The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

First off thank you for the wonderful response, I am honored to have my first debate against you, so let's just go ahead and get into the debate. First let's look at the weighing mechanism. The weighing mechanism goes virtual dropped by the con, meaning you as the judge are going to have to weigh the round in the terms of indigenous culture. While the con does say that the weighing mechanism should be who speaks best for the greater good of the world they provide no brightline for why this is substantially better than my weighing mechanism. This weighing mechanism is in fact inherently worse for natives because, it flood out there voice. When you have to speak for the entire world, the Native voice will not be heard over the voice of the white majority. Thus you lean pro on the weighing contention. Next let's move into the CP. 1. This CP is abusive to the pro, because it avoids the role of the con. The con states specifically that they should prove to the judge why we should not lift the MMPA, but this CP cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, which makes it impossible for the affirmative to win. If we are going to make this a debate in which both sides have decent ground to argue on you are going to have to reject the CP out right on abuse claims. 2. Perm do both: Do the pro and if any negative effects pursue do the CP; this solves any real offense on the CP anyways. 3. Historical Erasure DA- This CP exemplifies the rotten, corrupt legal system that erases history by still attempting to whitewash the Treaty of Neah Bay. This further promotes the exact colonial violence that the aff and the CP oppose and is not only a solvency deficit, but is also a disadvantage to the CP. 4. Native marginilization DA- The CP marginalizes other native groups by assuming that only the Makah want whaling rights; while the affirmative does isolate the makah in our impacts we will defend our ability to solve for all natives. Thus in retrospect the CP actually further hinders the Native voice by undermining the Native groups and whitewashing a history of violence that lies within the legal system. Next let's move onto to the IL DA. 1. International Sea law is not high right now in the U.S. because of our failure to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty that would bolster International maritime law. Thus the DA has no real impact, because International Law is already low. 2. MMPA hurts International law, because it is a federal law that is not in coincidence with any other world power like Japan and Russia that actually exemplify whale hunting. Thus the DA would trigger its own impacts. Next let's move onto the Whales DA. It is game over for the con on this argument, because they drop critical arguments from my last speech that cover the DA already. 1. Repealing the MMPA means no harm to the environment, because whale populations, especially the grey whale, are naturally resilient. That means there won't ever be a sever dip in whale populations. They concede this, it means you aren't going to be accepting any answers to it in future speeches. 2. Only Natives are really into hunting whales anyways and they take at max 20 a year. That means there is hardly any actual impact to whale populations and their internal link story is defunct. They also concede this, it means you aren't going to accept any further argumentation on that. 3. Grey whales aren't a keystone species that means a domino effect is impossible. No impact to the DA. Let's go ahead and move onto case. First on solvency; the entire solvency contention goes conceded so you are going to assume that the pro's rhetorical resistance to colonialism solves best for the weighing mechanism. This is game over for con because they have conceded that pro solves best for the weighing mech. Let's move onto sovereign violence. They say that the MMPA has not caused any genocide and violence and genocide can not occur because we are in a post colonial setting, however the MMPA is used to exclude natives from an economic opportunity, whaling, which causes them to starve and be exploited by other means, not only that but we commit genocides still to this day against native populations and it is the fact that their voice is no heard that we don't recognize this. We literally dump nuclear waste on native reservations which gives the cancer and countless other complications. A slow genocide is the worst genocide. Onto poverty They say we aren't stopping Natives from adapting or changing, but this statement further marginalizes the native voice. It shows that con doesn't care about native culture and in fact would rather have it done away with so that they can "adapt" that triggers all the impacts of the pro. Onto legalism Con concedes that under the Treaty of Neah Bay, which was never repealed, that tribes have a whaling right. That means we win this entire contention hands down. MMPA doesn't justify Indian giving. Pro wins because pro preserves the Indigenous voice.