Will Malson species2NR Page 1 of 10

All. 2080
Will Malson species2NR Page 2 of 10

T – policy

I. Interp: was dropped.

II. Vio:
(these points are just to show you my logical flow, they’re not argument-points)
a) in my 2nc, I gave you a double-bind. The 2nd option in the bind was that he must be following
or affecting the policy (and that’s where fxt comes in).
b) in his 1ar, he said this: “We change the policy by changing regulations.”
…need I say more? He’s admitted to fxt. He also conceded fxt bad.
III. Standard:
a) He dropped my argument that the brightline was about fxt: if you’re fxt at all, you should lose.
That was my brightline from the beginning. He conceded this in his last speech.
b) common man good/bad: I’m actually gonna drop this, because it doesn’t matter if it’s good or
bad – because he already accepted my fxt brightline.
IV. Voters:
1. AT: “over-limits”
a) he dropped all 5 of my responses. Even if it IS over-limiting, it’s not a bad thing to do so.
you can’t win “over-limits bad” because you dropped my 5 points. New in the 2ar is bad.
b) that’s completely misrepresenting my argument. I gave a detailed explanation of how to be
T under my violation-point in the 2nc (near the end).
c) that’s new. his 2ac point was that it "destroys ground", not that it’s impossible to be T. I’ll
admit it hurts your ground (but that’s okay…see my 5 responses), but not that 0 cases are T.
2. AT: “turn impact 3 and 4”
a) he dropped my 4 (3) responses. T isn’t an RVI, no matter what he says. You can’t win this
point because you dropped my 4 points.
b) that’s new. his 2ac point was that you shouldn't run t simply because you can. "by running t
on a t case, the neg is [doing bad bad things]". Now his 1ar point is that, since I’m claiming all
cases are non-T (which is 1, new, and 2, false), t must be an rvi (which is false, because he
dropped my 4 repsonses).
c) he dropped my other voter – prima facie burden. At the end of his voters (2nc) I extended
this one, and it was never addressed.
Will Malson species2NR Page 3 of 10

T – EP

I’m not even sure what your response is, but I do know that this procedural has ceased to be fun. (that’s
right, it’s funconditional. You wouldn’t argue funconditionality bad, would you? ;) ) so I’ll just drop it.
Will Malson species2NR Page 4 of 10

K – “Invasive Species”

II. Links
Oog. Okay. The organization of this is going to be tricky. What I’ll do is respond to his 1ar points first,
then bring back the 2ac/2nc points.
AT: 1. Goldstein and my discourse.
a) “I don’t advocate this” is new – his 2ac points were that, 1, “Goldstein says it’s metaphors
not the phrase”, and 2, “facts, not racism”.
b) that doesn’t work – trying to get out of a k by claiming you don’t advocate something your
authors and rhetoric do just isn’t possible. That’s like saying you don’t advocate racism
immediately after using the n-word.
AT: 2. No guilt by association.
a) analogy/argument fails – I’m arguing that the rhetoric is the exact same thing, not that one
likes something and so does the other.
b) I’m not implicating your case – just your language
2ac/2nc point 1:
he dropped it (his argument that Goldstein was just talking about metaphors). So.
2ac/2nc point 2: (“facts not racism”)
I had 2 responses to this 2ac point. My second response was that it was “guilt by association”.
Even if he wins this point (his #2 in the 1ar), he still dropped the first response I put on it (“same
rhetoric”). Either way, I win both of his 2ac points – that means I win the link to the K. so he
links to the “invasive species” K.

III. Impact
2ac: "the rhetoric of their native wildlife policy was merely an outflow of their corrupt thinking.
not the other way around."
2nc: look to my quote: Environmental protections in Nazi Germany were understood through the
same lens of racial purity as other aspects of Nazi policies. German polices sought to protect German
flora and fauna and to exclude foreign plants and animals, which were depicted as threats to the purity of
German landscapes. …In the words of a German landscape architect from the Nazi era, protecting
German plants required ‘cleansing the German landscape of unharmonious foreign substances.’”
“Invasive species” is just another facet of that “racial purity” that motivated (and self-justified) all
instances of genocide in history.
1ar: "germany's wildlife policy did not justify their genocide, their corrupt philosophy did."
2nr: That's some delicious copypasta, but it doesn't quite cut it. My argument has consistently
been that the same lens is used to view the world. The "invasive species" rhetoric links to this
purification-lens (and remember, I won the links). I'm not saying their wildlife policy justified genocide,
I'm saying that this purification-lens justified both policy, and you link in to that lens. The 1ar argument
is effectively "I don't link in to the lens", but he already lost the links.

IV. Alt
a) not an option – just because you can’t think of something to say other than “invasive species”
doesn’t justify it
b) not my job – all I really have to do is tell you what’s wrong with your case (like a Disad). It’s
Will Malson species2NR Page 5 of 10

not my job to show you how to fix it (though I could propose a CP if I wanted to).
Will Malson species2NR Page 6 of 10

K – Representations

I. Link
A. AT: “not a horror story”.
I had 2 points in the 2nc; 1, look to my link card, 2, look at the text of diner (plus my link card). He only
responded to my diner argument (with 2 subpoints), which means I still win this point.
Oh, and, his 3rd subpoint is new.
Line-by-line:
2NC #1: look to my link card: dropped, so like I said, I win this point.
2NC #2: Diner. I showed you the almost exact correlation between Diner’s story and the typical eco-
horror story. He responded with 2 subpoints:
AT: 1. “Diner does not advocate…”
a) yeah, he pretty much does. I think my 2nc analysis is enough here
b) irrelevant – he presents ‘untold’ destruction as fact, which is enough of a story to link.
AT: 2. “I only read this part…”
a) just reading a little part of what an author says doesn’t change the fact that Diner tells
us the whole horror story.
b) I responded to the Diner that everybody uses. When you say “Diner”, people familiar
with common impact cards are going to look to the usual cut, which included what I
responded to.
AT: 3.
‘twas new in response to the link. (maybe it’s not in response to other things, but it’s new
here, so cross it out)

B. AT: “lit misquote”.

He’s trying really hard to put some offense on stuff I didn’t argue. He doesn’t know what he’s talking
about at all. I’ll trace the history of this point for you…
1NC: this was my alt-card.
2AC: “This philosophy has the idea that humans should not even be present in an ecosystem because
humans are supposedly inherently destructive.”
2NC: #1: you’re arguing against something I didn’t advocate, so it doesn’t really matter…
#2: this doesn’t de-link the k at all.
1AR: something about a case-turn, but he can’t case-turn because…I’m not even sure what he’s saying.
2NR: in your 1ar, under subpoint 1 of “B. Lit misquote”, you quoted my alt-card. Yes, that’s my alt
card, not my link card. 2 responses:
a) that’s still my alt-card, so you can’t really de-link by…arguing against my alt…
b) that’s also not my argument, …my author makes several arguments in the cut, and I’m only
pulling out one of them against you.

C. AT: “fact, not fiction”

He dropped this one.
Will Malson species2NR Page 7 of 10

II. Impact: turns case

This wasss…dropped.

III. Alt
Neither of his 2 points actually addresses my alt (or shows a reason to reject, or how he meets). None of
his link arguments really fly, the impact was dropped, and neither of his alt arguments are actually
arguments against the alt. that pretty much seals the round for the neg
Will Malson species2NR Page 8 of 10

Condo

In the 2ac, he had 2 points…1, “my cps contradict, and they’re condo”, 2. “that’s bad.” I responded to
all his points, and brought up why condo was good. Now in the 1ar he says that I dropped all his args on
contradictions. …are you like, high? Instead of addressing points A-K, he creates new organization…
this is almost indecipherable. Okay. I’ll address his 1ar points, then go back to the 2ac/2nc points.
AT: 1ar A: “Game changer.”
a) that’s absurd. Pro-life and anti-abortion are the exact same thing. A CP is an opportunity cost
disad, that’s why it has to be exclusive, which is why you get the opportunity to perm.
b) that’s also new, so. you obviously need to respond to my 2nc/1nr arguments, but this is not in
response to any of my 2nc/1nr arguments, this is some new stuff.
AT: 1ar B: “what we say.”
a) he ignores all 4 of my responses.
b) “no weight to our words” is:
i] a lousy argument, and
ii] pretty much new!
c) contradictory CPs and contradictory real-life positions aren’t…something you can mix. yeeaah.
d) he throws in multiple worlds here – I’ll address this under point C.
AT: 1ar C: “A/T multiple worlds is real”
a) it is real, you give examples yourself. Defendants do change pleas mid-trial. If a scientist
comes across something that proves him wrong, he’ll change his thesis or not it in the thesis.
Senators can change parties mid-term.
b) this is a response to my 1st subpoint under his A. argument in the 2AC. Even if he wins this, I
still win pt. A.
AT: 1ar D: “A/T perms”
Under 1), “perms check…”
a) you could do a different kind of perm.
b) merely having the option to perm checks back abuse.
Under 2), “perms are a theory test…”
a) yeah it does, now there’s the case, and the case + the perm
b) non-advocacy perms are bad. It’s a little late to be arguing about this though.
AT: 1ar E: “A/T don’t reject team”
a) His response is pathetic. I have three (carded) reasons to reject the arg and not the team. If he
wins condo, then he wins my CPs – but I still win my ks and t, meaning I still win the round.
b) Ks are still above CPs – even if he wins that you should reject the neg because we can the CPs
condo, the Ks still operate on a different f/w. they go first.
AT: 1ar F: “A/T: All is condo”
a) dropped. Also, true. For example…I kicked out of my 2nd T-press.
b) that’s called a severence perm, and it’s too late to do that. You would’ve had to do that in the
2ac. It’s too late now.
c) you didn’t specify that your mandates were conditional in the 1ac or 2ac. It’s too late.
AT: 1ar G: “A/T: err on neg” – I had 5 points.
1. dropped
2. the only reason the K is there is because I found out your case…after you had all that prep
Will Malson species2NR Page 9 of 10

time. Really, you’re going for this one?

3. meh, okay. It’s moot then.
4. also dropped. Aff gets to define the playing field.
5. he expects me to perfectly anticipate everything he’s going to argue in the 1ar…which is
ridiculous.
6. (analysis) – if I win any one of these 5 points, I win that you should err neg – which means I
win the condo debate.
AT: 1ar H: “Voter”
a) if you want to make logic and consistency a voter, then you should be voted down – the
organization of the condo responses was atrocious.
b) you have to win “reject the team not the arg” & “err neg on theory” to get a voter, and you lost
both.

Okay. Now look back to all my 2nc points. He dropped quite a few things. Most notably, G-J. I’ve got a
solid win here. In order to win this, he would have to win G-J (which he can’t because, no new in the
2ar), “err neg on theory”, “reject the team not the arg”, and he would have to win the points above.
Will Malson species2NR Page 10 of 10

CPs – droppin’ them!