Resolved: The United States of America should create coral reefs along its coastlines(Policy debate)

OV1: Whiteflame concedes that the rules are true in any policy debate but Whiteflame points out that: “A DDO debate is not a formal policy debate unless the rules in R1 make it so.”….Let’s get a quote from Round 1: “this is a policy debate”…..Let’s look in the resolution: “….reefs along its coastlines (Policy debate)”….Over. OV2: Is this really relevant? I’d like to move on if you understand my sourcing. OV3: See abuse argument. Inherency The Chemical formula for limestone is CaCO3 [20] and the chemical formula for calcium carbonate is also CaCO3, the plan aggregates limestone on top of wire mesh from the ocean water, while reefs use the death of organic matter to make calcium carbonate so they are the same thing. However, what the coral rests upon is irrelevant, all of my evidence talks about corals themselves which is the same in both reef types. And in fact, Solvency evidence will show that the corals on Mineral Accretion reefs grow much healthier in every way. Thus despite the derivation of the CaCO3 corals live on, the evidence is nonetheless, about corals. Please read this evidence from my author Goreau: “Current conservation strategies practiced by governments, international funding agencies, and large environmental organizations have in almost all cases failed tragically to protect and conserve corals, and diverted attention and funding from the critically urgent need to restore damaged reefs.” [2] (Sec. Restoration Is Crucial, p. 2) General The meaning of restore is ‘to bring back’; Goreau refers to restoring coral reefs as a whole, by creating new ones using mineral accretion. Flow this quote my direction because he is advocating for my plan, mineral accretion, as the solution to all these problems, I couldn’t run the fisheries advantage because I didn’t have enough space, due to the fact that I was forced to waste discussion on rules and abuse. Finally, I need not solve for political clout, I just solve the whole problem executively. Counter Plan The Permutation If the resolution was “Resolved: Let’s walk the dog for 30 min” and someone said “No, counterplan”: Let’s breath the air for 30 min instead, then you would say “Well this is stupid, we can do both at the same time”. Exactly, this is a permutation, it points out that nothing about the counterplan excludes the plan’s existence (mutually exclusive) and thus it doesn’t competewith the plan and is invalid. A mutually exclusive counterplan is that same CP but resolution is "Sit at the bottom of a pool for 30 min" A permutation asks if the plan and the counter plan could physically coexist at the same time, or if the happening of one would cancel the other, this test is required by the Policy Debate God.There is no reason that we cannot physically ‘pursue…wide-scale conservation initiatives as a country’ while also creating coral reefs on our coasts. This is because one can conserve current corals while creating more thus the CP is noncompetitive and therefore void. As shown, this IS a policy debate. Plan First, you never explain why the analogy is just like my plan, sarcasm doesn’t prove your argument. I drop the abuse argument, but not the underlying objection. I have participated in maybe 20 policy debate with this topic and have never been required to provide the “cost of the electrodes”. For the reason of specificity, Debate has come up with the process of “normal means”, which guarantees that the plan will go through reasonably normal ways as in real life, this is to prevent specificity abuse. It is forthrightly impossible for me to outline a real life plan to save the world, especially in 10k characters, that’s abusive. You have to explain how I damage education, not just declare that I do. Also, on ‘prep time fairness’, that’s what policy debate is Lol, you shouldn’t get sympathy for not reading R1 or the res. Adv.1 Hurricanes and storm surge Mineral Accretion is a process whereby one takes industrial grade wire mesh and conforms it to the same shape as any coral reef. You plug electricity into the wire mesh (usually about 1/9th of a AA battery) and limestone (same composition of natural reef) begins to accrete on the metal. Limestone is actually heavier than cement and thus the reefs act the Exact same as any other reef (including the reef crest, as Whiteflame points out), thus it of course has the same effects on waves as natural reefs. As far as depth, corals can only grow at a certain depth, thus, obviously the plan puts them at that depth, which is the same depth that attenuates waves and prevents storm damage. Next, I’ll fire your argument right back at you, this quote from my author, Beck, is about natural reefs, you have to give evidence that his quote relays to Mineral Accretion reefs (Not artificial reefs, Mineral Accretion reefs). This quote from Beck actually goes with my quote from Goreau which says current conservation methods suck, because methods of growing natural reefs back, are failing and Mineral Accretion is the only technology which is effective and leaves no impact on the environment. Lastly, Whiteflame, I am sorry to relay that you aren’t in control of my plan. The plan doesn’t limit depth because of ships and if you want to make that into an argument against my case, be prepared to justify that MA reefs are not any taller than regular reefs and thus they will present no further damage to ships than reefs in the status quo do. As for your claims: Where is your evidence that 20 centimeters of accretion is insufficient? This doesn’t prove it is slow, slow is determined by effectiveness and my evidence says it is plenty effective as it is. Keep in mind that limestone is heavier than cement. On surveillance; the NSA is surveilling everything already, so this is already covered. Hahah, sorry, had to lol…My response; simply pointing out that in any project that the government does, it doesn’t do itself, it hires contractors who specialize in that field. Such will be the plan, if the contractors feel that surveillance is necessary then so be it, if not, then so be it, they know what they are doing (normal means). The only argument here is that you might be able to say that the plan will overspend, but is that really a huge issue. Adv.2 Pharmaceuticals You made a one sentence analytical argument about cancer with no evidence, I saw no need to refute. I never said that reef medicine has saved the world from cancer, but they have helped. If we can save even 1 life, one child, one grandmother from fatal sickness of cancer, arthritis, HIV, or what have you, then we have succeeded. Con wishes to put a limit on human life which I deem wrong. Even if it doesn’t contribute in a fantastical, ground breaking way, even specialized medicines which treat rare conditions are important. You’re evidence about making a dent on caner, may be true, but they have contributed and your evidence doesn’t support you, its just 2 arbitrary graphs on cancer. As far as price of HIV medicine, your evidence never says its expensive, not once, it says ALL medicines are expensive, great, so what? Its all about those impacts man. Extend that to all of your cost declarations. To the 1-5000; true, the success rate is low, is that a shocker? No, but how many microorganisms are in the sea? 3,670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The majority of these microbes has never been cultured, identified, or classified, but it is assumed to contain an enormous chemical richness (DeLong 1997)[16]….Next, according to my solvency evidence, Mineral Accretion reefs become indistinguishable from naturally occurring reefs, except their exceptional health and growth rates. And Finally, your evidence about attracting fish from other reefs doesn’t make sense. There is nothing about a new reef that would pull fish from other reefs, unless that reef was lower quality in which case we want them in the new reefs, leading to higher, not lower, procreation rates and higher biodiversity. Keep in mind I never said Biodiversity was an advantage so you’re attacking a straw man here. Solvency 1.) You’re evidence here was the worst of all, obviously other factors will affect how successful the project will be, and yes, some locations may fail due to unexpected reasons, but again, we exclude infeasible locations. Contractors will know where to put them. 2.) Artificial reef no equals mineral accretion reefs, I’ve already explained this, if you disagree you should have refuted my claims in last round, since you have not, they must be true and your point invalid. 3.) On overfishing, there will be a TON of reefs, this isn’t one location of condensed fish this is 50,000 miles of places where fish could Possibly be. You need evidence for these claims, analytics don’t work. 4.) Whiteflame needs solvency evidence for lost clout and political will degradation, you again, can’t declare that into existence. 5.) BioD is irrelevant in many aspects. What’s important is number or animals alive, which must increase with the gaining of new habitat, especially being that Mineral Accretion reefs provide substantially healthier reef ecosystems. “Biorock technology…are self-repairing…grow under conditions that would normally kill them (poor water quality or high temperatures would otherwise prevent it)… grow at 3-5 times record rates in areas where all the surrounding corals had been killed…In the Maldives 50-80% of the corals survived the high temperatures that only 1-5% of the corals on surrounding reefs survived. These reefs have preserved coral…that have vanished [and] Biorock reefs have effectively absorbed wave energy that they have turned an eroding beach into a growing one…Settlement of larval corals take place at exceptionally high densities…Larval and adult fishes are attracted to these structures at exceptional densities, quickly forming schools so dense that one cannot see across the structures.” [2] Cites [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com...; [20] http://tinyurl.com...; [21] http://tinyurl.com...Thank you