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

OV1: A DDO debate is not a formal policy debate unless the rules in R1 make it so. Pro did not put these rules in R1, so they were not a part of the debate I accepted. Ergo, voters should reject these rules. OV2: Extend my point that Pro implies his 3, 4 and 11. None of these should stand as sources. OV3: How is it abusive to request the basic underpinnings of your case? Pro is presenting a technology that few people understand, and expecting that everyone read deeply in order to understand any of the debate. He's still failed to explain how biorock functions, and that failure contributes to the misconceptions he cites. Inherency Pro drops my point that his inherency doesn't support his case - it supports mine. All of his sources tout the benefits of natural coral reefs, not biorock reefs. As for Goreau, don't take my word for it. Read his: "active global ecosystem restoration strategies are urgently needed to prevent crippling economic losses to marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism, and coastal resources." Biorock formation around a single country isn't a global ecosystem restoration strategy. Goreau may support biorock, but he doesn't support Pro's case. On the CP: 1) I solve for political confusion (note that Pro doesn't) by ensuring that scientists are active participants in how restoration occurs. I'd argue that requiring scientific advisors will enlighten politicians, but it doesn't matter if the political sphere is still confused, so long as they're facilitating the activities of those who understand it. That's what my CP does. It puts scientists in a position to make changes to coral reef policy. It doesn't happen now because there's a lack of political will. 2) The perm fails. First, as I showed in my rebuttal, Pro's biorock formations actually harm natural reefs, which means that his case contradicts mine. Second, as I also showed, political will changes after plan passes. Pro can't do both because the problem is effectively masked and any support for it dries up after spending $8 billion on biorock. 3) Again, this is not formal policy debate. Most people reading this aren't going to know what these types of CPs are, or what a permuatation is. However, for your sake, it's unconditional. 4) Pro says my plan is vague, but never states how. I took the time to explain what was missing from his (even if he barely acknowledges them), Pro must do the same. Plan a) I showed that Pro's case lacks a number of essential pieces. Pro has not explained why any of these are unnecessary. As I go through the advantages, it will become clear why the lack of specificity has important implications, but for now, let's use that car analogy. It would be like saying that we need a car to solve a given pressing situation in specifics place, and that we will throw money at car companies with a couple of technical specifications until the car appears anywhere. Sounds like fantastic policy! b) Again, this is not formal policy debate. I haven't taken the debate hostage - I've explained why several of these deficits affect Pro's case. Without specifics, his advantages oscillate between plausible and impossible. c) So, specificity destroys education? Pro explaining how biorock works to an audience of non-scientists destroys education? And policy jargon is educational? Turn this voter against Pro: so long as he decides that it's not worth his time to explain the very technology he's employing, and instead emphasizes the very tropes of policy debate that make it impossible for outsiders to understand, Pro is damaging education in this debate. As for fairness, it is entirely unfair to present such a technology without background and expect your opponent to dredge up research just to comprehend it. If anything, the vagueness detracts from the debate, forcing me to argue against a shifting case that Pro can "clarify" when he chooses. States A great example of Pro "clarifying" his case. Still, I'll grant this so we can move on. Advantage 1 b) Per Pro's source: "$1.8 billion (2011 adjusted) is the median". c) Pro drops that he's applying biorock to the coastlines of 4 states that haven't had a hurricane in at least 28 years, and thus wasting money and time there. d) What Pro's [7] says is that natural reefs protect shorelines, not biorock. This doesn't function as evidence for his case because it's not showing biorock attenuating waves. In fact, if you look at the report (that's the source Pro says "is utterly wrong", otherwise known as HIS SOURCE), you'll see that it spells out what about the reefs makes them effective, and that's cheifly the reef crest. Lacking that, biorock formations make bad subsitutes. If you keep reading, you'll find that it talks about the depths of the reefs being an extremely important determinant in how much they attenuate. Pro drops all of this. He also drops that the author himself (Beck) makes a statement directly against Pro's case and for mine. Beck makes clear that creating new reefs is a bad idea, and that conservation should be prioritized. I don't know how much more case specific you can be. If that point is based on opinion, that opinion is very well-informed, and one Pro apparently respects. Back to vagueness. Pro's case doesn't state how deep these mineral accretion systems will be placed, just that they will be along some coastlines. Looking at Beck's paper, the depth of the reef is essential. Assuming Pro thinks depth doesn't matter, he's going to have a high variability of placement. Depending on how far offshore it is, the effect on wave attenuation could be nil.[14] Since Pro won't specify, I'll specify for him: these will always be placed far offshore to prevent any concerns with boats, and will thus do next to nothing to attenuate waves. It's up to Pro to prove his solvency, not up to me to disprove it (even though I've done just that). As for my claims: Accretion is a slow process, "Minerals have accreted to a thickness of up to 20 centimetres over three years."[15] Going to need a lot more than 20 centimeters to see any effects on large waves, and that's supposed to be rapid. We're talking about decades before these reefs become a viable sea wall. As for surveillance, this seems relatively straightforward. You're placing electrodes on the ocean floor. There are living creatures down there, and, in some cases, strong wave forces. They tend to move things around. There's no reason to believe that 50,000 miles worth of this stuff is just going to be fine on its own without regular monitoring. And, back to vagueness, Pro hasn't included any means of monitoring in his plan. Advantage 2 Pro drops my response on cancer. He can't just wish for a cure. The treatments he cites haven't made a dent in cancer mortality, and he gives no reasoning as to why a cure is even possible, let alone likely to come from these sources. His response on HIV is non-sensical. We already have lubricants that fight HIV, and condoms are already effective without them.[16] He doesn't contest that the price for this protein (which has to go through extensive and costly clinical trials)[17] will far exceed other effective methods. His links don't show any therapeutic benefit ("preventing...growth") - they merely talk about preventing transmission. Pro's entire case seems to rely on uncertainty, stating that there are life forms down there we don't know yet that maybe, possibly, have some unknown protein that cures disease. He's idealizing possible outcomes, when the reality is that most such efforts will represent a massive cost and no gain, with a success rate of 1-in-5000.[17] And that's if they find something promising. The reality is that most organisms won't have any promising leads.[18] Pharmaceutical companies risk a lot by pursuing them. This also assumes that biorock formations will be hot spots for marine life that we haven't seen, which he's failed to prove. Pro even talks about mass harvesting of marine life, and then ignores the fact that that will massively deplete marine life around these sites, thus reducing their biodiversity. Solvency Pro writes off my responses. This is going to hurt. None of what I've cited as potential problems is specific to any type of artificial reef, and are thus applicable to all artificial reefs, including biorock. Like my [9], which shows that any marine life that clings to artificial reefs is going to be very different from those on natural reefs and any success transitory. My [8] shows that there are multiple factors that affect the success of any artificial reef, none of which his plan addresses, and that artificial reefs depopulate natural reefs. My [10] reveals that artificial reefs can degrade marine resources. My [13] even assumes that his reefs will attract fish, becoming publicized sites lthat lead to overfishing, further reducing populations and biodiversity. Pro cannot assert that mineral accretion "exerts literally no negative force on the environment it is put into." He cannot assert the inapplicability of these points to his case. All of them point to problems that occur when new reef structures appear on the ocean floor, and that means any reef structures. They don't require specific materials to be applicable. Biorock is not infallible just because artificial reefs are worse. Extend my point about masking and lost political clout for activists. Extend my argument regarding reduced political will for law-makers. Both of these function as independent reasons why the plan and CP are mutually exclusive, as well as disadvantages to his case. Extend my weighing argument on the importance of marine life. This makes plausible biodiversity harms the most potent impacts in this debate. Pro has yet to argue that his case would in any way improve biodiversity, whereas I have shown that it will be harmed. 14. http://bit.ly... 15. http://bit.ly... 16. http://bit.ly... 17. http://1.usa.gov... 18. http://cbsn.ws...