Will Malson species2NC Page 1 of 11

t, ks, and condi. 2957

Will Malson species2NC Page 2 of 11

T – policy

I. Interp:
I’ll explain… any kind of policy, X policy, Y policy, energy policy, environmental policy, is still
a type of POLICY. Part-to-whole is a fallacy, yeah, but I didn’t commit it – for instant, “capital” and
“punishment” when put together basically mean the death penalty, but when separated, could be
interpreted as sanctions (“capital” meaning monetary, “punishment” still meaning punishment). But if
you look at those two different interps of c-punishment, the word “punishment” still means the same
thing – the death penalty and sanctions are still a form of punishment…just like EP is still a form of
policy. That’s why the definition of “policy” can be used (by itself) as a T argument.

II. Vio:
Look back to the examples of the correct application of “policy” in my definition (btw, I didn’t
make those up, those were with the dictionary definition) – a “policy of retribution”. Can there be
specific Acts of Congress that could demonstrate or use a policy of retribution? Absolutely. Can a single
Act BE that policy? ONLY if it is CREATING that policy. For example, does a bill giving tax credits to
companies investing in wind energy make up all of (arguably) energy policy? No, but it IS part of
energy policy. Is Congress changing energy policy? No, the policy is still the same (we give tax credits
to other energy-thingamajigs like ethanol). The only way they could change the policy is by passing
legislation that prohibits further tax credits, or ends them, or etc. Other than that, the polic is still the
same. I’ll sum it up with a double-bind:
i] either aff is creating a policy (rather than reforming one) and isn’t T, or
ii] aff is passing modifying an Act that only follows an existing EP. (that’s where FXT
comes in, because they may affect the policy, but they’re not changing it).

III. Standard:
Basically his arg here is that my brightline is a-okay, but we have to construct that
distinction from a common-man POV. My responses apply to both his points, because his “2)” point is
just saying we need common man to understand things, which is very similar to his first. 3 reasons
common man is bad:

1. It defies common-sense. Would we ever use a definition from something like dictionary.com,
or the average man on the street? We might, if we had no other dictionary, or if the word wasn’t very
important to the discussion, like the word “the” or “it” or “federal government”. Would we use
dictionary.com or the common man in this situation? Of course not; it’s common sense to use a
definition from an expert on the subject. If I were going to build something, I would ask a carpenter for
advice and help with planning, not a random person on the street. If I wanted to define environmental
policy, I would ask an expert on the subject, not a random person.

2. It has no application (not real-world). We can define things from a common man standpoint
all day and never get anywhere because the fact is, we don’t use common man definitions in legal
matters! The first page of any legal document (and sometimes more) is covered in definition of words
found in the document. Is that common man? Not in the slightest. In the real-world, common man
definitions are thrown out whenever we get into legal matters – and we’re in a legal matter here.
Will Malson species2NC Page 3 of 11

3. It destroys clarity, is subjective. Looking back at that page of the legal document, the one
covered with definitions of important terms, we wonder if this will clarify things – and it will. What
would happen if legal documents did not have a page for definitions, and insisted on a “common man”
interpretation of things? Well then we would never settle anything in court and nothing would be very
clear because everybody has a different interpretation of something.

Now for my standard: I gave you one in the 1NC, and that was fxt bad. I also gave you the standard of
brightline, that anything past the line is non-T. (just for clarification, that line was fxt or no). he agreed it
was bad, sooo…that means the debate is pretty much on “common man” (good or bad) and on the
interp.

IV. Voters:
1. AT: “over-limits”
he’s making the argument that it’s even possible to over-limit the aff. This really doesn’t belong in
voters, it belongs in standards – though I’ll defend “limits (over-limits too) good”, 5 reasons:
a. Key to predictability: Without strict limits, more cases would be topical, and the neg could
never be as prepared, if at all.
b. Key to Education: Limits allow greater depth of debate, we learn a few things really well.
c. Can’t limit enough: Any creative debater will always find a new case to run within the
tightest limits.
d. More debatable: It might not be real world, but setting limits makes us able to have real
debate, fiat’s not real anyway
e. Checks infinite Prep Time: The aff has forever to prepare, limits give the neg at least closer
to as long.

2. AT: “turn impact 3 and 4”

He makes the argument that if he is T, I should lose, because it sets a bad precedent (etc) – few
responses to this.
a. hahaha: that’s funny
b. assumes abuse: we’re not being abusive, don’t punish us because we don’t think they’re non-
T. that’s like saying “you should vote against neg for running xyz disad because it sets precedent
that people can run xyz disad whenever they feel like it.” OF COURSE that’s how it is. There’s
no abuse here.
c. don’t punish the messenger: you don’t kill the CollegeBoard if I get a 0 on the SAT, nor if I
pass it. T is a test, if you pass hurray, don’t get angry about it though.
d. courtroom analogy: the judge doesn’t let the criminal go free just because he made it to the
right room.

Now on to my voters…
I’ll extend 3 and 4, and 2 because he dropped it – prima facie burden. This really mixes in with my
response to “turn impact 3 and 4” though.
Will Malson species2NC Page 4 of 11

T – EP

II. Vio:
His definition says that EP is “policy concerned with governing the relationship between people
and their natural environment.” Let’s paraphrase it a bit…EP is policy that is concerned with
governing (regulating, etc) the relationship (interactions, “feelings” if you want to get technical)
between people (humans) and their natural environment (basically habitat). In other words, EP is
policy that has to do with regulating the interactions between humans and the area in
which they live (habitat). Look, I think it’s an awful definition, but I’m just making a T arg
based off of HIS interp. That way, if I lose my interp, I can defer to his, and try to win on that.
But really – to his mandates. Do any of them have to do with regulating interactions between
humans and the area in which they live? Their natural environment is cities, suburbs, houses,
etc…the lacey act has to do with importing “invasive species”. …I’m not seeing the connection
between the two.
Will Malson species2NC Page 5 of 11

K – invasive species
Note on the f/w – for this K, I just gave you a little bit about rhetoric, and for the 2nd, I didn’t really give
one: it would normally be just a little paragraph explanation, but I figured you both know it well enough
that I don’t need to put it in, and if he was going to contest my f/w, he would have, but he didn’t. so.
(like “K’s bad” or something)

II. Links

1. AT: “No aff comparison”

He claims Goldstein is talking about metaphors used to describe “invasive species”.
two responses:
a) false; I’ll quote the card:
A contemporary example of the nationalization of nature is the rhetoric of "invasive
species," which depicts harmful foreign plants and animals in ways that bear an uncanny
resemblance to the demonization of foreigners by opponents of immigration.
Goldstein is talking about the literal phrase “invasive species”.
b) Irrelevant:
The language surrounding the phrase is enough for an indictment.

2. AT: “Facts not racism”

I think you misunderstand the link a little bit. 2 points:
a) same rhetoric:
near the end of the card, Goldstein says this:
Invasive species activists make precisely the same argument: we should not allow foreign
plants and animals into the country because they cannot adapt to the American way of
life and can only harm it.”
My argument (and his) is that again, the rhetoric used by both parties is the same, just applied to
different species.
b) guilt by association:
He pre-empts me a little bit by saying it “doesn’t work in debate, only politics.” Under this point
I’ll make the argument that the homogenizing term proves guilt by association, and it works in
debate too. Look to point #1 – the rhetoric is the same, and thus what’s behind the rhetoric is the
same. Evidence to support this is under my impact card:
Environmental protections in Nazi Germany were understood through the same lens of
racial purity as other aspects of Nazi policies. German polices sought to protect German
flora and fauna and to exclude foreign plants and animals, which were depicted as
threats to the purity of German landscapes.
…
In the words of a German landscape architect from the Nazi era, protecting German
plants required ‘cleansing the German landscape of unharmonious foreign substances.’”
Will Malson species2NC Page 6 of 11

III. Impact
He’s missing the argument – look to my impact evidence, specifically the portion I quoted on the
previous page (of the 2NC) – it’s that lens that we view the world that causes problems (like
genocide). “Invasive species” is just another facet of that “racial purity” that motivated (and self-
justified) all instances of genocide in history.

IV. Alt
He’s missing this argument as well – my alt has nothing to do with policy. It’s purely based in
language. Mainly, don’t use the term “invasive species” or anything surrounding it. The
“balanced approach” is concerning how we talk about them, not how we go about dealing with
them. Your case can’t solve for my K.
Will Malson species2NC Page 7 of 11

Representations K

I. Link

A. AT: “not a horror story”. 2 responses:

1. look to my link card:

Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that virtually
everything must be protected. To reinforce this suggestion, tellers of the ecological
horror story often imply that the relative importance of various rivets to the ecological
plane cannot be determined.
The link is not that a horror story is necessarily being spouted forth, but that the content of such
discussions focus on the ecological importance of a species and the impact of something
“invasive” (in aff’s language) encroaching upon the native species’ territory (with negative
impacts), ‘causing ‘untold’ harm to the ecosystem.

2. Diner
He says Diner isn’t a horror story? Lawl. 2 quotes here, the first is Doremus 2k (my link card),
and the 2nd is Diner:
In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror
story . The image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling as rivet after rivet is
carelessly popped out, is difficult to ignore.

Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each
new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the
rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

That pretty much solidifies my link, seeing as he said he would quote Diner.

B. AT: “lit misquote”. 2 responses:

1. no …um… link?
That was my alt card, not my link card. Furthermore, my alt card (the parts I use for my
argument) and their relationship with ludditie/p-ism are irrelevant. This really doesn’t impact the
k at all… the “lightest touch” part wasn’t underlined for a reason; I wasn’t arguing that. “…the
rhetoric of nature protection… cannot simply rely on the wilderness vision of nature necessarily
isolated from humanity”. That was the part that mattered.

2. this doesn’t de-link the k at all.

Will Malson species2NC Page 8 of 11

C. AT: “fact, not fiction”. 3 responses:

a) doesn’t justify rhetoric
the k doesn’t question whether or not something is real or not, it questions whether or not you
can solve for the problems in light of how you frame them. Just because something is fact
doesn’t mean the way it’s presented is a good thing.
b) doesn’t de-link
this point really doesn’t work to de-link him from the k…at all.
c) ignores my impact
His response assumes that he can actually SOLVE for environmental problems while using
representative discourse. This ignores my impact card completely, that you can’t solve for case
and link to the k. I’ll get to that now:

II. Impact: turns case

Just extending it…I’ll give an example: forest fires. (Actions taken in the name of
environmentally securitizing discourse empirically worsen the environmental issues they
intended to solve.) Wolfe 07
(Dylan P. Wolfe, Assistant Professor, Clemson University, Department of Communication Studies; “Sidestepping Environmental Controversy
through a Rhetoric of Security: George W. Bush in Summerhaven, Arizona”, Western Journal of Communication, Volume 71, Issue 1 January
2007 , pages 28 – 48) – Chris Carter

After an epic fire in Idaho and Montana incinerated three million acres and killed 85 people in 1910, the U.S. Forest
Service, founded only 5 years earlier, established a sweeping policy of fire suppression. To avoid a repeat of the
“Big Blowup” of 1910, the Forest Service instituted what was known as the “10 a.m. policy,” wherein any
forest fire was to be extinguished the morning after its discovery (Trachtman, 2003). Since that time,
fire suppression's widespread success has led to an even larger danger of catastrophic fire. After
years of fire suppression, forests have been left packed with enough fuel to start the sort of
massive fires the policy sought to avoid. Brush and smaller trees that would have been removed
by naturally occurring small fires built up in the forests' understory. This created the tinderbox
situations that led to massive fires such as the one in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 (“Not Just
the Trees,” 2003).

III. Alt
a) If you’re going to address my alt at least read it…“Viewing nature as an integrated part of life
rather than a security threat…” none of your analysis really applies.
b) the alt is also not to separate nature from humanity so much, which you do. That went
unaddressed.
c) you just contradicted yourself… “taking the precautionary principle does not automatically
assume a security threat.” Okay… “it simply means that there is a high potential for a threat that
we should be cognizant of.”
Will Malson species2NC Page 9 of 11

Condi

His points are A – E, mine are F – K.

A. AT: Multiple worlds

1. multiple worlds is real-world. Policy makers change their minds all the time if they see an
option is not as good. If a Senator proposes a bill and later he’s convinced that the bill is bad he
can stop advocating it.
2. it's impossible not to have multiple worlds. Assume I run a cp unconditionally…where does
the SQ go? you can vote for aff's mandates, or neg's mandates, but where is the box for "no
change"? the SQ HAS to be an option for the neg. Don't vote us down on something that's
impossible to avoid
3. aff gets multiple worlds too. I get to run CPs conditionally, he gets to perm CPs. we both
have multiple worlds.
4. not a reason to reject. He doesn't articulate a reason to reject condo based on "multiple
worlds"…he says "skews clash of the round", which doesn't actually mean anything. if anything,
it makes MORE clash (evidenced by the fact that he's running condo bad).

B. AT: Time skew: "he can claim whatever I undercover."

1. completely non-unique: this is true with or without (a) cp(s). If he undercovers T or a K or
w/e, I'm going to press hard on that.
2. already exists - you generally get 5 minutes to check back a 13 minute neg block.
3. moot - you get a 2500 1ar when the rest are 2000, it's a moot point anyway.
4. perms - multiple perms checks abuse

C. AT: not reciprocal - "I only get one case"

1. does reciprocate - you get perms
2. doesn't have to reciprocate. the option of the SQ must always exist for us to fall back on.
3. testing is the negative's job - cps are a disad of opportunity cost. there are multiple different
options to try, and we're presenting (in this round) 2 of them to test your case. making "doesn't
reciprocate" an issue is like saying the negative shouldn't be testing the aff case.
4. that’s your burden. your burden is to change the SQ, ours is only to counter your position
any way we want to. of COURSE not all things reciprocate.

D. AT: infinitely regressive - "spam the aff"

cross-apply all arguments under B. and C. …this is pretty much points from both of those.

E. AT: reject the team

Reject the arg, not the team:
1. Best for education. Sigel 85
Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985;
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm (HEG)

First,
the practical impact of punishment arguments is to destroy education. The punish tactic is so
subjective and open to abuse, as we have seen earlier, that it hurts the activity. The advocate of
Will Malson species2NC Page 10 of 11

punishment isn't really concerned about education anyway. S/he is just whining about arguments s/he can't answer.

2. Mixes judge burdens. Sigel 85

Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985;
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm (HEG)

Second, punishment arguments confuse the role of a debate judge. The debate judge is evaluating
public policy argument. S/he is not an umpire who hands out penalties for rule violators. The arguments in a
debate about theory are important because they tell the judge how to evaluate the policy arguments. The theoretical concerns have
no independent value. If hypothesis testing is bad then a judge shouldn't decide based on that paradigm, To punish a team for
advocating hypothesis testing is to turn a debate judge into an umpire. The notion that the debate process is
a forum for punishment has crept into the activity with little critical scrutiny. It is ridiculous that
a team is able to win a debate by whining about the practices of their opponents. Debate is educational
because it trains students in oral argument and it is the job of the judge to evaluate who better argues the policy issues in a debate.

3. More real-world to reject the ARG, not the team. Sigel 85

Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985;
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm (HEG)

Third, punishment arguments create an esoteric activity with little real world applicability. Debate
is already charged with being too remote and elitist. The kinds of theory debates that will
probably evolve if punishment arguments continue to be accepted are mind boggling. Why not
turn the impacts of punishment arguments? Why is destroying debate bad? Why is education good? Why is
fairness ethically justified? We may see the day when a team argues that the destruction bf debate is good
because it hurts democracy. And democracy is bad because it hurts the transition to a new form
of ecological organization. Or maybe we will see debaters arguing studies that deterrence is counterproductive. This means that the
way to stop bad debate is to vote for the team that runs the worst arguments.

F. All arguments are condi

We should be able to kick cps like we kick DAs or topicality. If aff shows us a legit error, we should be
able to correct it by dropping the cp (or the da or w/e).

G. Promotes logical decision-making.

Not having the option of the squo would be an extreme departure from decision-making.

H. Increases strategic thinking.

Forces the aff to pick their best args against the squo and the counterplan, improving education.

I. 2NR checks abuse.

We have one advocacy in the 2NR, they have an equal time to disprove it in the last speech

J. key to neg flexibility:

which is key to fairness because it offsets aff infinite prep time.

K. Err neg on theory:

1. Aff has first and last speeches.
2. They have infinite prep time to write answers to all of our arguments.
3. Fiat eliminates half the real world arguments we can make on the political process.
Will Malson species2NC Page 11 of 11

4. They present first. They speak first and thus get to present any case and value they want; I’m
forced to debate them on turf. That’s a home-field advantage that needs to be checked back; you
should err neg on theory to make up for this.
5. No CX after 1ar - Prefer negative theory because the negative lacks cross-ex after the 1AR as
a check against confusing theory that they might run, so the negative always outweighs on risk.