OVERVIEW

1. Thanks to Will for cutting down the 1AR a bit.

2. New arguments. You’re good judges so you won’t flow them.

3. The order is T, Impact Shifting, Public Engagement, Species Hierarchy, & Alt Links to K.
TOPICALITY

The line-by-line is incredibly convoluted. I’m going to give a summary of my position, but
I’d encourage you to compare my 1NR responses and his 1AR responses.

INTERP:
1. When you let people define “should” as “really needs to happen” they run whole res
cases. It’s that simple.
2. As much as he tries to complicate the issue, the 1NR explanation makes sense. When we
use the word should, we expect a specific action.
3. My def narrows the res significantly. It excludes squirrelly cases (read: Kritikal affs) that
don’t have a plan & whole res cases. My 3 reasons to prefer the limiting definition still apply.

4STEPS2T:
It’s a wash; he basically repeats his 2AC answers so just compare those with the 1NR
responses. Second, remember that this argument doesn’t matter at all since I’m winning my
interp of “should.”

VOTERS
1. His one-liners don’t at all directly answer my argument that reasonability is a bad
standard. I’d especially like to emphasize that judge intervention is a linear negative effect,
and increasing it at all is bad, even if it’s already happening.
2. My point was that the K solvency for the impacts is very unlikely, at best it’s possible.
With a neg ballot you’re 100% guaranteed to solve the unfairness.
3. As I argued under lit checks, when you accept his interp, you justify screwing people out
of ground and causing unfairness, regardless of whether that’s happening in this round. As
it happens, I don’t have a lot of ground to argue, hence me running T.
4. This kind of logic justifies steroids in sports. Coming into the round, both sides should
have the same opportunity to win. Otherwise you might as well check the aff ballot & save
an hour of your day.
5. When you take a position you disagree with, you might not agree with it, but at least you
understand where people are coming from. Maybe that’ll make you feel compassion for their
wrongness, or maybe it’ll confirm your own beliefs by contrasting them with wrong ones.
Either way, you’re more educated & maybe even a better person.
IMPACT SHIFTING

Influence Ø Solve
Look at cross-x. He gives zero logical reasoning to prove that the judges & spectators of this
round are going to take the information he’s given you and start a revolution of modern
thought that will completely change the government. That’s a leap of logic he hasn’t
justified anywhere in this round. It’s great that “at least he’s trying” but since he can’t prove
trying will solve he has no access to his impacts & you’re voting neg.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

1. Link
He ignores almost all of my analysis on this point. First, look at my 2NC explanation of De-
Shalit’s viewpoint – that goes conceded. Under this point, my argument is that the public
can’t relate to philosophical solutions like deep eco. Second, examine the issue logically. If
the public doesn’t understand deep eco, they’re going to walk away from it. Even if Will
mentions policy problems, which the public can understand, they’re still going to be
alienated when he proposes philosophical solutions.

2. AT: Political Application

His argument is that since he has a “political application” he doesn’t link. However, saying
“oh, here’s a problem in the government that deep eco would solve” isn’t going to help if
people simply don’t get HOW “deep eco” solves, and what “deep eco” is. The point of the
De-Shalit card is that people don’t understand these theoretical approaches to
environmentalism the way that they understand political approaches, so we need to
incorporate policy approaches in the environmental movement. Since Will’s K is definitely
not a policy approach, he fails this test even if he does mention policy problems.

3. AT: Influence
He conveniently decides to ignore reality, and my c-x response that the government is NOT
a reflection of the people but the money, as well as my response about influence under the
impact debate. Instead he’s continuing to assert that by telling you guys about deep eco the
gov will eventually change. Refer to my “impact shifting” responses.

4. AT: Ø Alienating Everyone

No, he’s not alienating everyone. A few educated elites (like you judges) may be influenced
and go live deep eco. But for every elite he does influence, he’s alienating 500 average joes.
Lets assume for a second that the government IS a reflection of the people. In that case,
since he’s influencing a few people while the “public” is alienated (as per the De-Shalit
card), there won’t be governmental change because the “people” still don’t get deep eco.

5. Impact
The Light card says that enviro ethics “is not succeeding” because it fails to generate
discussions that actually motivate people. And, the De-Shalit card says that his kind of
discussion alienates “many activists and potential supporters of the environmental
movement.” That completely turns around his K because if the public is not engaged, the
government will not change. Vote neg here because the K not only gets no solvency, but
also inhibits future change.
SPECIES HIERARCHY

1. Ranking Inevitable
In a conflict of interest case, we HAVE to revert to species ranking. AND, those cases are
inevitable. Read the card. It specifically says that no-one can avoid engaging in species
ranking. So, contrary to what Will asserts, we do “have to.”

2. Impact
Basically, he responds that we don’t have to make the value judgement because natural
selection will make it for us. First this response is complete 180 from the 2AC where he said
“What that means is, when it comes down to “one of us has to die for the other”, you have
to use some other mechanism to determine who lives and who dies.” Hold him to that
response. My response was that this will lead to a system based on intelligence where
humans always win. With our intelligence, we can invent guns, chainsaws, & numerous
other things that destroy nature, & as long as species hierarchy exists, we will use them on
nature because we consider our interests more important. The alt is impossible so vote neg.

3. Eglitarianism Fails
He concedes my Gray card that says eglitarianism is key to the deep eco philosophy. Since
I’ve proved eglitarianism fails (b/c of species ranking), that’s another takeout to his
position.
ALT LINKS 2 K

Will under-covers possibly the single most important argument in the round:

1. AT: Self-Concern Inevitable

His only response to this argument is that both deep eco and shallow eco involve selfish
purposes. Wrong. My analysis & the card I read saying that Shallow Eco is about concern for
the next generation while deep eco is all about understanding the self & finding new
meaning in the self, go 100% conceded.

2. Impact
He completely concedes my argument that valuing self at the expense of nature causes
exploitation of nature for the self. So, even if I concede that the same happens with shallow
eco, he gets no solvency for his impacts because as people continue to value their interests
over nature, they’ll continue to exploit it. However, since I’m winning the argument that
shallow eco is actually concern for future generations and deep eco leads to greater value of
self, this is a uniquely disadvantageous impact of the aff and a definite reason to go neg.

Also, don’t allow new responses here.