You are on page 1of 26

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Americans Are Very Afraid

Be afraid, be very afraid

Index 1

Critique Brief 2
Shell 3
2nc Overview w/ extensions 11
2nr Overview w/ extensions 13

Overfishing 14
Global Warming 16

Other cool cards:

The Media is the Problem 18
Media + Corporations=Exploitation 19

A2: Perm 20
A2: They contradict w/Impact 21
A2: No Link 22
A2: No alternative 23
A2: No Impact 24
A2: Realism 25
A2: They contradict w/DA 26

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself”

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Kritik Brief

So this kritik is pretty sweet if you hate mainstream media. A vast

majority of the evidence is from this guy named Glassner. Basically the
kritik is simple and it comes down to this: Americans are afraid of whatever
the media tells them to be afraid of. Being afraid of the oceans is just the
newest trend in the media and it’s the only reason the aff wants to do their
plan. If we keep in this mindset of being afraid of whatever the media tells
us we lose sight of real social problems. Some of these are social inequality,
a byproduct of capitalism. I recommend this be run along side cap, statism,
or any thing like that that really attacks some of the underlying components
of our society.
The main problem with this kritik is the link. Most likely you will hit a
lot of no link args. If you find a link card elsewhere in the file that fits the
case you are hitting better then the one in shell, be sure and swap them
otherwise you may find yourself fucked and the block may not help you


LC Debate FEAR Sunwold


A. We as Americans live in a society of fear. That fear controls us in many

ways. The real problem with this society of fear is that we are never afraid
of something that we should be afraid of.
Glassner in 99
(Barry Glassner, Professor of Sociology at University of Southern California,
“Culture of Fear” copyright 1999)
Why are so many fears in the air, and so many of them unfounded? Why,
as crime rates plunged throughout the 1990s, did two-thirds of
Americans believe they were soaring? How did it come about that by mid-
decade 62 percent of us described ourselves as "truly desperate" about
crime-almost twice as many as in the late 1980s, when crime rates were
higher? Why, on a survey in 1997, when the crime rate had already
fallen for a half dozen consecutive years, did more than half of us
disagree with the statement "This country is finally beginning to make
some progress in solving the crime problem"? In the late 1990s the
number of drug users had decreased by half compared to a decade
earlier; almost two-thirds of high school seniors had never used any
illegal drugs, even marijuana. So why did a majority of adults rank
drug abuse as the greatest danger to America's youth? Why did nine out
of ten believe the drug problem is out of control, and only one in six
believe the country was making progress? Give us a happy ending and we
write a new disaster story. In the late 1990s the unemployment rate was
below 5 percent for the first time in a quarter century. People who had
been pounding the pavement for years could finally get work. Yet
pundits warned of imminent economic disaster. They predicted inflation
would take off, just as they had a few years earlier-also erroneously-
when the unemployment rate dipped below 6 percent. We compound our
worries beyond all reason. Life expectancy in the United States has
doubled during the twentieth century. We are better able to cure and
control diseases than any other civilization in history. Yet we hear
that phenomenal numbers of us are dreadfully ill. In 1996 Bob Garfield,
a magazine writer, reviewed articles about serious diseases published
over the course of a year in the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and USA Today. He learned that, in addition to 59 million Americans
with heart disease, 53 million with migraines, 25 million with
osteoporosis, 16 million with obesity, and 3 million with cancer, many
Americans suffer from more obscure ailments such as temporomandibular
joint disorders (10 million) and brain injuries (2 million). Adding up
the estimates, Garfield determined that 543 million Americans are
seriously sick-a shocking number in a nation of 266 million
inhabitants. "Either as a society we are doomed, or someone is
seriously double-dipping," he suggested. Garfield appears to have
underestimated one category of patients: for psychiatric ailments his
figure was 53 million. Yet when Jim Windolf, an editor of the New York
Observer, collated estimates for maladies ranging from borderline
personality disorder (10 million) and sex addiction (11 million) to
less well-known conditions such as restless leg syndrome (12 million)
he came up with a figure of 152 million. "But give the experts a little
time," he advised. "With another new quantifiable disorder or two,
everybody in the country will be officially nuts."

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell cont.

Indeed, Windolf omitted from his estimates new-fashioned afflictions

that have yet to make it into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association: ailments such
as road rage, which afflicts more than half of Americans, according to
a psychologist's testimony before a congressional hearing in 1997. The
scope of our health fears seems limitless. Besides worrying
disproportionately about legitimate ailments and prematurely about
would-be diseases, we continue to fret over already refuted dangers.
Some still worry, for instance, about "flesh-eating bacteria," a bug
first rammed into our consciousness in 1994 when the U.S. news media
picked up on a screamer headline in a British tabloid, "Killer Bug Ate
My Face." The bacteria, depicted as more brutal than anything seen in
modern times, was said to be spreading faster than the pack of
photographers outside the home of its latest victim. In point of fact,
however, we were not "terribly vulnerable" to these "superbugs," nor
were they "medicine's worst nightmares," as voices in the media warned.
Group A strep, a cyclical strain that has been around for ages, had
been dormant for half a century or more before making a comeback. The
British pseudoepidemic had resulted in a total of about a dozen deaths
in the previous year. Medical experts roundly rebutted the scares by
noting that of 20 to 30 million strep infections each year in the
United States fewer than 1 in 1,000 involve serious strep A
complications, and only 500 to 1,500 people suffer the flesh-eating
syndrome, whose proper name is necrotizing fasciitis. Still the fear
persisted. Years after the initial scare, horrifying news stories
continued to appear, complete with grotesque pictures of victims. A
United Press International story in 1998 typical of the genre told of a
child in Texas who died of the "deadly strain" of bacteria that the
reporter warned "can spread at a rate of up to one inch per hour."

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell cont.
B. The aff’s plan is based on the false assumption that there is a major
problem with the oceans and the environment. This is just another attempt
by the media to start another panic for the betterment of them and their
“behind the scene” actors.
Caruba in 2001
(Alan Caruba is the author of "A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam",available from the website of The National
Anxiety Center. He writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", also posted on the site. The Center is a clearinghouse
for information about scare campaigns designed to influence public opinion and policy.) From “Desperately trying to
scare you in 2002” By Alan Caruba December 31, 2001
Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute and a former senior policy
analyst for the US Department of State, recently took note of sanctions applied to Steven
R. Arnold, a former researcher at the Tulane University Center for Bioenvironmental
Research. The Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Arnold had "committed
scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the
Journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating
officials." His punishment? He will be unable to receive federal research funding for five
years. Avery called it "one of the most dramatic scientific frauds of modern times," noting
that the Tulane Center said it found that various pesticides, safe when tested individually,
were 1,000 times more dangerous when tested together. It raised the specter of modern
agriculture's chemicals undermining the health of the human population and the natural
ecology through a blind spot in our regulatory testing." And it was a lie. This is part of
the campaign of endless lies designed to secure the ban of every single pesticide and
herbicide that protects human health against insect and rodent predators, and the vast
food crops produced by American farmers. In 1996 a book was published, Our Stolen
Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? - A Scientific
Detective Story. Written by Theo Colbert, even the author of the book admitted it was
based on mere suspicions. It has been cited, however, as proof of yet another bogus threat
conjured up by environmentalists. " The book speculated that man-made chemicals were
causing ailments ranging from cancer to attention deficit disorder by disrupting our
endocrine systems," noted Avery. The book's forward was written by then Vice President
Al Gore. When Arnold's falsified research was published in 1996, Carol Browner, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said, "The new study is the
strongest evidence to date that combinations of estrogenic materials may be potent
enough to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, birth defects
and other major health concerns." As we now know, there is no such evidence, except that
purposely created to further the goal of the environmental movement to end the use of
pesticides and herbicides. Beginning with Rachel Carson's bogus and discredited
"science" in Silent Spring, this attack on beneficial chemicals has never ceased. In a
similar fashion, Michael Bellesile's book, Arming America was seized upon by gun-
control advocates as having demolished "the myth" that individuals have the right to gun
ownership. The book asserted that private gun ownership was uncommon in early
America. It turns out that the author deliberately misinterpreted Colonial documents,
misquoted early federal laws, distorted historical accounts, and cited San Francisco

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell cont.
records that experts agree were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. The willingness to lie
regarding environmental issues was revealed in December when it was found that federal
and state wildlife biologists had planted false evidence of a rare cat species in two
national forests, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Wenatchee National Forest in
Washington State. This is the same forest area that the Earth Liberation Front has recently
boasted of "spiking" trees in order to do injury to lumberjacks culling trees for purposes
of forest management. Now comes another report of "bio-fraud" where a Washington
State fish and wildlife biologist is alleged to have asked a taxidermist for grizzly bear hair
samples in March of last year. The use of such hair samples could have been used to taint
a study of grizzly bear habitat, ultimately affecting recreation, timber, mining, road
construction and other uses of throughout the State. Officials are beginning to wonder
just how much of this kind of deliberate deception has been at work at the state and
federal level to achieve the environmental goals of shutting down essential industries and
the recreational use of public lands. One is reminded of the "Spotted Owl" hoax that
devastated the timber industry throughout the Pacific Northwest. The cascade of lies
about everything environmental should, by now, have convinced the public that US
government officials responsible for setting national policies and environmental groups
seeking to determine what those policies should be cannot be trusted. The public,
however, has rarely paid any attention to anything other than the lies published by a
compliant and complacent mainstream media that has fully adopted the goals of the
environmental and animal rights movements. The costs of these policies are astronomical.
Billions of dollars are wasted on wasteful programs said to "protect" the environment.
Billions of dollars are going to be allocated to States and environmental groups to put
more and more land aside from any use. Late on the evening of December 20th, the
Senate, without any public debate or a recall vote, passed S-990, The American Wildlife
Enhancement Act of 2001. We will never know who voted for this act. This was the same
tactic used to pass the UN Convention on Desertification. Now $600 million in taxpayer
dollars will be given out for "the acquisition of an area of land or water that is suitable or
capable of being made suitable for feeding, resting or breeding by wildlife." Translation:
Any property can be designated for virtual seizure. One can only pray the President will
veto this full-scale attack on property rights in America. This is how environmental
groups achieve their goals. They are goals based in a consuming hatred of humankind and
its need for food and shelter. They are goals that are intended to undermine and destroy
America's economic power, based on access to its vast natural resources. They are goals
intended to strip Americans of the most fundamental right of self-defense. They are the
goals of those who believe they are morally superior to you and I, and therefore have the
right to subvert the truth to achieve total control over our lives and our nation. While
Americans look to the Middle East and elsewhere, fearful of terrorist organizations intent
on harming our lives and our society, they continue to ignore the internal enemies who,
by stealth and deception, work to destroy the progress of real science that protects and
extends our lives, and to undermine our most fundamental Constitutional protections. If
we lose this struggle, it will be because of our inertia and indifference. The
environmentalists, animal rights, and gun control advocates are counting on that. In the
political year ahead, their closest allies will be the Democratic Party.

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell Cont.

C. Being afraid of the wrong things can send us as a whole into a panic. This
panic can cause society to look away from the real problems.
Glassner 99
(Barry Glassner, Professor of Sociology at University of Southern California,
“Culture of Fear” copyright 1999)
We had better learn to doubt our inflated fears before they destroy us.
Valid fears have their place; they cue us to danger. False and
overdrawn fears only cause hardship. Even concerns about real dangers,
when blown out of proportion, do demonstrable harm. Take the fear of
cancer. Many Americans overestimate the prevalence of the disease,
underestimate the odds of surviving it, and put themselves at greater
risk as a result. Women in their forties believe they have a 1 in 10
chance of dying from breast cancer, a Dartmouth study found. Their real
lifetime odds are more like 1 in 250. Women's heightened perception of
risk, rather than motivating them to get checkups or seek treatment,
can have the opposite effect. A study of daughters of women with breast
cancer found an inverse correlation between fear and prevention: the
greater a daughter's fear of the disease the less frequent her breast
self-examination. Studies of the general population-both men and women-
find that large numbers of people who believe they have symptoms of
cancer delay going to a doctor, often for several months. When asked
why, they report they are terrified about the pain and financial ruin
cancer can cause as well as poor prospects for a cure. The irony of
course is that early treatment can prevent precisely those horrors they
most fear. Still more ironic, if harder to measure, are the adverse
consequences of public panics. Exaggerated perceptions of the risks of
cancer at least produce beneficial by-products, such as bountiful
funding for research and treatment of this leading cause of death. When
it comes to large-scale panics, however, it is difficult to see how
potential victims benefit from the frenzy. Did panics a few years ago
over sexual assaults on children by preschool teachers and priests
leave children better off? Or did they prompt teachers and clergy to
maintain excessive distance from children in their care, as social
scientists and journalists who have studied the panics suggest? How
well can care givers do their jobs when regulatory agencies, teachers'
unions, and archdioceses explicitly prohibit them from any physical
contact with children, even kindhearted hugs? Was it a good thing for
children and parents that male day care providers left the profession
for fear of being falsely accused of sex crimes? In an article in the
Journal of American Culture, sociologist Mary DeYoung has argued that
day care was "refeminized" as a result of the panics. "Once again, and
in the time-honored and very familiar tradition of the family, the
primary responsibility for the care and socialization of young children
was placed on the shoulders of low-paid women," she contends. We all
pay one of the costs of panics: huge sums of money go to waste.
Hysteria over the ritual abuse of children cost billions of dollars in
police investigations, trials, and imprisonments. Men and women went to
jail for years "on the basis of some of the most fantastic claims ever
presented to an American jury," as Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall
Street Journal demonstrated in a series of investigative articles for
which she became a Pulitizer Prize finalist in 1996. Across the nation

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell Cont.
expensive surveillance programs were implemented to protect children
from fiends who reside primarily in the imaginations of adults. The
price tag for our panic about overall crime has grown so monumental
that even law-and-order zealots find it hard to defend. The criminal
justice system costs Americans close to $100 billion a year, most of
which goes to police and prisons. In California we spend more on jails
than on higher education. Yet increases in the number of police and
prison cells do not correlate consistently with reductions in the
number of serious crimes committed. Criminologists who study reductions
in homicide rates, for instance, find little difference between cities
that substantially expand their police forces and prison capacity and
others that do not. The turnabout in domestic public spending over the
past quarter century, from child welfare and antipoverty programs to
incarceration, did not even produce reductions in fear of crime.
Increasing the number of cops and jails arguably has the opposite
effect: it suggests that the crime problem is all the more out of
control. Panic-driven public spending generates over the long term a
pathology akin to one found in drug addicts. The more money and
attention we fritter away on our compulsions, the less we have
available for our real needs, which consequently grow larger. While
fortunes are being spent to protect children from dangers that few ever
encounter, approximately 11 million children lack health insurance, 12
million are malnourished, and rates of illiteracy are increasing. I do
not contend, as did President Roosevelt in 1933, that "the only thing
we have to fear is fear itself." My point is that we often fear the
wrong things. In the 1990s middle-income and poorer Americans should
have worried about unemployment insurance, which covered a smaller
share of workers than twenty years earlier. Many of us have had friends
or family out of work during economic downturns or as a result of
corporate restructuring. Living in a nation with one of the largest
income gaps of any industrialized country, where the bottom 40 percent
of the population is worse off financially than their counterparts two
decades earlier, we might also have worried about income inequality. Or
poverty. During the mid- and late 1990s 5 million elderly Americans had
no food in their homes, more than 20 million people used emergency food
programs each year, and one in five children lived in poverty-more than
a quarter million of them homeless.

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell Cont.

D. When society does not look at the real problems it has, those problems
can become enourmous and it will allow for the real cause of all of the death
and destruction to further itself until it becomes too late.
Glassner in 99
(Barry Glassner, Professor of Sociology at University of Southern California,
“Culture of Fear” copyright 1999)
All told, a larger proportion of Americans were poor than three decades
earlier. One of the paradoxes of a culture of fear is that serious
problems remain widely ignored even though they give rise to precisely
the dangers that the populace most abhors. Poverty, for example,
correlates strongly with child abuse, crime, and drug abuse. Income
inequality is also associated with adverse outcomes for society as a
whole. The larger the gap between rich and poor in a society, the
higher its overall death rates from heart disease, cancer, and murder.
Some social scientists argue that extreme inequality also threatens
political stability in a nation such as the United States, where we
think of ourselves not as "haves and have nots" but as "haves and will
haves." "Unlike the citizens of most other nations, Americans have
always been united less by a shared past than by the shared dreams of a
better future. If we lose that common future," the Brandeis University
economist Robert Reich has suggested, "we lose the glue that holds our
nation together." The combination of extreme inequality and poverty
can prove explosive. In an insightful article in U.S. News & World
Report in 1997 about militia groups reporters Mike Tharp and William
Holstein noted that people's motivations for joining these groups are
as much economic as ideological. The journalists argued that the
disappearance of military and blue-collar jobs, along with the decline
of family farming, created the conditions under which a new breed of
protest groups flourished. "What distinguishes these antigovernment
groups from, say, traditional conservatives who mistrust government is
that their anger is fueled by direct threats to their livelihood, and
they carry guns," Tharp and Holstein wrote. That last phrase alludes
to a danger that by any rational calculation deserves top billing on
Americans' lists of fears.

LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Shell cont.

E. Finally the alternative is to reject the aff plan which feeds into the panic
started by the media, begin a movement to reform the media, and begin
addressing social issues which truly matter such as social inequality and
poverty. We will be happy to clarify any of this in CX.

- 10 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

2NC Overview w/extensions

Now for the overview of the Fear Kritik:

First off, extend our A card. Our society is based on fear.

Whether it is fear of terrorism, fear of ocean pollution, fear of school
violence, etc. This fear of whatever can lead to us doing whatever it takes
to prevent whatever we are afraid of happening at the expense of
everything around us. We as a people need to address the real issues at
hand and not just believe whatever the media feeds to us.
Second, extend our B card. The media isn’t out to give us the most
current information, they are out to profit themselves and the people
backing them. The aff’s plan is a byproduct of this system which tries to
instill fear into the masses. The aff is scared out of there mind that we
might lose a species of fish simply because the media has fed them tons of
exaggerated information that is so far from the truth we can’t look to it as
true evidence.
Third, extend our C card. As seen in the A card the media instills
fear of things that don’t matter into the masses. That fear will grow quickly
into complete hysteria if not a nationwide panic. This panic makes us so
narrow minded that we lose sight of the real issues and we let them grow.
Fourth extend our D card. Letting the real issues grow and grow can
have disastrous consequences. If we continue to let things such as social
inequality grow our political system begins to be at risk of complete
instability to the point of which special interest groups can take control and
do whatever they want with our government. Also if we lose political
stability we lose the democratic system which we as Americans love and
Fifth, extend our alternative. In order to solve the problem of fear
and panic in our society and to prevent real social issues from becoming to
large to control we must act in a movement to reform the media so that they
will stop putting out such biased, exaggerated, if not made up information
which sends us into hysteria. We must also begin looking at the real
problems of our society such as social inequality which as our D card shows
can risk the system holds us together.
Finally, you must vote Neg. If you vote aff you give in to the panic
that was made by the media in order to profit themselves and other “behind
the scene” actors. This panic does and will continue to prevent people from

- 11 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Overview cont.

seeing the problems with our society and instead become afraid of made up
threats. Vote neg for social change and to keep our country stable and at
peace with itself and others.

- 12 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

2NR Overview w/extensions

Now for a general overview of the Fear Kritik:

First off, we clearly link to the Aff case. The aff case is full of
information put out by the media and its evil corporate sponsors to profit
themselves. Also look to the reasoning of why the want to do that plan.
They are scared of their minds that the loss of some fish species will lead to
the collapse of one entire ecosystem which will then lead to the extinction
of the entire world. This is all exaggerated if not made up information
which cannot be looked to as the truth. We must reject this type of media
influence and force them to give us the truth, not what they and their
corporate sponsors think we should know
Secondly, our impact outweighs. They are full out impacts that are
made up by the system we are advocating against and thus will not happen.
Also, even if it were true there is only a chance that their impacts will
happen. Our impacts are not only real, but will happen. The only reason they
think that social inequality is not that bad of a thing is because they have
been filled up with the panic and fear put out by the media we are trying to
change. You must vote to fight real impacts that will happen unless the
alternative takes place and not vote to stop impacts that are unreal and
Thirdly, you must vote to fight real impacts that will happen unless
the alternative takes place and not vote to stop impacts that are unreal and

- 13 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold


Overfishing is just the newest fear that the media is instilling into
Fumento in 96
(Michael Fumento, Science columnist for Scripps-Howard, “Population action
tells a fishy story about fish supply” Copyright 1996,
"A burgeoning population and the growing demand for seafood may make
fish unavailable to nearly a billion of the world's poor in the next
century, says a new report." If you read USA Today or any number of
other papers that carried a similar story, you probably believe that.
Which is too bad because the report, issued by the pro-population
control Population Action International is just one big, well, fish
story. There's one huge problem with the report. See if you can pick it
out by reading between the lines of report co-author Robert Engelman.
"We're up against the wall," he said. "Since the end of the 80s, we've
been catching the same amount of wild fish around the world, [but]
there are about 90 million more people every year." Did you notice the
qualifying word: "wild"? Yes, the statement is true for wild fish but
completely ignores the role of farmed fish, called "aquaculture."
Looking at data provided in a 1995 United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization publication, "The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture," we see that for the earliest year provided (1984) there
were 51,105 thousand tons of wild fish caught with 6,933 thousand tons
raised on farms. Wild fish capture peaked out in 1989 and has dropped
slightly to 56,470 thousand tons by 1993, but aquaculture continued
growing like gangbusters to 15,800 tons by 1993. Combining both types
of fish, there was far from a decline but rather a 24% increase in the
nine-year period, fueled by a 128% growth in aquaculture. At the same
time world population increased by only 16%. Unless you just happen to
hate fish, that's a mighty nice "wall" we're up against. Far from
running out of the slimy things, we're practically swimming in them.
Unfortunately, neither USA Today nor some of the other papers that
carried the story bothered to mention aquaculture. In fact, nobody who
carried the story allowed any criticism of the report at all. The
Population Action International study does mention the growing
aquaculture industry, saying it "compensates somewhat for declines in
fish catches." It even depicts a chart showing its phenomenal growth.
But it downplays the industry, saying "Cultivation of fish has so far
proven too costly to provide large amounts of food to poor people." But
the aforementioned U.N. publication, using the same data as Population
Action International, says otherwise. "The balance of 31 million tons
in the supplies of food fish required by the year 2010 would have to
come from aquaculture, which has been expanding at a rate of one
million tons a year, increasing to almost two million tons in 1993."
Meanwhile, to continue feeding the world at the same rate would require
"an overall average annual increase of less than one million tons a
year." While Population Action says, "There is little prospect for
major expansion of aquaculture in Africa, the U.N. report says
aquaculture's phenomenal "growth should continue, recognizing the
significant potential of increased farmed fish production in Africa and
Latin America." (Emphasis mine.) Yet, the real powerhouse could be the

- 14 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold
United States. So far all of North America produces only 3.7% of the
world's aquaculture. The United States produces less than a 16th of
China's output. The reason is that Americans are not big fish eaters
and that, exactly opposite of what Population Action is telling us,
those who are big fish eaters are finding or growing a plentiful
supply. But if that ever changes, America's ingenious farming know-how
combined with abundant lakes and waterways will combine to make us not
just the breadbasket but also the fishbasket of the world. What we're
seeing is a rapid transition from depending on wild fish to raising our
own which parallels civilization's movement from hunting and gathering
to husbanding animals and raising crops. The very reason that fish
farming is catching on so rapidly is that it is so much cheaper and
more efficient than setting out in boats and hoping for good fortune.
Less romantic perhaps, but them's the breaks. The problem with all the
population control groups and individual gurus like Paul Ehrlich is
that they first decided they were against population growth and have
spent the entire time since then trying to find evidence to justify
their position, rather than forming their position based on the
evidence. The result has been a stream of nonsense that essentially
began with Ehrlich's 1968 book The Population Bomb which told us that
"the battle to feed humanity is over." In fact, except for the
occasional politically-inspired famine such as Ethiopia's, humanity is
much better fed today than it was in 1968. Man's ingenuity in providing
new food supplies has readily outpaced his growth in population growth.
Now, even as population growth is already slowing on its own, we're
beginning a new era of genetically-designed foods that will make even
progress to date look anemic. My advice to the population controllers:
If you don't like having more people around in the same sense a lot of
American just don't like eating fish, then simply say so. Quit
concocting false evidence to scare everyone who doesn't share your

- 15 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold


Global warming is full of falsified and exaggerated claims. The media

continues to try and send us into a complete panic over it yet there is hardly
any true factual evidence to support it.
Singer in 97
(Mr. Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia and president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax,
Va., is author of "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate"
(Independent Institute, 1997).) The Sky Isn't Falling and the Sea Isn't Rising By S.
Fred Singer Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Global-warming devotees have been making alarmist predictions about the rising sea
levels they think will follow an increase in the earth's average temperatures. The horror
stories include the flooding of low-lying coastal areas, the disappearance of island
nations, the inundation of America by environmental refugees, and an exponential
explosion in insurance claims. Activists apparently don't realize that the much-ballyhooed
climate models that predict global warming cannot make any quantitative predictions at
all about sea levels. They also don't realize that informed speculation about rising sea
levels has been steadily falling. Initial estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency
projected that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause sea levels to rise by
between 80 and 120 inches. By 1990 these estimates had been reduced by 75%. In 1996 a
United Nations science advisory panel predicted a rise of only 15 to 22 inches by 2100--
still based on shaky assumptions. Even these much smaller estimates are cause for
skepticism, because changes in sea level are notoriously difficult to measure, and reliable
information is hard to come by. All historical data are based on tide gauges, mainly on the
shorelines of Northern Europe and North America. Long-term sea level trends must be
extracted after adjusting for waves, storm surges and tidal variations. Scientists must also
contend with the fact that the land surface may be rising or falling. Some land surfaces, in
Scandinavia for example, are rebounding after being compressed by the weight of
glaciers. Other land areas are subsiding, as petroleum or ground water is pumped out.
Nevertheless, climate specialists have constructed a corrected "global" sea-level record; it
shows that sea levels have been rising at the rate of about seven inches per century. Is this
rise connected to climate? Not likely. The best estimates based on geologic data indicate
that this has been going on for several centuries--a period in which the global climate has
fluctuated significantly. Rather, the current thinking is that the steady rise in sea levels is
connected to slow tectonic changes in the shape of the ocean basin--which human beings,
of course, can do nothing about. Calculations of any climate effect on sea levels must
take account of this more or less steady rise. The next question is how global warming, if
it occurs, would affect sea levels. On the one hand, a warmer climate would melt
mountain glaciers and cause a thermal expansion of ocean water, accelerating sea levels'
rise. But on the other hand, more water would evaporate from the surface of warmer
oceans, leading to more rainfall, and--over Greenland and the Antarctic--to greater
accumulation of snow and ice. This process essentially thickens the polar ice caps, thus
lowering sea levels. The problem has been to find whether the sea levels' rising or
lowering would have a greater impact. This is a question that cannot be answered by

- 16 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold
theory, or by computer models. To produce an accurate conclusion, we have to examine
data. Fortunately, we do have data from a relatively rapid global warming that occurred
between about 1900 and 1940, as the climate recovered from a cool period called the
Little Ice Age. Neither the Little Ice Age nor the warming that followed are ascribed to
human influences; many scientists believe they were caused by subtle changes in the
sun's radiation. In any case, data from the warming of 1900-1940 shows a drop in sea
levels, while the subsequent cooler period shows a sea-level rise. This effect is even more
pronounced in comparisons of sea-level changes with sea-surface temperatures in the
tropics, where most of the oceans' evaporation occurs. These findings support the
hypothesis that ice accumulation in the polar regions may have a greater impact on sea
levels than do the melting of glaciers and the thermal expansion of ocean water. Support
for this view also comes from concurrent but as yet incomplete measurements of ice
accumulation at certain locations in Greenland and the Antarctic. Contrary to activists'
claims, what's clear is that global warming--if it takes place--would slow any rise in sea
levels. Although more study is needed, this striking result should at least give pause to
the Association of Small Island States and other groups that are pressing industrialized
nations to adopt drastic reductions in fossil fuel use in order to avoid the global warming
"catastrophe" so dear to the environmentalist lobby.

- 17 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Other Cool Stuff

The media is the problem. The media is the source of all the fears that
drive us into our panic.
Glassner in 99
(Barry Glassner, Professor of Sociology at University of Southern California,
“Culture of Fear” copyright 1999)
Any analysis of the culture of fear that ignored the news media would
be patently incomplete, and of the several institutions most culpable
for creating and sustaining scares the news media are arguably first
among equals. They are also the most promising candidates for positive
change. Yet by the same token critiques such as Stolberg's presage a
crucial shortcoming in arguments that blame the media. Reporters not
only spread fears, they also debunk them and criticize one another for
spooking the public. A wide array of groups, including businesses,
advocacy organizations, religious sects, and political parties, promote
and profit from scares. News organizations are distinguished from other
fear-mongering groups because they sometimes bite the scare that feeds
them. A group that raises money for research into a particular disease
is not likely to negate concerns about that disease. A company that
sells alarm systems is not about to call attention to the fact that
crime is down. News organizations, on the other hand, periodically
allay the very fears they arouse to lure audiences. Some newspapers
that ran stories about child murderers, rather than treat every
incident as evidence of a shocking trend, affirmed the opposite. After
the schoolyard shooting in Kentucky the New York Times ran a sidebar
alongside its feature story with the headline "Despite Recent Carnage,
School Violence Is Not on Rise." Following the Jonesboro killings they
ran a similar piece, this time on a recently released study showing the
rarity of violent crimes in schools. Several major newspapers parted
from the pack in other ways. USA Today and the Washington Post, for
instance, made sure their readers knew that what should worry them is
the availability of guns. USA Today ran news stories explaining that
easy access to guns in homes accounted for increases in the number of
juvenile arrests for homicide in rural areas during the 1990s. While
other news outlets were respectfully quoting the mother of the
thirteen-year-old Jonesboro shooter, who said she did not regret having
encouraged her son to learn to fire a gun ("it's like anything else,
there's some people that can drink a beer and not become an
alcoholic"), USA Today ran an op-ed piece proposing legal parameters
for gun ownership akin to those for the use of alcohol and motor
vehicles. And the paper published its own editorial in support of laws
that require gun owners to lock their guns or keep them in locked
containers. Adopted at that time by only fifteen states, the laws had
reduced the number of deaths among children in those states by 23

- 18 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

Other Cool Stuff

The media and giant corporations work along side each other to benefit
themselves at the expense of the masses.
Glassner in 2003
(Barry Glassner, Professor of Sociology at University of Southern California,
“Professor Barry Glassner, The Man Who Knows About Fear in American
Culture” April 10, 2003,

And when we ask that question, it seems to me, it's reasonably clear who is doing
the fear-mongering, and it's TV news magazines and news programs that are trying
to sell programs to their viewers, advocacy groups that are trying to sell
memberships and make some money, lawyers who are selling class-action lawsuits,
politicians who win elections by whipping up fear of crime, even when crime rates are
way down. And the list goes on and on, all the way to marketers of anti-bacterial
soaps and realtors who sell homes in gated communities. And when living in that
kind of environment, with so much profit available to those who can manipulate our
fears effectively, it's not surprising that we're so fearful.

- 19 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: Perm

1. You can’t perm the alternative – There is not true way to do both the
plan and the alternative at the same time. The aff cannot do their
plan and not do it at the same time. Also if they were to do our
alternative they would have to reject all that the media has told them
and thus completely reverse their plan. In essence by saying they
want to perm it they want to do the alternative. Vote Neg for this.
2. No explanation – The aff did not explain exactly how the perm will
work. They simply say we do both. “Do both” could mean a multitude
of things. The need to explain their perm in order for us to properly
argue it
3. Perm is a shift in advocacy – As the aff they should stick to their
case. By being able to shift off of their case they can shift around
however they like to get out of our links

- 20 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: Contradict w/impact

1. What we advocate is not against impacts in general, it is against the

specific impacts given by our opponents – The impacts that are given
are illusionary or exaggerated threats produced by the mainstream
media. Our impacts are the ones not looked at by the media yet are
the most important
2. Impacts are still important in the debate - We still believe that
impacts in this round should be closely looked at when judging.
Because of this you should vote them down for the over exaggerated
impacts they give
3. No abuse – We have not abused anyone in the debate. They still have
ground in that they can argue that the ocean really is a big issue which
could directly clash with our kritik

- 21 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: No link

1. There is a clear link – Ocean destruction is the recent trend in things

to be afraid of. The aff wouldn’t want to put in the plan if they
weren’t scared out of their minds by the media
2. All of their cards show examples of the media instilling fear 0
Everyone of their cards talk about these horrible tings that will
happen if we don’t do something about the oceans
3. Their performance in this round links – They are trying to scare you,
as a judge that horrible things will happen unless we act to prevent
their impacts. If you let them you start a downward spiral slowly
looking less and less from societies real problems and more towards
unimportant issues

- 22 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: No alternative

1. Our alternative is clear – Reject the aff plan and begin a nationwide
movement to promote the change of real issues in society
2. This is realistic – In a free democratic society we as people all have
the right to speak our voices. By joining in a movement against social
problems people can change whatever they want to
3. Movements solve (insert card)

- 23 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: No impact

1. Extend our D card from the 1nc. (give analysis)

2. This impact is real. We live in a world of capitalism where there is a
natural social inequality. As this inequality grows, we risk political
instability, economic collapse, poverty, and all that goes with poverty
3. Our impact must be looked at first in this debate – Our impact is a
real impact. What we advocate has true societal impacts. Also our
impacts will happen. This can be seen in the examples given in our D
card. And just for the hell of it here’s more examples (read more
cards with examples)
4. Impacts that will happen come before impacts that might happen –
Cross apply my D card and the (card I just read). These show that
our impacts will happen. Al of our opponents impacts are things that
might happen. You must look to ours because they are inevitable and
our opponents are not. If you don’t you doom the lives of many.

- 24 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: Realism

1. Non unique- realism exists in the status quo. They might as well just
say that they advocate the status quo because their impacts are
2. No link – look to their cards, non of them mention realism being better
then our alternative
3. Realism leads to war – (find card)
4. Realism is a byproduct of the system our critique addresses. The only
way to solve for the horrible things realism leads to is to embrace the
critique alternative
5. Realism is a horrible arg (find theory)
6. Do not vote for realism – Voting for realism is to allow the oppressive
system to continue to instill fear into people as well as justify wars
where millions if not billions will die

- 25 -
LC Debate FEAR Sunwold

A2: Contradict w/DA

1. No contradiction – Our kritik shows the flaws of the system our

opponents work in. our impacts are not exaggerated or illusionary
byproducts of an attention hungry media system like our opponents
2. Our DA is legit and goes right along with our kritik – Our DA goes
right along in showing the downsides to the system our opponents
work through.
3. The impacts of our DA hold – our impacts will happen if the plan is
passed. The aff’s impacts were made up by the media to throw the
masses into a panic

- 26 -