You are on page 1of 14

The 2AC – Remember the Name.

~2980 “written” words.

Both Ts
Both Ks
Both CPs
Both on-case (Oh, wait there is only one overall on case point.)
Topicality – Standards

Rearranging a bit here. I’m taking Point III and making it an self standing point.

I. A/T Brightline

A. Brightline to what? – It is important to understand that anyone can claim that they
create a brightline. The moment you claim something is non-T you create a brightline.
However, that brightline can be flawed.

B. Artificial barrier – Black and white distinctions are good, but we must ask ourselves
why? Just because you can create a brightline does not automatically make it good.
Malson’s brightline is simply an artificial barrier created to generate some offense.

II. Common Man

A. Setting a brightline is crucial, but we must know how to set a brightline. Therefore, we
must look at environmental policy based on how the common man looks at it.

B. R2P

1) Real world – Sure we can pull out definitions, but we need to know what they
mean. Common man is key to everyday discourse because we rely on it for everyday
communication. Debate is communication. Therefore, we need to evaluate based on
common understanding

2) Key to brightline – We need a common man understanding of terms in order to


form a brightline. Without a common man standard, we cannot create any distinctions.
Common man is a priori.
T - Policy

I. Interpretation
a) part to whole – he takes one definition and uses it to leverage a T argument.
Terms have different meanings when paired together then when they are seperate. (i.e
“hot dog”) Prefer my definition to his because mine defines the whole term
“Environmental policy” not just one word.

II. Violation

a) No warrant for why an Act is not a “plan of action.” The Lacey Act [i]is[/i] a
plan of action to deal with invasive species. If an Act of Congress is not policy, then
nothing is.

III. Voter

1. Negative over-limits - By calling our case non-topical when it clearly is topical the
negative is destroying the legitimate ground designated to the affirmative team under the
resolution. This is evidence by his reluctance to give concrete examples of topical cases.

2. Turn impact 3 and impact 4 – By running T on a T case, the negative is destroying the
purpose of academic debate. We are here to discuss policy issues, not quibble over
technicalities. This also sets a bad precedent for running T simply because you can, not
because you should.
T – Environmental Policy

I. Violations –

We meet - Again, no warrant. My mandates are concerned with regulating human


introduction of non-native species into THEIR natural environments. That’s related.
That’s Topical

II. Voters

Cross-apply.
K “Invasive Species” Rhetoric

I. No Link

A. No aff. comparison. Note that the Link here is comparing invasive species to
immigrants. Goldstein is not say that simply using the term “invasive species” is
distorting, but that common metaphors used to [i]describe[/i] invasive species are
distorting. Aff. makes no such comparison.

B. Facts, not racism. His second link says that invasives have similar “traits” of
immigrants. So? That’s just a fact, if Goldstein wants to draw that comparison that is his
problem, not mine. Don’t penalize aff. because an author can link a term to
racism/nativism. Guilt by association does not work in debate, only politics.

II. No Impact.

Germans native wildlife policy did not cause genocide. The genocide that German
perpetrated was because of its inherently dehumanizing polices such as Nietzsche’s
“Übermensch.” The rhetoric of their native wildlife policy was merely an outflow of their
corrupt thinking. Not the other way around.

III. No Alt.

A. Either his alt is non-existent. If using the term “invasive species” commodifies nature
then there is no effective way to deal with “invasive species”. There is no “balanced
approach” because words are words and if you want to say that those words are bad, there
is no balance to them.

B. Or his alt. is my case. My case does not automatically assume all species are bad (i.e.
invasive.) That is why I mandate risk assessment. It is important to evaluate the
individual species to determine its effects on the ecosystem rather than making generic
conclusions. I simply take the precautionary approach. That is a “balanced approach.”
Representations K

I. No Link

A. Not a horror story, more like a biography - His link is “discourse frequently has taken
the form of the ecological horror story.” My case does not predict an ecological
apocalypse anywhere. Period. I said I could quote Diner, however, Diner doesn’t support
the horror story theory, he merely explains the theory. (I can give you the card if you
want to see it.)

B. Literature misquote – The Literature he is quoting is referring to


Ludditie/preservationism. (i.e. “It cannot simply rely on the wilderness vision of nature
necessarily isolated from humanity, unable to bear even the lightest human touch.”) This
philosophy has the idea that humans should not even be present in an ecosystem because
humans are supposedly inherently destructive. (i.e “The wilderness story tells us that we
are not part of nature and should stay away from it.”) I do not support that philosophy,
and neither does my case.

C. Fact, not fiction – Loosing biodiversity in an ecosystem is a bad thing. There are many
scientific reasons for this and not all of them lead to human extinction.

II. Alt. is case.

His alt. – “Include people in the picture.” Hmmmm, that’s what my case does. I consider
anthropogenic effects on the environment; benefits derived from the environment by
humans (such as recreational fishing); and my case supports human stewardship of their
surroundings. As to his C-X answers, taking the precautionary approach does not
automatically assume a security threat. It simply means that there is a high potential for a
threat that we should be cognizant of.
CP’s both of them.

I. Contradictions – As established in C-X the CPs inherently contradict each other, they
cannot be adopted at the same time. In addition, he is running them both as conditional,
which means he can dump them on a whims notice.

II. That’s bad. Here is why:

A) Advocacy. In today’s debate, both the affirmative and the negative are obligated to
present a coherent case for you the judge to vote for at the end of the round. Cohesiveness
is key to logic. Both A and not A cannot be true at the same time. By presenting
contradictory CPs and running them conditionally, Malson is advocated [i]three[/i]
different worlds at the same time. In other words, A is A [i]and[/i] B [i]and[/i] not A, all
at once. This contradictory advocacy skews the clash of this debate round.

B) Time Skew – I have to now debate two CPs that are inherently contradictory, [i]and[/i]
the SQ. This means that he can claim whatever I undercover. Thus, I have no grounds to
stand on when/if he kicks the CPs.

C) Not reciprocal – He gets two cases and the SQ. I only get one case. Either, you should
vote him down for abuse or I should be able to run conditional mandates.

D) Infinite regression – Essentially this kind of debating allows opponents to spam the
aff. with as many contradictory arguments as possible just to make them undercover one
and then go with that. This destroys the educational value of the debate round.

E) Voter right here – On this point alone, you should vote aff to preserve argumentative
equity.
CP Clean List Only

I. Here’s how my case works.

A. Gray list– The gray list is the default list for species that have not been studied. All
species are listed on this list unless there has been sufficient RA completed. A species is
listed on the dirty list if it injurious, or it is listed as allowed under the clean list. Thus my
case works like a sliding scale, not a tiered system.

B. A/T NB–

1. clarity - This point actually true of my case more than his because the
government has a place to put all species. There is no nebulous non-list category, it is all
defined.

2. corruption – this is flawed for several reasons.

a) No quantification. His example is flawed from the start. My case uses the FWS
not EPA. No reason to believe that corruption would be enough to undermine aff.
solvency.

b) Turn: With a clean list only there is [i]more[/i] wiggle room for lobbyists
because you have only two categories. One is clean list and the other is this nebulous,
not-really-sure-where-to-put-it category.

c) Tu quoque – If lobbyists want to undermine the species prohibition, they will


have to undermine the actual risk assessment the FWS conducts, not the listing process.
His case doesn’t solve for that.

C. No advocacy – He reads not one card that says we should have a clean list and only a
clean list. My first mandate is taken directly from Defenders of Wildlife, The Consortium
for Conservation Medicine, and The Invasive Species Specialist Group. So the experts
say my case is superior.
CP – States Clean List

I. A/T NB.

A. Either it contradicts. Ironically his card links into his Ks. The first K is about
comparing immigrants and invasive species. Some view immigrants as a security threat.
In addition, his alt to the second K is “viewing nature as something besides a security
threat.” His card is about homeland security. Therefore, by using that card, he implies
that invasive species are a security threat. Vote him down on his own K.

B. Or it doesn’t apply – Like I said above, the card is talking about national security, not
wildlife policy. The two are completely different. Disregard it.

II. A/T solvency

A. Card doesn’t apply – The card is talking about states in general, it is not at all specific
to invasive species, or even international trade for that matter. Disregard it.

B. Won’t Work. Pet trade easily circumvents state laws.

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]

“The fragmented, inconsistent state laws that govern the possession of wildlife give the
pet-trade industry considerable freedom in distributing potentially harmful exotic animals
to the general public. In Florida, a person can walk into a pet store and purchase a python,
lizard, or iguana without having any knowledge about how to properly handle the
dangerous creature. Additionally, if a resident of a state with relatively stringent regulations on exotic
animal ownership wants an outlawed pet, he or she could legally purchase the animal in a less-restrictive
state (such as Iowa) and illegally transport it back to his or her home state. To access all pet markets,
a pet dealer needs only to set up an exotic pet business in a state with lenient regulations
and advertise his or her merchandise over the Internet, readily providing out-of-state
purchasers access to obtain illegal species.”

C. Logistical nightmare.

Imagine being a pet owner or a storeowner in multiple states. You have 50 different lists
to check and you have to keep updated on all of them. This would make owning a large
pet buisness a nightmare. Put it this way, PetsMart wouldn’t be around for too much
longer with this CP. Conversely, a federal list is only one list to worry about and a lot
easier to keep up with.
Justification 1

1. A/T his A/T point 1:

a) This point is powertagged. Maser is only describing redundancy theory, not


discrediting it.
b) I would love to see examples of species evolving to replace other species. The
reason being, they don’t exist.

2. Survival

A. Not claiming human extinction. Biological diversity is simply the amount of


species in an ecosystem. There are several degrees of biological diversity loss that
scientists discuss. I am not claiming that invasive species will cause humanity to go
extinct. (Though I imagine if all the ecosystems in the world collapsed, we would be
gone.)

B. Different comparisons. I’ll get to this a little later, but Malson is comparing
75% biodiversity to 50% biodiversity, the problem is invasive species sort of cause
something closer to 5% biodiversity.

C. Complex ecology. While it is true that ecosystem X functions better with less
biological diversity. That doesn’t mean the same goes for ecosystem Y, and Z. His
Herald ’97 card may be true for a some places in New Zealand and California, but that
doesn’t mean it is true for the whole United States.

3. Ecological losses that invasive species cause

A. Invasive species cause a decline in native biological communities

Defenders of Wildlife (a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild
animals and plants in their natural communities.); The Consortium for Conservation Medicine (a
collaborative institution linking Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine
Center for Conservation Medicine, The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, the University of Wisconsin-
Madison Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, the U.S. Geological Society National Wildlife Health Center and the Wildlife
Trust. CCM strives to understand the links among human changes to the environment, the health of all species including humans, and
the conservation of biodiversity.); and The Invasive Species Specialist Group (part of the Species Survival
Commission of The World Conservation Union (IUCN). The ISSG consist of about 150 scientific and policy experts on invasive
species from more than 40 countries. The ISSG aims to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and the native species they contain by
increasing awareness of invasive alien species, and of ways to prevent, control or eradicate them.) 2007 “Broken Screens: The
Regulation of Live Animal Imports in the United States”
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/international_conservation/broken_screens/broken_screens_r
eport.pdf (JES)
“Invasive non-natives can out-compete, prey upon, parasitize or transmit diseases to
natives.23 They also can alter the physical environment, modifying or destroying natural
and semi-natural habitats. Particularly on islands, and in island-like habitats such as isolated lakes and
springs, invaders that can out-compete native species often have in essence replaced them. Complete
extirpations or extinctions of native animals and plants do not have to occur for biological
communities to be altered radically. Nor are extirpations or extinctions necessary for the
United States to experience a significant decline in the native biological diversity and
aesthetic value of its natural areas. Declines in populations of native species resulting
from animal introductions have been seen across an array of ecosystems, for example:24”

Two things to note:


1. Extinction does not have to occur to cause a decline in biological diversity.
2. Biodiversity losses is empirically happening.

B. Impacts of invasive species.

i. Natural ecosystem fundamental life support

Dr. Gretchen C. Daily et. al. (Panel Chair, PhD in Biological Sciences Department of
Biological Sciences) 2002“ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Benefits Supplied to Human
Societies by Natural Ecosystems” (peer reviewed study) Issues in Ecology
http://www.ecology.org/biod/value/EcosystemServices.html (JES)

“Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems, including
seafood, game animals, fodder, fuelwood, timber, and pharmaceutical products. These
goods represent important and familiar parts of the economy. What has been less
appreciated until recently is that natural ecosystems also perform fundamental life-
support services without which human civilizations would cease to thrive.”

When an invasive species invades an ecosystem, sure it might not cause the ecosystem to
collapse immediately, but it removes native species that are extremely beneficial to
humans.

ii. Invasive species degrade habitat quality.

Thomas J. Stohlgren (Ph.D., University of California, Senior Research Scientist


for the U.S. Geological Survey, National Institute of Invasive Species Science, Fort
Collins Science Center) and John L. Schnase (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
Computational and Information Science and Technology Office) 2006 “Risk Analysis for
Biological Hazards: What We Need to Know about Invasive Species” Risk Analysis Vol.
26, No. 1
http://snr.unl.edu/invasives/file/pdf/invasive_species_general/Stohlgren_Schnase_RiskAn
alysis_Biohazards.pdf

“Invasive species can have indirect effects by degrading habitat quality for native species,
affecting nutrient cycling, and promoting disturbances such as wildfire (Mack et al., 2000).
These impacts may be slow and chronic, such as the salinization of soils invaded by salt
cedar, or they may be cataclysmic such as the rapid spread of aquatic weeds in the
southeastern United States and the spread of sudden oak death in California.”

This directly refutes Malson’s Palmer ’92, and Herlad ’97. It is superior to his evidence
for several reasons.
1. It is empirical.
2. It is specific to invasive species, not just generic evidence.

iii. Human Health - Legal to import dangerous animals under the current
system.

Dr. David M. Lodge [Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame
and Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation] April 2009 before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative Hearing On H.R. 669: "Nonnative
Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act" To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact
the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes.
(http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/20090423insular/testimony_lodge.pdf)

“I believe that it would surprise most of your constituents--and perhaps you--to learn that
importing into the US any of the following alien species—and thousands of others--
would be perfectly legal (as long these species could be legally exported from their native countries):
Australian saltwater crocodiles
African puff adders
Gaboon viper
King cobra
Australian crayfish
An average of 4100 venomous snakes were imported annually from 2000-2005, about
95% of which were imported for the pet trade. Unless state or local laws prevent it, your
neighbors could legally import and possess hundreds of these snakes. And they will
escape. I’m highlighting venomous snakes, of course, because they pose obvious danger
to humans.”

Let’s just say, we would not be happy if those guys established a breeding population in
the U.S.

C. Examples of Invasives

i. Kudzu

Karen Ray [Editor In Chief], 2007/2008 “ARE BIOFUEL CROPS THE NEXT
KUDZU?” San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review San Joaquin College of Law, 17 S.J.
Agric. L. Rev. 247, [Accessed Via Lexis Nexis] [Ethos]

“One of the most notorious intentional plant introductions in the United States is kudzu,
also known as "The vine that ate the south." n1 Kudzu is a perennial vine that is native to Japan
and China. n2 In the late 1800s, it was introduced to the United States to be used as a forage crop. n3 In
the 1930s, the federal government launched an aggressive campaign to plant kudzu as a
solution for soil erosion. n4 The campaign worked, unfortunately too well. Kudzu grew rapidly
and spread to other areas, wreaking havoc by choking out beneficial native vegetation. n5
In fact, kudzu has been known to cover almost anything in its path, including power poles,
railroad tracks, and even buildings. n6 Ultimately, kudzu was no longer a solution to soil erosion;
instead it became an ecological problem itself, causing extensive economic and ecological harm to the
United States. n7 Kudzu is as an example of how the government has aggressively promoted and
introduced an invasive plant species for a solution to an ecological problem without the adequate
knowledge, regulations, and safeguards to prevent the unforeseen and catastrophic consequences that stem
from its introduction.”

ii. Carp

Bryan Walsh (journalist) February 2010 “Asian Carp in the Great Lakes? This Means
War!” TIME http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962108,00.html (JES)

“Asian carp are particularly dangerous. Native to China and parts of Southeast Asia, the freshwater
fish have been cultivated for aquaculture for more than 1,000 years, often raised in submerged rice paddies.
Catfish farmers in the U.S. imported Asian carp decades ago to eat up the algae in their ponds; the fish
slowly escaped into the wild and have been making their way up the Mississippi River. They are eating
machines; bighead carp can grow incredibly quickly and reproduce rapidly as well. "They
just eat so much," says David Ullrich, executive director of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative. "They're like the locusts of the river.” That's what makes them so
dangerous to the lakes. Asian carp aren't direct predators, but they eat plankton, which
knocks out the bottom layers of the food chain. If they were to successfully establish themselves
in the Great Lakes and start breeding, they could utterly disrupt the existing ecosystem, potentially starving
out the trout and other native fish that make the Great Lakes a tourism hot spot.And if their voracious
eating habits weren't enough, silver carp pose a direct threat to boaters. When startled, the fish
launch themselves out of the water, turning into 40-lb. (18 kg) projectiles that could easily
smash an unwary fisherman's nose. It's enough to turn a fishing trip into something worthy of
the X Games, which may be fine for the extreme-angling participants of the wild Redneck Fishing
Tournament in Illinois, where silver carp are the target and black eyes sustained from flying fish are a
badge of honor. But your average day-tripping sportsman on Lake Michigan might not appreciate an
airborne carp smacking him in the kisser. "They are living missiles, and that's not trivial," says
David Lodge, director of Notre Dame's Center for Aquatic Conservation.”
iii. Nutria

Professor Matthew Palmer (Ph.D in Ecology from Rutgers University Department of Ecology Columbia University)
Summer 2009 “The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act: The Science Behind H.R. 669” Columbia University (School
of International and Public Affairs)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/projects/summer2009/NonnativeWildlifeInvasPrevActFinRept.pdf

“Nutria are semi-aquatic rodents with rat-like features (Nutria Workshop 2002). In 1899, they
were first intentionally introduced into North America from South America for their fur.
However, when nutria farming largely collapsed in the 1940s, some ranchers released their
nutria or failed to recapture those that escaped (Evans 1970). State and federal agencies and individuals also
transported nutria into many states for the purpose of controlling undesirable vegetation and enhancing trapping opportunities (Nutria
Workshop 2002). This proved to be a grave mistake because of certain nutria characteristics. Nutria occupy semi-aquatic habitats,
which includes swamps and marshes and along the shores of rivers and lakes. They feed on many terrestrial and aquatic green plants
Their feeding habits are extremely destructive to marsh
and occasionally consume grains (Whitaker 1988).
vegetation because their foraging activity destroys vegetative root mat. This so-called
“eat out” loosens a plant’s hold on the soil, which then becomes more vulnerable to
erosion. These “eatouts” can transform a productive wetland into a barren mud flat (Nutria
Workshop 2002). The destructive foraging habits of the nutria are compounded by their rapid
population expansion. Nutria reach sexual maturity at about four to six months of age and
reproduce throughout the year, typically having two to three litters annually (Brown 1975;
Willner et al. 1979). They also have an aggressive nature and will displace native animals
such as beavers and muskrats. Threatened by few predators (other than humans), nutria have
experienced a population boom in certain areas of the country. For example, in Dorchester County,
Maryland, the nutria population was estimated to have expanded on a 10,000 acre parcel of land from less than 150 in 1968 to 35,000
to 50,000 in 2002 (Nutria Workshop 2002).”

I hope all of these examples prove my point. The threat of invasive species is very real,
and it is because of our lack of action that this problem is continuing. This is not
nationalizing rhetoric, it is reality. In the end, the only reasonable solution to the invasive
species problem is the affirmative team’s case. That is why I urge you to vote for the
affirmative team at the end of today’s debate round.