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

OV1: Disregard this, the rules stated are true in Any policy debate, as this is. OV2: Look in the first round, “First Affirmative Constructive will have these cites in order”. Disregard OV1. OV3: This argument is against abusive and addressed in the abuse argument below. Inherency In his counterplan Whiteflame wishes to ‘pursue wide-scale coral initiatives’. He claims that I have misunderstood my author, Goreau. I’m not sure how he figures this though. My author literally wrote a study promoting mineral accretion reefs. The Counter Plan (CP) still does not solve for the inherent barrier which is political confusion. He has not provided evidence that scientists alone can solve this problem, if they could, they already would have. Reponse to counter-plan is permutation, the counterplan is not competitive. Con must specify, is the CP conditional, unconditional or dispositional. Ironically this CP is extremely vauge. Plan Abuse-Voter’s issue a.) Whiteflame is making an argument that my case is too vauge when in fact my case has all of the necessary pieces. We are debating the merits of the overarching ideas as they relate to reality, not every minute aspect. Whiteflame is making an argument that literally everything in the plan must be specified when in real policy debate, plan texts aren’t even a requirement. My plan text is 110% complete and nothing Whiteflame requests is vital or important to the debate. As I stated before, in a debate about cars, I need not show how the pistons in the engine work or the amount of torque the engine uses, but simply give evidence that the car will solve the problem at hand. b.) Violation- Con has a completely backwards conception of a policy debate plan text and is using this to argue that the affirmative team cannot win the round until his requested components are given. Thus con has attempted to take the round hostage and has made an argument that, even if true would be overtly and offensively abusive. c.) Voter’s issue- Whiteflame’s actions destroy education and fairness in the round by preventing standard debate procedures to be carried out and by detracting from the quality of information that can be presented. Because of Con’s actions he should not be eligible to win this debate until he concedes to the faultiness of his argument and thus ends the abusive argument. (Voter’s issue means this issue is the #1 issue in the round and is considered above any other arguments as far as voting) States This argument is also abusive. Whiteflame is ignoring the section of the plan text that says “all feasible costal states” will be considered and lists Examples of costal states. I will at this time exercise my right to define and clarify my case as necessary. If Con wishes to contest this then please give non abusive examples of defining and clarifying one’s case. This argument is not enough to take precedence over debate issues but should be considered. ADV1-Hurricanes and Storm Surge b.) Agree, 1.8 is the official average for a hurricane in the US. c.) Covered above. d.) This section heavily shows that coral reefs prevent hurricane and storm surge damage. By preventing 97% of wave energy from passing by the reefs you can of course reduces the force of the waves as they come onto shore, and thus reduce the amount of damage as a whole that might occur to the city. Next, your evidence is utterly wrong. According to citation number 7 which comes from the United States Geological Survey, a Federal organization. They do indeed reduce wave energy by 97%.Con has to provide a sound argument, a reason, as to why mineral accretion reefs can’t substitute regular reef formations, he can’t simply suggest this is the case and expect an answer, as there hasn’t been a proven problem presented. This is especially concerning due to the fact that my solvency evidence directly says that mineral accretion reefs become enhanced versions of any naturally occurring reef ecosystem.Con hasn’t shown how the reefs are too deep, nor has he defined how deep is deep enough, this is not a sound argument and thus it demands no feedback. Whiteflame has to show that I place them somewhere that’s too deep. Next, the two most unfounded claims in this section come at the end. Con claims that mineral accretion formation is gradual yet provides no source and that these reefs will need constant surveillance, again no proof. In sum, con cannot just make arbitrary claims and post them as valid arguments and furthermore can’t blatantly give misinformation, or information that has absolutely no sourcing. Finally, moving onto your last claim, where you posit that one shouldn’t make new reefs but only rebuild older ones, this evidence is not case specific. It applies to methods of growing coral reefs naturally and doesn’t pertain to mineral accretion in the slightest. Furthermore, after reviewing your article one can immediately tell this claim is made not from experimentation or research but from personal opinion based on viewing a select few natural reef projects; thus, even though your author seems credible he has not based his statements on scientific facts and this evidence should be ruled out until further evidence is given and then until case specific evidence is given The argument is simple: 1.) What destroys cities in hurricanes the most, is the waves. 2.) The plan places artificial reefs in the path of those waves. 3.) Mineral Accretion reefs prevent 97% of wave energy from hitting the coast 4.) Thus the damage in the city will be decreased by around 97% 5.) Thus not only does the plan save lives but makes money and pays itself off in only 4 years. Pharmaceuticals Effectiveness and potential of marine drugs Whiteflame just kinda seemed to shrug this whole argument off. He assumes that marine medication is ineffective and that it’s no big deal, as he himself doesn’t see a huge impact within the SQ, at least not in chemotherapy. He doubts the potential in medications such as the protein within coral extracts that can completely block the transmission of HIV and he doesn’t realize the potentially revolutionary outcomes that would result from, say, using this protein in sexual lubricants or condoms themselves, or even using it for something as simple as preventing the continued growth of the HIV virus in someone already infected. Scientific medication such as this is fundamentally important to longevity of our society especially with new forms of HIV, which develop into full blow AIDS over 3 time faster than normal, emerging in places like Cuba [14]. Please extend my Caron 12 evidence which states that it is 400 to 600 times more likely to find cures to diseases in coral reefs than on land. They are quite literally the rainforest of the ocean. A.) It has been established that there is a need for new Pharmaceuticals. B.) It has been established that there is a vast potential to find new pharmaceuticals C.) Industries that locate pharmaceutical compounds are thriving - Shows the prospects of Marine pharmaceuticals are real –substantiates impact [17] “According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, marine biotechnology has become a multibillion industry worldwide, with a projected annual growth of 15 to 20 percent during the next five years…Chemists homogenized hundreds of kilograms of an individual species in hopes of identifying a useful compound. This technique often yielded a suite of compounds… less than 10 percent of coral reef biodiversity is known, and only a small fraction of the described species have been explored as a source of biomedical compounds [This fact further shows that there is huge room for market expansion in this sector]” D.) (There is an inhibition) Recourse limitations prevent further discoveries because of an inability to mass harvest- Plan solves [17] “Targeting a promising compound is only the first step; a renewable source for the compound must also be established before a new drug can be developed.” E.) Thus being that the plan solves the (inhibition) problem with lacking enough corals to harvest, the plan can give billions of dollars to the US economy, and most importantly it can literally save millions of lives, not only in America but abroad. What is an artifical reef? Finally Whiteflame simply says, “Hey, your reefs are artificial, I found evidence that says artificial reefs are actually bad.” This is the most common argument that I hear against this case but what people fail to realize is that the term ‘artificial reef’ is a huge term which refers to a vast array of different types of reefs. It’s like saying “Hey, I read that renewable energies have over 3 times the cost of coal!” well that would hardly make sense right? You would definitely need to know what Type of renewable energy was being specified. Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Hamster?? In this debate we are talking about mineral accretion coral reefs which differ dramatically from what the state governments such as Texas, California or Mississippi have done with their reefs, using methods like throwing tires, trash mounds, old cars, boxes or other completely unnatural things into the ocean. We are not that, no, not by any means. Mineral accretion is a highly scientific method for creating coral ecosystems which exerts literally no negative force on the environment it is put into. Citations [14] http://tinyurl.com...; [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] “Life-Saving Products from Coral Reefs” by Andrew W. Bruckner, coral reef ecologist in the National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Protected Resources, Maryland. Thank you, I now pass the pen back to Con, and await the analysis.-TJVN