3rd negative (non-practicability) must

- reaffirm the negative's team line

- rebut all the remaining points of the affirmative's case
- the 3rd negative should spend about two thirds to three quarters of their time rebutting
- present a summary of the negative's case
- round off the debate for the negative

Rebuttals

 Illegality or Unconstitutionality
Article XII. SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of
goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding
productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
The mandatory culling of all pigs will entail that there would be an increase in
government expenses because per the DA Region 7, there will be a need to indemnify
those affected for a maximum of P5,000.00-10,000 for each hog, for Cebu City alone.
For CY 2021, the P2.158Billion request is already a glaring manifestation of an economic
problem. This is an expensive band-aid solution to the on-going ASF problem and is
wanting of a long-term and sturdy solution – selective culling with imposed biosecurity
measures. Expenses undertaken by the government would be reasonable as this is not
recurring and will ensure that all hogs produced moving forward will be free of ASF and
safe to consume.
 Non-Doability of the affirmative’s Proposal
For the same reason it is unconstitutional, it is expensive and it is a short-term solution to
a long-term problem. Disposal of the body is also expensive as this will need an isolated
 landscape where they may be able to bury the bodies of the culled pigs. In short,
environmental consequence of carcass disposal activities is also burdensome.

Doability of our Counterproposal

Selective culling with imposed Biosecurity measures and mandatory testing commits to
lesser expenses and is aligned with the available government facilities. The
implementation of our program is a solution with a long-term effect.

Why is your counterproposal lawful and constitutional

It is lawful and constitutional because it promotes long-term economic stability

What the affirmative has failed to establish:

Summary of our counter-proposal

1. Mandatory Testing within a 500-meter radius of those which tested positive
2. Selective Culling of those which tested positive
3. Implementation of bio-security measures for those which tested negative and the around
the 500-meter radius