Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. INTERP: the affirmative must have a topical text and defend a policy alternative to the
status quo with the resolution as the end point of their advocacy. The affirmative should be
resolved that the United States Federal Government should. They should defend the
implications of that theoretical action.
―Resolved expresses intent to implement the plan: (American Heritage Dictionary 2000)
“to resolve on a course of action.”
B. VIOLATION
WILL HAS NO PLAN. If you vote aff, the USFG doesn’t implement any plan, which means the
aff is violating our interpretation of both “Should” & “Resolved.”
B. REASONS TO PREFER
1. Only def in the round. Will never defines “Resolved” meaning that at this point, the only
definition of the term is coming from the neg, & you should go with our definition over no
definition.
2. Good for debate. His definition of “should” justifies whole res cases & counterwarrants.
Prefer a more narrow definition.
C. VOTERS
1. Ground: By not defending the implementation and impacts post plan, they foreclose all
uniqueness based disads. There‘s no way for the neg to predict what elements of the text
and case they will and will not defend as their advocacy is nebulous and conditional as it
endorses the resolution but spikes out of USFG and resolved to avoid disads. This doesn‘t
just leave the neg with bad ground: it leaves us with none. That’s inherently unfair.
→ AT: Rules
He says fairness isn’t an impact unless he actually violates a rule, but that’s ridiculous. The
only rules are speech & skirt length, so with his interp, he could run cases about abortion
every round and get the win because T really doesn’t matter. We need a level playing field
for both the aff and the neg, and the rules don’t guarantee that.
2. Education: The aff‘s activist turn destroys switchside debate because it eliminates taking
a position that we don‘t necessarily believe. This is the unique benefit of policy debate vs.
other activities as it allows us to better craft and articulate our positions for having taken a
position we may not agree with. It is good to simulate and defend the impacts of USFG
action even if it means we need to read a few Khalilzad cards.
K FRAMEWORK
B. Impact Shifting
He’s already shifting ground here. First he has this big long impact card in the 1AC about
how shallow eco destroys the environment. Then in C-X, he says that he doesn’t really solve
the impact, he just wants to do what’s right. Without the impact, how do we decide that
deep eco is “right”? What’s the standard? If he’s going to claim that deep eco is the right
thing to do, he needs to justify that. Right now, it’s not justified b/c it doesn’t solve the
impact he’s identified.
ALT SOLVENCY
“Biospherical egalitarianism, even in the hands of its most consistent proponents, breaks down when
dealing with the necessary choices that must be made under the conditions of life. In my
analysis, I have tried to chart a pattern of argument, common to many egalitarians, in which they initially
enunciate a broad principle of species equality, but later back away from it as they struggle
to account for our moral responsibilities in conflict-of-interest cases. When those who most
consistently reject notions of human superiority over nonhumans later reach for the
functional equivalent of species-ranking procedures, one must conclude that no ecological
ethic that attempts to be comprehensive can dispense with some sort of hierarchical ranking
of moral priorities based, at least in part, on critical evaluations of the different capacities,
needs, and vulnerabilities of different individuals, species, and ecosystems.”
C. Alt Links To K
Deep Ecology’s conception of the ecological Self is only expanding self-interest
C. Diehm (Philosophy Prof., University of Wisconsin), 07 Christian Diehm [Ph.D.,
Philosophy, Villanova University, Assistant Professor of Philosophy & Environmental Ethics
Coordiator, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point], “Identification with Nature: What it is
and Why it Matters,” Ethics & The Environment, Indiana University Press, 2007, (Vol. 12,
No. 2, pp. 1-22)
“A second, related critique of deep ecology theorists’ emphasis on the expansion of the self
through identification-as-belonging is that from this viewpoint the protection of nature
appears to stem not from a desire to protect others who are worthy of moral concern, but
from a desire to protect ourselves. Often referencing the idea that for the ecological Self the
defense of nature does not involve self-sacrificing altruism but is instead a form of self-
defense, critics have said that this line of thinking remains an argument from self-interest,
even if for deep ecology supporters the meaning of the term “self” has changed Eric Katz expresses the basic
criticism here when he says that although “the interests of the individual from within the deep ecological
perspective will not be the narrow egoistic interests of ordinary human life,” it is still the case that in this
perspective nature’s preservation comes about “through our expanded notion of self-interest...”(2000, 33–34).
Simply put, the charge is that identification functions to provide an ecologically enlightened
conception of our selves, designed to issue in a similarly enlightened self-interest. Instead of
urging for an expansion of our capacity to care for others who are genuinely other, or others
who are recognized as having intrinsic value, deep ecology theorists have urged only an
expansion of our self-concern, via an expanded sense of self.”