The USFG Should Substantially Increase Its Exploration of Earths Oceans

At the end of this relatively short debate, here are three reasons why you sign the neg ballot:1) They have conceded they are untopical It was previously established that the over-arching resolution was the following: "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its non-military development and/or exploration of the earth's oceans." (I can post a screenshot of that establishment in comments). In my first speech I outlined three interpretations of this baseline resoution, and reasons why the aff not meeting those interpretations matter. By the second speech, the only thing we see the case doing is extending on her case and elaborating it, in the hopes that the judges would vote aff on the presumption "case outweighs" (which I remind the judges a) she did not make this argument, b) I will actually address it in the Capitalism Critique). By doing this, she concedes all the problems I discussed in the Topicality debate, making them true and active in this debate. Since there's no point debating an affirmative that won't meet a previously-met resolution that was decided upon by both teams,this is an indepedent reason to sign neg, irregardless of whatever else happens in this debate.2) They have not answered the Capitalism CritiqueFirst, an overviewOur alternative is to vote negative in order to endorse a strategy of revolutionizing social relations for sustainable socialist praxis. Capitalism has both an ECONOMY and ECOLOGY of domination and exploitation. Only pragmatic solutions addressing both these things can properly resolve human needs without adversely interacting with nature. THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM AND AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY ARE ONE—that’s Foster 2008. Voting negative ties the ballot and our ethical orientation towards pragmatic movements happening at the periphery in places like Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia which are moving toward this revolutionary praxis, BUT such movements MUST be mirrored in the advanced capitalist world or else they will be crushed by the larger system.Next, the Line-by-LineWhile the affirmative has made no active answer against the Capitalism Critique, she has extended case far enough and deeply enough to the extent that I must answer accordingly lest some judges make that a voter since I would have nothing else on my page other than "they dropped it, we win."First, the critique outweighs. What makes the critique a bigger deal to you than the case will on the ballot is that it reaches a far-greater implication-- i.e. magnitude-- than the case. The aff squabbles about lack of US heg? Cool, how about extinction of the entire human race through drasticallly unhealthy resource abuse for production of commodity and/or nuclear war over the Arctic because of-- wait for it-- commodity? Yeah, I thought so. The drastic-ness of the critique's terminal impact fudges a possible timeframe argument some of you judges might have. Sure, the aff will happen sooner. But think about it- it comes and goes. No nuclear war, life goes on. But the inherent ugliness of capitalism has not been changed in any shape or form, it still goes on. That means even if the aff has faster timeframe, its impacts go away with time, leaving room for Capitalism's final and fatal impact. Lastly, if any of you are thinking "oh, this critique cannot possibly happen, it's way too big", allow me to counter that for you. This is because the Internal Link that my critique describes is already in motion-- the aff's plan to go up to the Alaska and savagely breaking up the land to take those "REMS", without a care for how it will play out; it plays in motion through describing this new "REMS" in terms of new monies that the USFG would get, only to further the system of capitalism we are hit with today. To get a full scope of the impact, imagine every single capitalist country in the world doing what the USFG is. Mining up the environment and ultimately poisoning it more and more, raising up the stakes for global superiority until countries finally say "ALRIGHT, THAT'S ENOUGH!" and brawl it out through thermonuclear war. In other words, what makes the critique more probable is that it serves as a deeper story into the problems of capitalism, while the affirmative serves as that quick peek that does nothing other than to further those same problems.Next, a role of the ballot.Interp: The judge is an intellectual deciding between competing political strategies – the aff is a defense of market-based policy making Their interpretation is incoherent – “we get the plan” begs the question of how the aff should be evaluated – they only get their impacts insofar as they justify their political strategy We solve all their fairness claims – we don’t wish away the 1AC, they just have to justify it And we impact turn their education –policy-making education means nothing in the absence of understanding the ideological dimensions of that education—crusading without understanding the problems results in serial policy failure since we can never properly address the problem Policy focus bad—it’s incredibly foolish to assume policy making is the only force for change in the world. Ultimately, the question of what side gets more education should be decided not on the future consequences of the two, but what we, as the actual debaters—and students—get out of this round; this is because the act of learning something (ie. Education) comes from actually experiencing it, in this case debating. Too often policy debate has consisted of students contesting impacts, impacts they’ve heard of only because of policy debate, and impacts they’d forget once they leave policy debate for the real world. While this is education for the debate season, this kind of education won’t help in the long run. The Capitalism kritik truly outweighs more in education in the long run. Arguments like this one seek to undermine the very thinking/causes that in of itself cause these policies to occur, in this case the exploitative nature of capitalism. It forces debaters to really think about their world, and how they can change it. Finally, a reason to vote negative if you're so biased against anything other than policy that you've ignored the critique up to nowThere's still Topicality to vote up, and the case doesn't do anything to help the US other than give it more money (expendable money), and ultimately will cause its destruction (since it links to the critique). Only by embracing the critique can we net-help the USFG, by averting its destruction.3) While Cross-X implied that the aff was going to provide answers to the pieces of evidence I cited on the case debate (I gave citations earlier in comments), the aff did not.While the aff did indeed extend her case and make it less vague for lay judges, she did not address the underlying questions of her case that I brought up in my previous speech. For instance, I brought up evidence that criticized the entire notion of China's hegemony on R.E.M's, that it was inherently unstable (see my first speech). All she has done was to reiterate what the plan will try to do to counter this "problem", thus leaving it uncontested. With this in mind, consider the affirmaive as it stands it right now. The USFG might not be able to control R.E.M.S, but China won't either, because its control is unstable. OK, so? Both countries are equally problematized economically. There's no need to waste money to force out limited -value R.E.M.s from Alaska. This takes out the reason why we should do the aff, and else is a reason to independently vote neg on presumption.Hence, at the end of it all, I have shown how the aff is a bad idea (the critique), and how it can't do anything (the case debate). All in all, I urge the judges to vote neg.