INTRO

First, I apologize for the disgusting organization in this round. However, it’s not entirely my
fault, I have to pretty much go off of the 2AC organization, which wasn’t optimal.

Second, also on the topic of organization, I’m going to be combining my framework

argument and my impact shifting argument since they both come down to Will’s “influence
solves” argument.

Third, Topicality is really awesome. So awesome that it gets its own speech, the 1NR. Just a
heads up.

Finally, for anyone who’s actually bothering to flow, the order will be

Impact Shifting
Anthro Good
Alt Links 2 K
Public Engagement
Species Hierarchy
IMPACT SHIFTING

1. WHAT MAKES DEEP ECO “RIGHT”?

Will never clearly articulates why deep eco is the right thing to do. Essentially, his argument
comes down to, it’s net beneficial over shallow eco. That doesn’t make it the “right thing to
do” though. Just because Peets coffee is better than Starbucks coffee doesn’t mean I’m
morally obligated to buy Peets. In the same way, being better than shallow eco doesn’t
make deep eco a great idea. Since he doesn’t have access to his “right” argument, you have
to evaluate the K based on the 1AC impact.

2. INFLUENCE Ø SOLVE
· Ok, so now that Will has decided he does want to solve the impact, after stating in C-X
that he didn’t, I can make this argument. He claims to solve for the impacts through
“influence.” Problem is, he’s never given any warrant as to how telling five judges that deep
eco is a really good idea somehow will stop the government from preparing for resource
wars. Personally, I’m rather incredulous that the judges are going to tell all their friends,
who are going to tell their friends, and so on, until the government hears about it and
decides to reconsider. Until we get some cards on this subject, err neg because I have
common sense on my side.

3. IMPACTS
There are three reasons you should vote neg on this argument:

a. He’s literally case shifting. In the 1AC, he has a huge resource wars impact. Then in C-X,
when I ask him if the alt solves for resource wars he says “the ballot is key to uphold what
is right, not what necessarily has an impact.” Now in the 2AC, he’s saying he solves the
impact through influence. I can’t argue consistently against a moving target, so this should
be a voter for fairness.

b. His morality argument falls flat. The K hinges on the “right” mindset about the
environment. But when Will can’t articulate why it’s the “right” mindset or what makes it
“right” there’s no reason to vote for the K.

c. He can’t solve resource wars. Again, the whole warrants thing. To the point that he gives
us no logic or evidence to support the tenuous argument that telling the judges deep eco is
a good idea will solve resource wars, he has no access to this impact. That leaves the K
without any impact at all.
ANTHRO GOOD

AT: PERM & Ø REASON TO PREFER

· He argues that it’s possible to have a deep eco mindset and support anthro. Ok, fine.
Except the whole point of this argument is not that the two are mutually exclusive. The
point is that a human-centered view of the environment is just as likely to lead to
environmental conservation as a deep eco view is. If status quo mindsets can achieve the
same results, why vote aff?

AT: MIS-TAG
· His K argues that we need a deep eco mindset to make us more respectful of nature. The
evidence I read essentially says that there’s no need for an ecologically centered ethic to
explain our obligations toward nature because concern for humanity can achieve the same
thing. To me, that’s pretty much the same as saying that we don’t need deep eco mindset to
effect change. No mis-tag here.

IMPACT
If it aint broken, don’t fix it. If we don’t need to adopt a new mindset to solve environmental
problems, why bother? He never directly answers the argument that status quo human
centered mindsets can solve. That means there’s no reason to vote for the K.
ALT LINKS 2 K

AT: Response #1
· He says that both deep & shallow eco link to the K because they both involve self-concern.
To put it bluntly, he’s completely wrong. Shallow eco – as per the card I read – is about
concern for the next generation. You can’t be wrapped up in yourself when you’re worried
about making sure you’re not screwing up the world for your kids. On the other hand, he
100% concedes that deep eco is all about understanding the self & finding new meaning in
the self. I’m winning the link here.

AT: Response #2
· Will says I can’t speak for everyone who supports deep eco so I don’t know if it involves
self interest. If he’s going to make this argument, I think it should be reciprocal: if I can’t
make claims about what deep eco truly is because I can’t know for sure what it means to
people, then neither can Will. That’s devastating to him because it means he can’t assert
that it will lead to people to value nature more, because he can’t speak for everyone who
supports deep ecology. So either he drops this argument, or he concedes that the alt
doesn’t solve for people valuing nature.

Impact
The whole point of his K is that valuing self at the expense of nature causes exploitation of
nature for the self. At the point where I’m clearly winning the link that deep eco leads to
greater value of the self, the K falls apart, and he’s worsening his own impacts. You should
be voting neg right here.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

1. CONTEXT IS KEY
· Will’s answer to this argument is just plain sketch. Context is key. He presents a sound bite
of the evidence and claims that his aff doesn’t link. LOOK AT THE WHOLE CARD! Just to
refresh your memory, earlier in the card, the author argues that:

In Chapter 1 it is claimed that in a way environmental philosophers have moved too

rapidly away from anthropocentrism—mainstream ethical discourses—towards
biocentrism and ecocentrism. My argument is that the public on the whole is not
ready for this, and therefore many activists and potential supporters of the
environmental movement become alienated from the philosophical discourse on the
environment.

With this context, the phrase that Will decides to read - “reasoning about the environment
needs to include political and democratic philosophy” – means that rather than focusing on
abstract ideas like biocentrism, we need to examine actual political solutions. The term
“democratic philosophy” is a reference to De-Shalit’s argument that bio & eco centered
philosophies are undemocratic because they exclude many of the public who can’t relate to
these concepts.

2. THE AFF STILL LINKS

· Will argues that since he mentions the government in one of his 1AC cards, he’s including
political philosophy and doesn’t link. Wrong. This argument is about solutions: should we be
discussing what mindset would be best for solving environmental problems, or what policy
the government should implement? So even if he does identify policy problems, the fact that
he doesn’t discuss policy solutions means his K links to this argument.

3. THE IMPACT
· This argument is a one-shot kill for his K. On the link debate, I’ve proven that his aff
focuses on psychological rather than policy solutions to environmental problems. The cards
are pretty clear that this kind of discourse serves to alienate the public from the
environmental movement, which means they’re now less likely to respect nature.

→ Kills Motivation
Philosophical debates about the value of nature fail to motivate people to preserve
the environment
A. Light, (Philosophy & Environment Prof., George Mason University), 02 Andrew
Light [Associate professor of philosophy & environmental policy, & director of the Center for
Global Ethics at George Mason University], “Contemporary Environmental Ethics From
Metaethics to Public Philosophy,” July, 2002, (Metaphilosophy 33.4)

“Even with the ample development in the field of various theories designed to answer these questions, I believe
that environmental ethics is, for the most part, not succeeding as an area of applied
philosophy. For while the dominant goal of most work in the field, to find a philosophically sound
basis for the direct moral consideration of nature, is commendable, it has tended to
engender two unfortunate results: (1) debates about the value of nature as such have
largely excluded discussion of the beneficial ways in which arguments for environmental
protection can be based on human interests, & relatedly (2) the focus on somewhat abstract
concepts of value theory has pushed environmental ethics away from discussion of which
arguments morally motivate people to embrace more supportive environmental views.”
SPECIES HIERARCHY

AT: RESPONSE #1
· He says we shouldn’t submit to what some consider an inevitability if we have the
potential to change it. That’s great, but the whole point of “inevitability” is that there isn’t
potential to change. He never demonstrates how it’s possible not to engage in species
ranking, which only confirms the fact that it’s inevitable. You aren’t accused of
“complacency” when you say that you’ll fall if you jump off of a cliff, so it’s ridiculous to
argue that a mindset that accepts that some things in life are inevitable breeds
complacency.

AT: RESPONSE #2
· He claims that he doesn’t have to stop species ranking to solve his impacts. Actually, he
does. First, if you value “intelligent species” (I suppose he means humans), over non-
intelligent species, then whenever their interests conflict, human interests are going to win
out. Since humans are intelligent and trees I guess aren’t, when there’s a choice between
cutting down a forest and the humans getting cold, the forest is gonna lose. Under a system
of species ranking then, wilderness doesn’t have a right to exist as long as humans have
needs that can be met by exploitation of the wilderness. Second, deep eco is based on a
system of egalitarianism, which obviously fails when hierarchy exists.
W. Gray (Philosophy Prof., University of Queensland), 2K William Grey [Associate
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Queensland], “A Critique of
Deep Green Theory,” in “Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep
Ecology,” MIT Press, 2000, (pp. 49)

“Naess’ initial formulation of deep ecology was challenged as vague and unsatisfactory. His original
articulation was based on an appeal to what he claimed to be “an intuitively clear and obvious value axiom:”
biospheric egalitarianism, which affirms (“in principle”) the equal value of all life.”

IMPACT
Will never argues that species ranking is not inevitable, and never shows how it can be
changed. That means he’s effectively conceding that regardless of whether we have a deep
or shallow eco mindset, we’ll still value human interests over wilderness rights, and nature
will always be exploited. Since this argument completely takes out the alts solvency for the
1AC impacts, it warrants a neg ballot.