advantage of that loophole that's no one's fault but your own. You also claim I am abusive because " it simply cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, positing my opponent between pro and con.". Well that's true. I do pick the good parts of the MMPA and say we should keep that and say we get rid of the bad parts. However you are wrong that I am in-between pro and con, and here's why. Resolved: The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted. You defined this as The MPAA should be removed. I am fulling on the con side to that. I am working within con ground in a way that fixes the problems you have as your advantages. That is not abusive. You gave me this amount of ground and I am simply working with it. Next Onto that Historical Erasure DA. Well with all due respect this DA is a little ridiculous. You are suggesting that by keeping the MMPA in place we are erasing history of a past treaty. 1. Even if this were true there is no impact. One treaty being forgotten will not cause any serious issues, therefore it's not a very valid DA. 2. My CP is not going to be erasing any history. 3. If anything my CP is actually restoring history rather than erasing it. This is because by allowing the Makah to whale I am restoring the action done during the Treaty. Most importantly 4. Your argument here is outright hypocritical. You say that my CP hurts the natives because the CP shouldn't even need to be done. Well the same exact thing can be said about your plan. By your logic your plan should not need to be done so you promote colonial violence. Now onto the Whales DA. 1a. While reproductive capability may not be the only important thing it is still critically important especially for species being hunted. You say that they are resilient because they can adapt. Well guess what no species has ever, throughout the entirety of history, adapted to advanced human hunting. If humans hunt the animal faster than they can reproduce, the species will become extinct no matter how well it can adapt. 1b. The evidence you give doesn't really support what you're saying. It just talks about the Makah and their whaling rights. 2. This doesn't actually show that, what it shows instead is that the species is endangered and at risk, and is only kept alive because of the MMPA. The article also talks about how the MMPA is causing previously endangered species to rebound and recover. 3. The thing is you have brought up no evidence that says Grey whales are not keystone species. But if you look at this source here you will see that they are: http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk.... So because of this a domino effect is very possible. 4. More species than just Grey whales will be hurt. Onto case It is important to note that Pro admits and concede that the CP solves for all of this while avoiding my DAs 1. You still have failed to give any proof that this is both 1. Real, a reliable source would do this. 2. Maliciously intended due to racism. 2. You say this gives you solvency on a rhetorical level. The thing is having something on a rhetorical level does nothing. It does not solve any real issues. While you may help some of the economy you make it worse due to the whaling DA. 3. You say that I "don't care for the native voice" This is proven to be false because of my CP. If I didn't care about natives I would not have made the CP. You should reject their offense because it is either 1. Overblown. or 2. Will have a very small impact 3. My CP solves for it all. 4. The impact to my DAs outweigh Pro's offense by miles. Thank you for this debate. I rest my case.