1AR - Let it Rock.

Under 2500 words. (too late to run stats)

Same order as 2AC.

Disclaimer: Due to a limited amount of space, I am lumping and dumping a few points. I
apologize.
 Topicality - Standards

A. The Brightline. Notice he dropped all my analysis of the brightline standard. Sure we
have a line, but how did it get there? With his standard we don’t know. Pull over my
arguments.

him: I like lines. ^-^

me: Me too. How do you draw them?
him: By making them. :D
me: -_-

B. A/T Common Man = evil.

1. What it is He seems to misunderstand my standard a little bit. I am not saying that we

start pulling out “common man” definitions at random. I am saying that we need to
interpret definitions with a common man perspective. In other words, use common sense.
This is simply an exercise of understanding semantics.

2. Is real world. He never gave us a reason to reject my analysis of real world. Legal
documents have a ton of definitions, but we need to have a common man understanding
of language to comprehend those definitions.

3. All standards are subjective. His brightline his just as subjective as common man
analysis. Common man is not the absence of definitions, but the presence of
understanding a definition. Notice how I have not rejected his definitions, I have only
rejected his analysis.

4. Dropped K2 brightline. We need some understanding of definitions, without a

common man perspective, we do not even know where to start. He effectively concedes
this.
 T- Policy

I. Violations. He clarified, I will do the same. I understand what he is saying, but I am

saying there is no reason to accept what he is saying. The Affirmative is reforming the
Lacey Act (a plan of action to deal with invasive species) to a proactive three list
approach. This is the only Act that deals with the importation of exotic species, therefore
it is the only policy on this issue. We change the policy by changing regulations.

II. Voters

1. Over-limiting. In his violation standards he gives me all the fuel I need for my
argument. He says I can’t reform existing Acts and I can’t create new Acts. Therefore,
not one case is topical under his interpretation. That is overlimiting. His C-X answers
demonstrate this perfectly. Limits are good, over-limits are not.

2. The Bad precedent. Here what I am saying, by arguing that all cases are non-Topical,
he is creating a bad precedent. I am not saying it is abusive to run T, I am saying it is
abusive to claim all cases are non-Topical. It is sort of like a judge penalizing a plaintiff
for bringing frivolous case. The prosecution is discouraged from arguing frivolous cases.
 T- Environmental Policy

I. Violations. Natural environment is understood to mean “All living and non-living

things that occur naturally on a particular region.” [http://www.biology-
online.org/dictionary/Natural_environment]. In less words, the ecosystems. The only
reason the word “their” is… in there is because the author wants to exclude
extraterrestrial environments and limit the discussions to paticular regions. Besides,
invasive species (such as the African clawed frog.) are present in cities. I directly regulate
those species. So even his interpretation makes my case topical.
 K – Invasive species
I. No Link

1. Goldstein and my discourse is noting an association with demonizing immigrants and

invasive species. He is not saying one leads to the other or vise versa. Yes some make the
arguments that Goldstein implicates. However, I am not advocating the “ecological
purity” argument. My stance is that invasive species are a problem because 1) they
damage ecosystems and 2) were spending too much money trying to correct this problem.
I claim no “ecological purity” in my case. Just because some people use “eco. purity”
does not implicate my case. I would like to say more thing on this. Most non-native
species are incredibly beneficial for Americans (think wheat, corn, etc.) Those species are
not the problem. The problem is the small amount of non-native species that are invasive
(i.e. harmful.)

2. Similar arguments do not implicate (It’s not guilt by association). To say as such
would be to implicate all arguments and reasoning. It is like saying Nietzsche liked
constructive dilemmas. Therefore, using constructive dilemmas = nihilist. The same is
true of words. Simply using a word/phrase does not implicate my case.

II. No impact

“He’s missing the argument” - Germany’s wildlife policy did not justify their genocide,
their corrupt philosophy did. The distorting lens hampered their wildlife policy is not
contained in my rhetoric. I don’t have a distorting lens of “racial purity” in the first place.
Like I said before, corruption is not reciprocal.

III. No Alternative

Cross apply my A. and B. point based on my C-X. I point-blank asked for a different
term he would like to use to replace “invasive species.” He said “something else.” So
either replace the term “invasive species” with “something else” or throw out his
alternative. This is critical. He cannot claim any benefit to rejecting the aff because, if his
argument that the term “invasive species” distorts discourse is correct, there is no
effective term to describe these… creatures. There is no way to avoid it.
 Representation K

I. No Link

A. Not a horror story

On his Diner quote:

1. Diner does not advocate the horror story he is explaining it. That is why he uses
phrases like “theoretically” and “this discourse has taken the form of.”
2. I actually only read this part of the card:

“To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew could save mankind
may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian
sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations
could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss
of a species affects other species dependent on it. Moreover, as the number of species
decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases
dramatically. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better
than simplicity. As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally
has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species
by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically
diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . .
. [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse
better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As
biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara
Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples
of what might be expected if this trend continues.”

3. Remember those three on-case impacts to invasive species (which he dropped BTW)?
That is the kind of biodiversity problem I am talking about. Cross-apply to my C. point
and the Alternative to the K.

B. Literature Misquote

1. My Link. From his link card “Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to
many nature lovers: that virtually everything must be protected.”

2. This completely de-links the K. Yes, the whole K is saying that the horror story is used
to justify crazy “OMG don’t do anything to the environment” actions. The case turn is
that the Ludddites have failed to find a place for humans in nature. My case allows for
humans in nature. I am advocating a conservation “be stewards” approach to nature, not a
preservation “do absolutely nothing” discourse.

II. The Alternative

a) I’m not claiming that invasive species threaten human security (survival). I am saying
they threaten ecological health. A “threat” is not necessarily a “security threat.”
b) Too much nature can be a bad thing. yo. (see my three impacts)
 Condi/Contradictions

I. Clarifications: My argument here is not just about conditionally, but also the fact that
he is running two contradictory cases. He has COMPLETELY DROPPED ALL of my
arguments on contradictions. So the round should end, right here.

II. Impacts

A. Game changer. It doesn’t matter if we drop an argument along the way. When you
present a Counterplan , the game changes. You are no longer merely against something,
you are now for something. It is like the difference between anti-abortion and pro-life.
His CPs are not just arguments, they are advocated solutions to a problem. When you
vote negative, you are not voting for the SQ, you are voting for the negative team.
(really…) He had the option of running straight-up negative. He chose not to do that.
“decision making/strategic thinking” is moot.

B. What we say. He is advocating three contradictory arguments at once. This is logically

impossible. He might say that as long as he rectifies it, it’s okay. However, this ignores
the significance of advocacy. If we can contradict ourselves, as long as we clarify later,
then there is no weight to our words. If we cannot trust what one says from the very
beginning, there is no reason to trust them later. This time skew is unique because I have
to spend time combating multiple worlds.

C. A/T multiple worlds is real world.

No it’s not. It is like a defendant changing his plea mid-trail. It is like a scientist changing
his doctoral thesis mid-paper. It is like a Senator changing parties mid-term. (oh wait…).

D. A/T perms

On three occasions Malson mentions perms as a check/reciprocation. Here’s the problem

with that.
1) Perms check non-competitive CPs. When I permute a CP I am saying that the CP
doesn’t compete with my case. I can’t do that on either of his CPs so the perms can’t
check.
2) Perms are a theory test not actual advocacy. The CP does not actually get passed
with an aff ballot. Thus, a perm does not create “multiple worlds.”

E. A/T don’t reject team.

Exactly. Reject their advocacy. That it is okay to logically contradict.

F. A/T “All is condi”

First, see my advocacy point. Second, if all argument are condi, then I am kicking my
first mandate and my first justification. That means he now looses his Representation K,
and both his CPs. If he says I can’t do that, then he is conceding my advocacy argument.

G. A/T err on neg

Totally irrelevant. a) his case is now entirely off-case offense. In other words, he brought
it up, it is his ground, he has fiat over his CPs, he had infinite prep time to prepare his Ks,
and b) C-X point: If you wanted to check confusing theory, preempt in the 1NC.

H. Voter. For the sake of logic and consistency. Vote against the negative advocacy.
 CP Clean List Only

I. Net Benefits.

A. The difference. My 2AC A point is critical to understanding my case. BOTH my case

and his CP shift the burden of proof to the importers. (see first mandate.) The only
difference is how we classify. With his CP, it is only “yes.” With my case it is a “yes, no,
no.” The reason NZ is epic is because it shifts the BOP. Bean even says New Zealand has
a dirty list. He has no examples of just a clean list.

B. Corruption.

1) Quantification. Examples of government corruption abound, but until he can pull out
evidence that says that the pet trade can significantly influence risk assessments this is a
moot point.

2) Simplicity/Turn.
a) My case is simple. I am not talking about tax code blehness. (Made that up.) I am
talking about three lists. Try manipulating that H&R.
b) Oversimplifying is inaccurate. The more generic you get, the less
precise you get. With invasive species, it is critical that we remain
precise.

3) Tu quoque – He misses the point. If lobbyists wanted to corrupt RA, then they
wouldn’t worry about the lists. They would for the actual assessments. This undermines
both cases. Therefore, his point is moot.

C. Advocacy. My mandates are directly advocated. That should be evidence enough. It

does matter because he is making several arguments based on a non-expert view. I have
guys who know how the system works, he doesn’t.
 CP – States Clean List

I. A/T NB

Your card mentions national security. If it applies to my case, you

assume invasive species are a security threat. Simple. That means you
link to both your Ks. Also he dropped my B. point so he basically
concedes we should toss the card.

II. Solvency

A. Application.

1. Brown evidence. Actually Brown does not advocate his CP, this card is merely a
presentation of one possible solution. Here is Brown’s conclusion on the matter:
Consistency, expertise, and more resources make a federal approach superior.

Robert Brown [J.D., Indiana University School of Law; Associate at the Arnold & Porter
LLP’s real estate group; former editor of the Indiana Laws Journal], Spring 2006
“Exotic Pets Invade United States Ecosystems: Legislative Failure and a Proposed
Solution,” Indiana Law Journal, [Vol. 81:713]

“A federal approach would offer greater protection against invasive exotic pets than a
uniform state approach. First, no guarantee exists that Congress could entice all fifty states to adopt
uniform state regulations, especially in states where the pet-trade industry has strong political influence.
Second, instead of requiring state and federal enforcement agencies to coordinate their efforts, strict federal
enforcement at both a national and state level would be more likely to have a widespread impact by
eliminating policy discrepancies between state and federal agencies. Third, using one federal agency,
instead of fifty separate state agencies, would result in economies of scale. Besides lower
operational costs, a federal agency would have greater potential to collectively develop
expertise to combat problems that individual states may not have the resources to
resolve.”

This is essentially good/better comparison. Brown does not approve of CP [-5 influence].
Vote aff. for the better approach.

2. Hill evidence.

a) Not a reason to reject. I am not preempting any fed/state cooperation. All that Hill
mentioned can oocur with my case.
b) Partnership exists already. Therefore, this point is moot.

3. Nutria. So? Yes states can eradicate invasive species, but they cannot prevent their
introduction. Vote aff to solve the root of the problem.
B. Won’t work. He just says we should try. Yeah, I’ve tried to fly. It hasn’t worked. Hill
actually proves. Florida actually has a big problem with illicit trade of outlawed pets.
(See Brown in 2AC.) This means his case has near zero solvency.