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

OV1: Saying "policy debate" does not imply FORMAL policy. We're arguing policy, that's a policy debate. There was no stipulation in R1 that this would be formal, so don't punish me for Pro's omission. OV3: Pro finally provides some of the basics of how the technology works! Happy to drop this. Inherency I'll get to similarity on Adv. 1. Pro drops that his case doesn't have global effects. This is key: only my case provides any means by which to ensure that global ecosystem restoration occurs, and Goreau explicitly supports global efforts. Even if they fail (they won't, since scientists like Goreau will direct policy " Pro dropped this), that still gives my case a better probability of solving for a global problem than Pro's. Natural reef degradation continues unabated under Pro's plan. On the CP: Pro grants my solvency by dropping that my case enlightens politicians and allows knowledgeable scientists to direct coral reef policy. Pro's plan doesn't solve for misconceptions or for a lack of political will. My case encourages action, not just letting nature take its course. The CP can employ biorock too, so long as it's employed solely in the restoration of reefs. The CP garners both of Pro's advantages as well. It sustains protection for countries around the globe from hurricanes by ensuring that their reefs survive. It also maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for scientists in every country to collect samples, allowing for the pursuit of novel therapeutics anywhere in the world. Pro's impacts only affect the U.S., but mine extend much further. The perm still fails. Sorry, the Policy Debate God doesn't have jurisdiction here, and the "test" of physical coexistence doesn't apply. Pro is just trying to get out of a straight up net benefits debate. Not only do the cases contradict one another, but there is an inherent barrier that prevents taking action after implementing Pro's plan, which makes the perm nonsensical. Plan Pro still hasn't explained why any of my requests for specification are unnecessary. I've already shown and will continue to show the implications of his vagueness, whether he thinks it's important or not. Pro is providing money to a nebulous group of people with only a rudimentary set of specifications and minimal clarity on placement. All of those missing pieces matter. Applying "normal means" to an abnormal case that forces actions that have never been done by any government before is absurd. This is the first round Pro has even used the words "normal means" and I can't make any sense of what those means look like. If I was asking for specifics that weren't necessary to establish his solvency (or lack thereof), then fine. But these are integral to Pro's case, and his repeated failures to respond to these concerns leave his case with only a risk of solvency, at best. Advantage 1 Let's look at similarity. Pro mentioned that mineral accretion reefs were extremely tough back in R2. He's right, they're much tougher than natural reefs.[19]. This might appear to feed his argument, but it's that hardness that makes the formation of these reef crests extremely unlikely, since they require a careful balance between erosion and building of the reefs.[20] Also, the organic matter in natural reefs gives rise to life, meaning that calcium carbonate is not the sole factor that Pro needs to replicate in order to get either of his advantages, since those populations stabilize reefs.[21] Pro assumes the formation of reef crests. However, these crests must be populated by specific kinds of algae to form and be maintained.[20] We don't know that the biorock corals would be populated by this algae, and if they aren't, then the biorock will never form these crests due to erosion. Pro continues to ignore the second quote altogether. Beck is clearly stating that adding new reef sites by artificial means is problematic. This is Pro's own expert speaking against Pro's case, which seeks to dramatically expand the number of locations at which reefs are placed. 20 centimeters is not enough to affect waves that are between 50 and 150 times larger.[22-24] It's up to Pro to prove that he's going to get enough growth to see any impacts within a reasonable period of time. And recognize that these 20 centimeters were only achieved by transplanting corals, which aren't a part of Pro's case.[15] His reefs will grow slower, and with far more variability due to widely varied conditions. Pro's right that I don't have control over his plan, but apparently, neither does he. He assumes that contractors will be diligent and surveil if necessary, but it's not a part of his plan (or clarifications), so he's banking on an assumption that they'd do it as a matter of course. He's only speculating as to what could limit reef depth in a beneficial manner (without ever stating what that depth is, or sourcing it). He's leaving it up to contractors to decide these depths without any guidance, on top of deciding what makes an optimal locations for growth. Grant him that uncertainty. It showcases that he only achieves a risk of solvency, which needs to be weighed against all the probable failures I've explained. As for costs, Pro seemed to care about the cost of an average hurricane, but I'm fine with dropping this impact out. Advantage 2 Pro asserts that all pharmaceutical companies need is another lead or two to produce an important health benefit. The problem is that companies have no shortage of drugs moving through their pipelines. The flood of new information brought on by recent technologies has practically paralyzed the industry, resulting in FEWER new molecular entities (NMEs) being developed.[25] Throwing more potential NMEs at the problem only compounds the problem. Every lead will require huge time investments and tremendous costs. Those costs are in the link: $802 million, per drug. And that cost creates a trade-off. Companies have to select a small number to potential drugs to pursue. In order to come to that number, they screen through a tremendous number of possibilities. That screening can be costly as well and, as Pro dropped, most organisms won't have any potential whatsoever. More importantly, each drug pursued has a massive opportunity cost, as others could be potential lifesavers; Pro hasn't provided any reasoning to believe that marine resources are more likely to produce results. Those costs matter, particularly for Pro's HIV drug. I've shown why companies would have to charge a large amount for these protective proteins, and Pro dropped the point that cheap and effective alternatives exist. His only evidence of a benefit is a minimally effective chemotherapy, which may have saved a few lives, but came at the cost of other potentially life-saving drugs. Flashy as it is, the 3.7 decillion number isn't impressive - it's actually a little high.[26] There's no reason to believe that the other 6.3-28.8*10^29 microorganisms on the planet should be ignored in favor of these when almost all of them require unknown conditions to culture and require intensive study. Solvency Pro asserts that "contractors will know where to put them", but I've already shown that the criteria for exclusion are too complex for anyone to fully understand. Pro drops those criteria. This is 50,000 miles of ocean, and very little of it will be the vision of perfection. At the very least, these issues will affect growth rates, which Pro's case is dependent on being rapid. He continues to try to no link my evidence on artificial reefs, but even if Pro proves that artificial reefs are exactly like natural reefs (he doesn't), that doesn't change the fact artificial reefs have NEVER been successfully grown and maintained marine life akin to natural reefs. That includes biorock. My links include actual evidence of artificial reefs depopulating natural reefs, leading to reef degradation. Biorock doesn't avoid these harms. I provided evidence that fishermen will overfish these sites.[13] Pro ignored it. Pro hasn't contradicted my point that publicized locations where fish congregate will be sought out fishing sites. Long as these strips are, they're much more defined than current fishing spots. Either Pro's biorock attracts marine life, which means he's biting this harm along with degradation, or it doesn't, in which case he gets no solvency on his Advantage 2 and reduced solvency on his Advantage 1. Pro ignores the links I've provided on lost clout and political will. When a government spends billions on ecological restoration, the problem is viewed as solved - we spent the money, we spent the will, time to move on. Whether it's because Congress deems other matters more important or because constituents don't see a long term project as worth their tax dollars, the focus is likely to be pulled away. Political will for environmental problems is particularly low, even when the cost is minimal, because its impacts are long term and thus appear more distantly important,[27] and so spending political capital on it substantially reduces that will. It masks the global reality that natural reefs are being degraded. The drops on biodiversity, however, are the most important. I gave an extensive explanation for why this particular argument deserves the most weight, particularly because any loss to biodiversity turns Pro's Contention 2, on top of harming many species within the environment. Pro doesn't say how biorock "provide[s] substantially healthier reef ecosystems" and my arguments prove the opposite. I'm not attacking a straw man here - I'm showing why Pro's case has a very clear, certain and substantial harm, and how my case solves for it. Pro's drops here leave his case dead in the water. 19. http://bit.ly... 20. http://1.usa.gov... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://bit.ly... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://bit.ly... 25. http://econ.st... 26. http://bit.ly... 27. http://bit.ly...