You are on page 1of 7

T Voters

T Environmental Policy
T Significant

Voters debate:

1) Will articulates no actual impact to topicality. He says that you should always vote
on T first, but there is no reason that T outweighs the case debate. No new warrants
should be allowed in the 2NR.

2) Will's “two negative teams” argument is hopelessly deficient. I'm tagged as the
“affirmative” in the round title, that's all you need to say “I vote for Chris.”

3) Extend “no potential abuse” - T should be used to ensure fairness – Will implicitly
concedes this when he says that my interp is bad because it explodes the topic – he
concedes the plan's not abusive so you shouldn't vote me down.

4) He says you vote on disads without abuse, but that's because they prove the plan
undesirable – T doesn't, so evaluate based on in-round abuse.

5) Cross-apply this to both T flows – you aren't voting on either violation.
Environmental policy:

1) Will concedes that he has no interpretation of what “environmental policy” means.
Two implications:

a. No interp means no violation – he can't say plan isn't “environmental policy” if
he doesn't know what that means.

b. He can't leverage any offense on the standards debate because he can't
compare the counter-interp to anything – means you automatically prefer the

2) Extend the “I meet” - Baumert doesn't differentiate between carbon tax and cap and
trade as instances of environmental policy – it explicitly refers to both as “policy

3) Extend the counter-interp – it's the only interpretation of “environmental policy” in
this round and Will concedes I meet it – game over.

1) I meet – carbon tax is different from cap-and-trade in important ways – cross-apply
1AC Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann.

2) Carbon tax is most topical because it works within the existing framework of
enforcement – establishing new systems isn't reform.

3) Violation = fail – the “existing framework” is enforcement – has nothing to do with
the significance of a policy change.

4) I meet – his NASA argument proves that carbon tax is a noteworthy reform,
otherwise it wouldn't affect political capital.

5) New 2NC arguments justify new 2AR responses – only way to preserve aff second-
line argumentation.

6) New T based on spec answers proves theory abuse – makes it impossible to write
aff plans – reject for fairness and competitive equity.

1) Economy – extend 2AC #1 and #2 – trillions in government spending swamps any
decrease measured in billions.

2) Will says the econ summits didn't achieve anything, but heads of state were talking
with each other civilly – proves that econ downturn doesn't lead to war. Empirically
disproves Mead.

3) Extend Martino from Adv 2 – leadership solves competitiveness, which takes out
Will's AA evidence.

4) Colonization – Will's CGCC evidence proves international cooperation for
colonization is possible without NASA. There's no evidence that colonization from US
soil is key, so disregard the 1NR argumentation.

5) Extend 2AC #9 – space colonization is inevitable – card doesn't even mention NASA
and identifies commercial motivations for colonization, which means civil programs
aren't necessary.

6) Will concedes that climate change and bioterrorism are the most likely threats (that's
Matheny) and that carbon tax and heg solve for them.

7) Turn – Shah says the US wants to militarize space to have the ultimate high ground
in military conflicts – Will concedes that crucial warrant, which means his missile
defense argument is irrelevant. Outweighs disad on probability because of conceded
link, internal link, and impact – outweighs on timeframe, cross-apply analysis from the

1) The NASA turn non-uniques all of Will's argumentation here – China will be angry at
us no matter what. Extend Khalilzad, which means we still solve for actual wars.

2) Will's interp of the Spencer and Foster evidence is just wrong. China and India are
angry now because the US refused to act on climate change by itself, instead making
our policy contingent on them reforming first. Leadership on climate change shows
that we're serious, which makes other countries follow suit – that's Avi-Yonah and

3) Shuja isn't relevant because the plan is based on cooperative leadership – that's Avi-
Yonah and Uhlmann – and, climate change is a key soft power issue for US-China
relations. Guopeng '9
[Jiang, China View, “Harvard professor Joseph Nye: US must combine soft, hard power into 'smart power,'” 1/16/09 ]
Nye noted that an effective strategy in the real world is the combination of hard and soft power in effective
ways. "Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments of hard power. Knowing how to
combine hard and soft power instruments is smart power," he said.
Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the United States "must use what has been called 'smart power', the full range
of tools at our disposal," which include diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural tools.
"With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy," Clinton said, adding it "requires reaching out to both friends and
adversaries, to bolster old alliances and forge new ones."
Clinton's remarks signaled that the Obama administration would pursue a new foreign policy philosophy that blends the "soft power"
advocated by former president Bill Clinton and the "hard power" embraced by President George W. Bush, who will leave office on Jan. 20.
"I believe Bush's foreign policy left the United States weaker," Nye said. "Responding to the attack by al-Qaeda from Afghanistan was
necessary, but the invasion of Iraq was a large strategic blunder that reduced America's soft power in the Muslim world, and did not increase
energy leverage or geopolitical benefits."
Nye and Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state in the first term of the Bush administration, have been co-chairing the Smart
Power Commission in the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies. The commission is believed to have influence on the
Obama administration's decision-making.
“Obama has pledged to work more closely with allies, friends, and multilateral institutions than Bush did in
dealing with the problems," which referred to the relations between the United States and other big powers, the terrorism and the
proliferation, the economic crisis, the climate change, the energy security and the regional conflicts, Nye said.
“I am optimistic about the future relationship between the United States and China, both of which
have much to gain from cooperation. It is not a zero sum model," said the professor.
He also said, citing an example, that "trade and climate change are areas where we benefit from working

4) At worst, the turn is parallel – the US will still gain in leadership and relative power,
maintaining primacy and guaranteeing the link to Khalilzad – even if China backlashes,
we'll be more powerful and they won't be able to start a major war – that's Khalilzad.

5) Extend all the 1AC cards – the aff solves great-power wars, prolif, and US economic
competitiveness – means Will has literally zero offense in this debate.

1) Extend 2AC #1 – all but one card I read on this sheet postdates every single card
Will reads – that's devastating because all his empirical claims have been disproven.

2) The most recent scientific studies are unanimous – warming is happening NAOW.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change '9
[Science Brief #2, “Key Scientific Developments Since the IPCC 4th Assessment Report,” June 2009, accessible through ]
The link between fossil fuel emissions and many aspects of climate change is increasingly clear. The AR4 concluded that greenhouse
gas emissions from human activity are responsible for most of the increase in global average
temperature with greater than 90 percent certainty (IPCC 2007a). Numerous recent findings explicitly link other aspects of climate
change to human activities:
•Human-induced climate change is already affecting multiple systems, both physical (e.g., timing of seasonal lake freeze and thaw) and
biological (e.g., seasonal timing of plant flowering and animal migration) (Rosenzweig et al.
•Changes in polar temperatures, both in the Arctic and Antarctic, have been attributed
conclusively to human activity, with impacts on ecosystems, indigenous communities, ice
sheet and ice shelf stability, and sea level rise (Gillett et al. 2008). A detectable human influence on Arctic sea ice melt
extends back into the early 1990s, even before (and including) the recent rapid increase in melting (Min et al. 2008).
•Global precipitation trends have been linked to human-induced global warming; specific
observations, including increased precipitation in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drier Northern Hemisphere tropics and
subtropics, and wetter Southern Hemisphere tropics, are larger than model predictions and may already be
impacting ecosystems, agriculture, and human health in certain regions (Zhang et al. 2007).

3) Bauliunas doesn't explain recent, rapid warming – solar forcing is inadequate.
Pearce '7
[Fred, an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers[1] and has reported
on environment,popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental
issues, including water and climate change.[2] and frequently takes heretic and counter-intuitive views - "a sceptic in the best sense", he
says.[3], New Scientist, “Climate myths: Global warming is due to the sun, not humans,” 5/16/07
But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there
is no
correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this
is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle,
but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which
we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has
been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

4) The “climatic optimum” allowed civilization only in the Fertile Crescent and similar
narrow temperate zones while Europeans were struggling to survive in tiny little tribes
– proves our mass depopulation argument.

5) The old satellite evidence doesn't compare to recent studies showing actual impacts
of climate change – postdating is important because change is happening quickly –
also, satellite data supports us now, that's Parker.

6) Still have 100% solvency for climate change – means warming impacts outweigh
everything else in the round on probability.
7) Extend Courier Mail – Pew proves climate change screws up ecosystems and our
scientist says that risks extinction – and Diner – we're toying with the ecosystem and
that risks extinction – we're already experiencing a mass extinction and each new loss
threatens life on this planet – vote affirmative to protect life.