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

OverviewWhiteflame is absolutely making this argument on purpose, he and I both know that this debate has been a policy debate from day 1.1.) I retain the R1 right to define and clarify my case: I now clarify that this is policy debate.2.) I am not responsible for your negligence, as the author of the rules I can objectively state that this is and always has been a policy debate. Whiteflame should receive no sympathy.3.) A reasonable person would think the resolution referred to “formal” policy debate, all context clues and statements clearly indicate this. Saying “policy debate” in the resolution and the rules would be superfluous if it were simply to note that the debate was about a policy, so there is simply no reason that I would have added that if I wasn’t referring to ‘formal’ policy. This is a debating site for Christ’s sake.4.) Whiteflame wouldn’t have told me his CP was ‘unconditional’ if he thought the debate was not an official policy debate, as the advocacy of a CP is only relevant in policy debates.5.) Even if you are right, all policy debate rules should still apply because they are directly derived in order to have fair and educational debates. 6.) If this debate is NOT a policy debate, then what gives Con the authority to even run a CP? Cancel the CP if this is not a policy debate.Inherency1.) Although Whiteflame has an extremely nasty habit of falsely accusing me of dropping arguments I have never dropped, Whiteflame actually drop multiple of my arguments, one of which is that conservation, what his CP advocates, fails (See Crtl+f:”Current con”). It says you can’t conserve natural reefs with current methods, the people in the CP simply have no way to conserve reefs effectively. This turns con’s interpretation of my author Beck’s quote (See Crtl+f:”suggest creating”), because natural projects meant to conserve corals are futile. Con can no longer refute. 2.) Another thing Con drops is my interpretation of what the author Goreau means by ‘restoring reefs’ (See Ctrl+F:”The meaning”). This interpretation is correct and means that conservation is futile and thus the CP is futile, and that my case is the only way to solve.CP1.) Whether this is policy or not, CPs should be mutually exclusive. Con’s only job is to say “the Plan at hand shouldn’t happen!”, but the fact is that CPs which are not exclusive give literally no reason that the plan is actually a bad idea and shouldn’t happen. The CP itself is just an argument against the plan. It argues that there is A better plan to spend our time on, right now, than the one pro offers, so we should do that one instead. So if a CP doesn’t actually reveal a reason the plan is bad and/or shouldn’t happen, then is it really a sound argument? The debate world contends no. There is no true reason that we cannot conserve and create corals simultaneously, and thus Whiteflame’s CP is an easy permutation.2.) Con’s arguments against the perm make no sense, he must go into as much detail as I have to explain.3.) Can’t fiat any of the groups in the CP, as this is nonreciprocal and unfair. CPs should only have as much fiat power as Pro’s. see above4.) Plan doesn’t reduce political or activist will because the plan is fiat-ed into existence, there is no action by politicians nor activists for which to make them lose their will, you can’t even assume they will know about it necessarily. Strikes the decreased-will argument5.) Even if the plan somehow decreased will, this doesn’t escape a perm because, again, the whole point of enacting a plan is to override any opinions the populace or politicians may harbor, it simply happens.Plan1.) Debates should be about the meat of the topic and not details. This doesn’t mean I should give literally no details, it means judges should trust in standard procedures of government operation which govern normal means of carrying out real life plans, and should not require the pro to have a literally air-tight plan, as this is simply impossible. Whiteflame’s strategy has at times been to exploit these inevitabilities, he hasn’t run a single disadvantage to my case.2.) Reefs cover 109,800 sq mi and at least 25% of the world’s reefs are dead, so about 27500mi are gone. Consider that the plan creates 50,000 miles of reef. Thus the plan more than restores corals back to their former glory. Solves the entire problem executively. Hurricane protection1.) Erosion plays no role in formation of the reef crest/the accretion doesn’t happen from a flat pane growing upwards. The mesh is shaped like the reef and accretion brings the limestone, another ignored Goreau quote shows accretion reefs attenuate (See:Ctrl+F:”reefs have e”) and are thus sufficient to attenuate.2.) By ‘tough reefs’ the evidence meant they are impervious to the environment, not literally hard. 3.) Government contractors who regularly implement these reefs will know their depth, normal means. Same for surveillance of underwater gear.4.) Biorock reefs garner the same life as any natural reef, solvency evidence.5.) Plan pays itself off in 4.5 years and saves lives of those hit by hurricanes.6.) You have come about as close to showing we can’t figure out zoning criteria, as prehistoric man to the moon. Mineral accretion is Already a thing, contractors zone reefs every day throughout the world.Pharmaceuticals1.) You concede that Accretion reefs are being conflated with the general failures of so called ‘artificial reefs’ (See Ctrl+F:”what is an”). Was never responded to and is now irrefutable.2.) You concede all of my evidence that there is a need, and a real potential to find pharmaceuticals AND that we could get more pharmaceuticals if we had a place to get more samples AND that the plan solves for this. (See Ctrl+F:”A.) It”). This was literally never responded to.3.) Con’s says it costs $802 million to simply investigate a chemical lead. This evidence really says that it costs $802 million to successfully find a drug that effectively treats a real disease. To these guys that about 10 bucks. In any case this is irrelevant because these industries are expanding rapidly and know what they are looking for. Corals will only give higher quality leads.4.) Why investigate coral life for cures instead of land? Because it is 400 to 600X more likely to find a cure in reefs than on land. See R2 Caron evidence.5.) Con’s cite [25] doesn’t come close to stating that industries have too much inflow of potential medicines, in fact it says: “The ’pipelines’ of forthcoming drugs on which its future health depends have been drying up for some time.”6.) Coral reef medicines do cover, and have the potential to protect thousands of people. This is round 2 level evidence. Its pretty simple, we either stick with current land based medicine finding, or we open the route which is 400-600x more likely to find a cure for a disease. Solvency 1.) As has been stated, neither con’s source [9] nor [12] support the conclusion that reefs pull away fish, even if they did you haven’t proven it does so significantly. I have also argued that this claim doesn’t make sense on a purely analytical basis (See Ctrl+F:”There is nothing”) 2.) my reefs are the exact same as natural reefs compositionally and organically, as my solvency evidence states in R2 states which means it garners the exact same marine life. I have evidence, this is yet another one line ‘argument’ which was not backed with proof. 3.) Whiteflame completely conflates artificial reefs with mineral accretion reefs. 4.) The argument on overfishing is completely analytical and simple, con must recognize that 50,000 miles of reef is no specific location to go over-fish, and this impact is non unique because this is already happening in the status quo, at the very least, the judges know that con’s argument here is possibly wrong but on the other hand, know that if my argument is right, then there is at least a chance to save and heal the fish population. Furthermore, you previously quoted my author Goreau in saying that through restoration we can save the fishing industry. Con accepted that as true but was using a faulty definition of restoration, as previously argued by me and conceded by con…Restoration actually means the regrowth of corals as a whole, including new ones, not just helping current reefs, thus through the plan we save the fishing industry, this is a turn to Con’s quote earlier (See Ctrl+F:”active global”) which happens to serve as a Con endorsed advantage to the plan. 5.) The argument that Biodiversity gets damaged doesn’t quite line up. Even if fishers try to harvest the reefs they take proportional amounts of fish each time and the actual ratio of fish types is never degraded, the only possible degradation could be killing off life in general but again this happens readily in the status quo and Biodiversity is an assumed advantage, never proven. SEE most important quote on solvency Ctrl+F:"self-repairing"Through this debate I have consitently provided strong clash of argument and defended my case fully. I have shown that this is and should be considered a policy debate and have even given justifications as to why those policy rules are only fair in any case. The counter plan is the easiest choice, it is easily permed. But besides that fact, the CP is unfair in its fiat ability and lacks solvency. The plan completely restores reefs to their former levels but the most important thing to remember is that even if a judge doesn't like one of my advantages, the other is sufficient to enact. The plan must simply offer something that is better than the status quo, so if my plan only makes the current situation 1% better, that is suffiecient to vote pro. We have established an undeniable potential for medicines in reefs and have shown that the plan solves the lack of specimine to culture. Furthermore the plan is paid in no more than 4.5 years and literally prevent 97% of wave damage in a hurricance, how could you Not vote pro?-Thank you, TJVN