1AC

Every day thousands of trees are destroyed. Every day much of our valuable natural resources are
depleted. Every day our planet takes one step closer to destruction. This is why my partner and I are
resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental
policy.

As the affirmative team, we offer the following definitions. All of the

definitions come from Blots world dictionary 2009.

Significant: Having meaning i.e. a shoe.

Reform: To make better than the mess we’re in.

Policy: A plan that is hatched in the depth of government bureaucracy.

Toward: Concerning.

Environment: The out doors.

First let me show you three things that are going on in the status quo

1) Debate destroys 1.7 million trees every year.

Ebenezer C. Erroneous the third, CBS reporter, March 2008

Every year one debate team uses the equivalent of three trees with all the briefs, source books and
flow pads. The equivalent of two trees are used up in sticky notes alone, and the number is
increased dramatically when a team uses sticky notes instead of flowing. In total the NCFCA
league uses the equivalent of 1.7 million trees per year, not including the ones used up in paper
napkins.

2) Politicians are the 3rd greatest producer of carbon dioxide

LICA institute, November 2008

A recent study revealed the top five producers of carbon dioxide. The top producer was power
plants, the second greatest was cows from Kansas, the third was politicians and the fourth was
globetrotting presidents.

3) The U.S. is doing very little toward environmental sustainability

Page 1 of 28
 Wolfgang Hound, reporter, Fox News October 2008

The U.S. government is doing very little toward environmental sustainability; instead it chooses
focus on other issues. Once, in the Senate, instead of debating environmental sustainability the
Senators debated about whether or not the government should raise the tax on designer waste
paper baskets, and how much money to give the bird cage manufacturers to ensure they stayed in
business.

Next I will read two significant problems that are being caused by the actions in the status quo

1) Habitats are being lost

Harry Peeverson, New York Times staff writer, June 2008

So many of our natural resources are being squandered, trees for instance. They are one of our
most important resources, they stop erosion, get rid of carbon dioxide, give us shade, food and
places to build tree houses. Yet every year millions of them are destroyed, and along with them
many animal habitats. One of the most tragic stories is that of the North American mongoose
tailed lemming rat. This charming creature is all but extinct, because the trees in which it resides
are slowly but steadily being destroyed.

2) Carbon dioxide is causing global warming

Al Gore (former Vice President, celebrity and self proclaimed inventor of the internet) 2007

In an interview that recently took place in my SUV on the way to catch my flight in my private
jet, I was asked the question, “What causes global warming?” My answer to that question was,
“There are several contributors to global warming, but one of the greatest is CO2 emissions.”

Page 2 of 28
 Now that you have heard what is going on in the status quo, and the problems that are caused by
it; I will read our plan that is to be implemented by the U.S. Federal government and any other
necessary Federal agency.

1) NCFCA debate is required to go digital, the use of any paper product will be outlawed.

2) The U.S. government will supply each debater with a laptop computer to ensure they have
the necessary equipment.

3) Politicians will be limited to 1,000 words per day.

Funding will come from cuts in various useless government programs, such as fruit fly research
in France, and the measurement of the flow of Ketchup.

Enforcement will come from Chuck Norris. Any government official violating mandates 1 and 2
will be exiled to Canada. Any politician found exceeding the maximum word count will have
duct tape placed over their mouth for one week per word over.

This plan takes effect immediately upon an affirmative ballot.

Our plan will solve the harms because:

Page 3 of 28
 1) If no paper was used then trees would not need to be cut down

Dilbert Treebeard, the Fangorn foundation, 2008

Trees are made into paper; paper is used for many things. If paper was no longer used, there
would be no reason to cut down trees. Thereby increasing the tree population

2) Duct tape will deter the politicians from talking

Barak H. Obama 44th President of the United States, 2008

Duct tape is a very efficient way to silence someone. When a certain person is shooting their
mouth off and saying particularly unwanted things, having a way to stop is very important. I have
found duck tape to be the most effective way to silence a certain Vice President who will remain
nameless. Duct tape gives me hope that yes we can change and I will no longer have to carry a
roll of duct tape in my back pocket.

Here are two advantages that our plan will create:

1) More trees would reduce sunburn

Hetty Burnns, senior fellow at the LICA institute, 2009

Page 4 of 28
 Most studies show that the major cause of sunburn is exposure to the sun. An easy way to avoid
this is to stay out of direct sunlight, but unfortunately in many places such as Arizona, and track
meets, this is not always possible. The solution to this is obvious; we need more trees to produce
shade, thereby reducing the harmful effects of sunburn.

2) Congress’ efficiency will be increased by 100%

Dr Austere Toil, Booking institute, March 2008

Congress is one of the most inefficient entities on the face of the earth, and takes more time to
make decisions the debate tournament tab rooms and community judges put together, since
almost all of the time that Congress is in session is spent on listening to wind bags pretending to
know what they are talking about. The efficiency of Congress would go up 100% if the amount of
words used were significantly limited.

Judge, our plan will get rid of the significant harms of reduced habitats and global warming. It
would help prevent people from getting sunburned and make congress more efficient then it has
ever been its entire existence. So with all this in mind I urge you to vote affirmative at the end of
this debate round.

Page 5 of 28
1st CX

Neg: Can I have a copy of the 1ac?

Aff: Sure, here you go.

Neg: What is the government doing to improve the environment?

Aff: As the evidence I read stated the government is not taking significant steps towards environmental
sustainability.

Neg: What is wrong with bird cage manufacturers?

Aff: We do not feel that bird cages are a significant issue.

Neg: But don’t birds need homes too?

Aff: We believe that birds should be allowed to fly free and not be constricted by confining metal bars.

Page 6 of 28
Neg: Uh, ok. Moving on to my next question, why is Chuck Norris qualified to enforce your plan?

Aff: Chuck Norris is so strong he doesn’t do pushups, he pushes the earth down.

Neg: Um, thank you. No further questions.

1NC

Page 7 of 28
The affirmative case is like a table held up with four legs. We call the legs of the affirmative case “stock
issues.” If any one of these legs is faulty, their entire case falls apart.

The first stock issue or “leg” of the table is Topicality or whether the affirmative case stays within the
topic of the resolution.

The Second stock issue holding up the affirmative team’s case is Inherency or why their case is needed.

The third leg is Significance, which includes the Harms and Advantages, and these are supposed to prove
why the case is worth enacting.

And finally there is Solvency or whether the case will work.

In this debate round my partner and I will show why one or more of the legs of the affirmatives case do
not stand.

First I will address what the affirmative team said was happening in the status quo, also known as
Inherency.

The first point that the affirmative team mentioned, was that a whole bunch of trees were being
destroyed. But…

Trees are very harmful

Paul Bunyan (journalist at Big Blue Cow news network), BBC, April 1, 2008

People claim that trees are the most wonderful thing on this planet, and we must do everything in our
power to save them. But not everyone shares these beliefs, some experts claim that trees are in fact very
harmful. There have been many accounts of trees falling on houses after storms, destroying the precious
homes beyond all help of repair. They also mercilessly tempt young children and cats to climb
dangerously high and drop random bits of fruit on our heads. Many are saying that we need to continue to

Page 8 of 28
cut down these monstrosities, otherwise the tree population would get wildly out of hand and we would
no longer be able to walk outside without the fear of being hit by a falling branch, or an over ripe apple.

As this evidence stated, trees are not the most wonderful thing on the face of the earth and we need
to cut them down to keep the tree population in check. Plus…

There are plenty of trees

Harold Green (Editor of the Canadian Maple Leaf), The Canadian Maple Leaf, 2008.

In a recent interview with Dr Rowan Burch, one of today’s leading Dendrologists. Dr Burch stated that,
“North America has an abundance of trees. One can hardly walk out ones front door without coming
across one of these majestic giants of the forest. I strongly doubt that trees are in any danger of becoming
extinct any time soon.”

Obviously, if the tree population is not in danger of extinction, then there is no need to stop using
paper in debate rounds.

The second point under inherency was that Politicians were the third largest producer of CO2. The
question I have is why not deal with the top two producers of CO2, before going to all the trouble
of trying to deal with the thing that is only the third most. We should deal with the big problems
first, with the major contributors. Not the insignificant ones.

Finally, under inherency, the affirmative team stated that the government wasn’t doing very much
to bring about environmental sustainability. The argument I have against that also applies to the
first harm they mentioned, so I’m going to address them both at the same time.

The government is raising awareness about the mongoose tailed lemming rat
Page 9 of 28
Ludwig Von Cram, Fox News commentator, Fox News, 2009.

“Mongoose tailed lemming rats are such beautiful, noble animals,” Maggie Philips, president of the
conservation organization trying to save these endangered creatures said, recounting her recent encounter
with one. “I was walking through the forest where they are known to inhabit, and I saw one leap from a
tree, it was so graceful as it landed hissing in front of me. I marveled at its speed as it started gnawing at
my leg, it was so beautiful. I don’t understand why people avoid those woods so much, the chance to
catch a glimpse of a mongoose tailed lemming rat is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and for me to
actually have an encounter with one... I’m so lucky.” Tears of happiness glistens in her eyes as she
speaks from her position in the hospital bed. “I’m so glad the government decided to release postage
stamps in order to raise awareness about their plight. I mean, sure they may kill the occasional dog or
attack a small child every so often, but they are truly wonderful creatures.”

So not only is the government already raising awareness about the Mongoose tailed lemming rats,
thus proving that point in the affirmative case is no longer applicable. It also shows that the
government is working on the environment, so we don’t need to enact the affirmative plan.

But there is an even more important reason not to enact the affirmative teams plan.

The world will come to an end in 2012

Dr Berry Loony (Archeologist at the Museum of Ancient Junk) 2007.

“In 1973 archeologist discovered a very old looking hunk of rock in a dig that took place in Southern
Belize. At first it was thought to be some sort of ornamental table top, or perhaps a large paper weight.
But after the lead archeologist Dr Erstwhile Chapman stared at it for hours on end, he discovered that
there was some pattern to what had appeared to be nothing more than random squiggles. Dr Chapman
then concluded that the gigantic stone sphere could be nothing more than an ancient calendar. After

Page 10 of 28
further study he concluded that the calendar was incredibly complicated and very advanced, and so
therefore when the calendar ended in 2012 it must mean the end of the world.”

Since the world is going to come to an end, what is the point of enacting the affirmative teams plan?

In this speech I have shown that this case isn’t needed thus disproving the stock issue of inherency;
because there are plenty trees and we need to keep cutting them down to ensure that the dangerous
tree population remains in check. Plus, the affirmative team is ignoring the major CO2 producers,
which are the real dangers. I have also knocked out the second leg of the table, significance, because
I have shown that the government is already addressing the environmental problems that
affirmative team mentioned, and the world is coming to an end, therefore their plan isn’t really
worth enacting. Judge, with all of these points in mind I urge you to vote negative at the end of
today’s debate round. Thank you.

Page 11 of 28
CX

Aff: Are cars harmful?

Neg: Excuse me?

Aff: When cars crash, or hit someone, that’s harmful right?

Neg: I suppose so.

Aff: Ok thanks. Are postage stamps significant?

Neg: Yes.

Aff: How are postage stamps significant?

Neg: If you didn’t have stamps you wouldn’t be able to send letters.

Aff: Let me rephrase the question. Are the pictures on the postage stamp important?

Neg: Yes. It makes the mail so much more interesting.

Aff: So they are important because they entertain you?

Page 12 of 28
Neg: They’re also very educational. I learned my ABC’s from postage stamps.

Aff: Ok…no further questions.

2AC

I would like to start out my speech with a quote from Aristotle, “Nature does nothing uselessly.”
The negative team claims that we don’t need trees and that they are harmful. But as Aristotle said
everything has a purpose. We have trees because they are needed and because they are useful. We
should not squander this very important resource, which brings us food, oxygen, and the occasional
lesson on truthfulness and gravity. Unfortunately these resources are being squandered,

Page 13 of 28
This is from Professor G. I. Joseph, the Hasbro foundation, 2007

I recently published a study along with my colleague Professor Earnest Plum, in which I show that trees
are being under utilized in their primary function, which is sitting in the same spot for decades sometimes
even centuries at a time and then suddenly falling over for no good reason. Instead of being use for the
noble purpose that nature intended they are instead being cut down and used for Rocking chairs,
chopsticks and the wooden cigar store Indians in front of Applebee’s.

The negative team also claimed that trees are harmful and should be cut down, however cars are
also harmful and I would imagine responsible for far more death and destruction than trees, but no
one is considering banning cars, in fact the government is paying us back some of our own money
so we can spend it on new cars.

Also the piece of evidence that the negative team read about trees being dangerous is from a source
that is very biased

Paul Bunyan exaggerated the danger from trees in order to increase his business.

John E. Appleseed, Reporter at the Montana Times Piciune Herald Tribune Post Buglar, April 5, 2008

As I was researching a story for the special earth day addition of the Buglar I came across some
disturbing information. Paul Bunyan, the widely acclaimed author of the book Trees: the menacing
shadow over our world and journalist for the BBC news network, has not been completely honest with
his readers. Bunyan has grossly exaggerated the dangers posed to us by trees in several of the stories he
contributed to and in his recent book, to provide justification for the increased destruction of trees in
order to increase the profits from the lumberjack business he recently inherited from his Aunt.

The negative team addressed our second inherency by stating that we should deal with the top two
producers of carbon dioxide. But we cannot eradicate these producers because they are very
necessary to the well being of our country. We need power plants to ensure our computers and hair
dryers work, and if we didn’t have cows we wouldn’t be able to have hamburgers.

Page 14 of 28
Under their next point the negative team claimed that the government is being proactive about the
environment, and brought up the example of a postage stamp about the Mongoose tailed lemming
rat, however useful postage stamps may be at teaching some children their alphabet they hardly
represent a significant effort on the part of the government. And while the postage stamps may be
doing some very small good in the case of the Lemming Rat, in other parts of the country a lack of
trees has lead to an alarming decline in the population of cute furry creatures that tend to populate
animated Disney films.

Then Negative team then claimed that our plan was not necessary because the world will come to
an end in 2012. However the scientist who developed the theory is a few stones short of a pyramid if
you know what I mean. From;

Dr. Danny Jackson, Saint O’Neil mental Hospital, 31 February 2008.

We recently admitted a new patient Dr. Erstwhile Chapman, a once brilliant scientist who sadly had a
recent decline in his mental faculties. His family and friends began to have doubts when he began to
claim that the world would come to an end in 2012. He was finally admitted after he began raving that the
Pyrimids were built by aliens as landing pads for their spaceships. He has recently begun to claim that
Atlantis is actually a flying city from another planet. Why does he do this? Well, we put this question to
some of today’s leading psychologists and they gave us the following answer, ‘we think he’s pretty much
… Insane.”

Since it is quite obvious that we cannot reliably say that the world will come to an end in 2012, the
need for our plan still stands.

I will now move on to our advantages which the negative team has yet to address, and bring up an
additional advanyage to back up our case.

Laptops for debaters would decrease the weight of debate boxes

Brayan Brocks, NCFCA Debater, April 2009

Page 15 of 28
Debate boxes have always been heavy but this year is the worst. I have so much evidence this year that I
have to carry around three debate boxes so full of evidence that I didn’t have room for a pen. My family
was unable to pay for me to go to the Texas Open because of my cyropractic bills. If this league allowed
us to use laptops the debate experience would be much more enjoyable and my dream carrying around
only one debate box could be a reality.

So if this plan were in acted it would make life easier for debaters and it would also reduce their
healthcare costs.

So as we have shown, trees are necessary and are being destroyed, that the government is doing
next to nothing to preserve the environment, that limiting politicians is the best way to limit
Carbon Dioxide, that the world won’t end in 2012 and that Laptops would make debate easier I
urge you to pass our plan and make change possible.

Page 16 of 28
3rd CX

Neg: You said that trees are being underutilized in their primary role?

Aff: Our piece of evidence said that, yes.

Neg: Could you re-read the part of the evidence about the purpose of trees?

Aff: “Sitting in the same spot for decades sometimes centuries at a time and then suddenly falling over for
no good reason.”

Neg: So according to the piece of evidence trees often fall over, doesn’t that sound dangerous?

Aff: No more dangerous than my partner’s driving.

Neg: How reputable is the Montana Times Piciune Herald Tribune Post Bugler?

Aff: I’m sorry I didn’t quite catch that.

Neg: How reputable is the Montana Times Piciune Herald Tribune Post Bugler?

Aff: What do you mean by that?

Neg: Is the MTPHTPB as reputable as say the Washington Post, or is it on par with the national inquirer?

Aff: the MTP...what?

Page 17 of 28
Neg: The Montana Times Piciune Herald Tribune Post Bugler.

Aff: Oh…Yes it’s is very reputable.

Neg: Thank you no further questions.

Page 18 of 28
2NC

Since my partner addressed the first two parts of the affirmative teams plan in his/her Negative speech in
this speech I will address the solvency and advantages of the affirmative case, questioning whether their
plan will work and if it will be better that the status quo.

Their first point about their plan working is that if their plan is enacted less trees would be cut down,
however home school debaters are not the biggest user of paper.

The US government wastes tons and tons of paper each year.

Lester L. Liberalian, NBC News, July 2009

During the past year the US government has broken all of its previous records for the amount of paper
used. The total paper used by the federal government last year amounted to over 76.2 Million reams of
paper which is about 5.56 million trees. Congress was responsible for the most paper use due to the
having to provide multiple copies of thousand page bills to each of the 535 members of congress. The
second biggest reason for the increased paper use was due to the numerous memos from the secretary of
state inquiring about the possibility of recounts in the democratic primaries as well as the line of
presidential succession down to the secretary of state.

So since the Federal government is the biggest user of paper, even if the affirmative plan was
enacted millions of trees would still be cut down and they would have failed to stop the problems
they claim are happening.

Their next point was that Duct tape would stop the politicians from talking, however that also
won’t work.

Nothing can stop politicians from Talking

Dr. Robert Frankenstien, Chief Scientist at the ACME labritories, December 2008.

Page 19 of 28
We have conducted numerous experiments with both ordinary and experimental materials on several
senators and congressmen as well as former candidates for office and have not found anything that can
shut them up. It is incredible, if fact we hypothesize that a politician’s will to talk could be the greatest
renewable resource ever discovered. If only we could find a way to harness it.

Since months of laboratory research was unable to stop politicians from talking than how could
mere Duct Tape work. And if their plan won’t stop the politicians from talking than their second
advantage about increased congressional efficacy won’t happen either.

So as you can see from these two points their plan won’t solve the problems they claim are
happening and won’t bring about the advantages they claim. In addition to this there are also
several disadvantages to their plan.

The first is that the affirmative teams plan would cause the sun screen companies to go out of
business.

Carmen Sandiego, Economy Tomorrow, 2007

It is estimated that 176.53 million Americans use sun screen every day. But if the amount of shade were
increased by a significant amount, that number would drop dramatically, and this would drive out of
business the companies that rely on Americans fear of being burned and on the over protective mothers
that slather their kids with these products.

If the affirmative teams case creates the advantages they claim and increases the number of trees
enough to significantly reduce sun burn; all the companies that produce sun screen would go out of
business, and millions of people would lose their jobs. Judge, do you really want to vote for a case
that will strike a significant blow to economy when it is already in peril?

The second disadvantage I am going to mention is that the affirmative teams plan not only will not
increase congresses efficiency, it will in fact make home school students less efficient.

Jane Dopemheimer, home school mom, 2008

Page 20 of 28
I gave my teenage son a laptop computer for his 16th birthday in the hopes that he would learn to be more
responsible with his time, it had the opposite effect. Instead of doing his online classes like he is supposed
to do, every chance he gets, he goes on Facebook to chat with his friend and look at those little button
things with sayings on them. Since the laptop is portable it makes it almost impossible to monitor his
internet activities. With all the other children I have to teach, I don’t have time to constantly watch him,
as a result his school work has suffered and he is getting behind, it has taken him two years to finish
biology and at this rate he won’t finish algebra until his after he graduates.

As you can see it would be extremely harmful to enact the affirmative team’s plan, think what
would happen to our reputation as being extremely smart if a significant number of homeschoolers
weren’t able to get their school done?

So with all the evidence that the affirmative plan won’t solve for their harms and will, in fact,
create two significant disadvantages, I urge you not to enact the affirmative plan and save our
nation from disaster.

4th CX

Aff: In your piece of evidence about how nothing would stop politicians from talking, did the evidence
state what experiments were preformed?

Neg: No.

Aff: So it didn’t say whether or not they tested duct tape?

Page 21 of 28
Neg: No, but-

Aff: Thank you, moving on to my next question. Are you homeschooled?

Neg: Umm this is a homeschooled league so yes.

Aff: Under your points about laptops, you are saying that if your parents gave you a laptop you would
goof around on it and get no work done?

Neg: Umm..no.

Aff: Are you saying your partner would?

Neg: I don’ know what my partner would do.

Aff: Are you saying that the negative team would?

Neg: I don’t know what the Negative team would do. But our point was about the government giving out
laptops, and it’s common knowledge that government welfare makes people lazy.

Aff: Thank you. No further questions.

Page 22 of 28
1NR

This debate round has come down to three questions, is the affirmative case needed? Is it worth it? And,
will it work?

First, is it needed?

The affirmative team claims that their case is needed because trees are being cut down, and everything in
nature is needed. I just have one question to pose to the affirmative team, if everything in nature has is
absolutely essential, what is the purpose for mosquitoes? Seriously, what good do they do? But moving
on to the reasons that the affirmative claim trees are necessary; people say trees are good because they
provide shade, oxygen and food. But shade can be provided by other things, such as houses, awnings and
incredibly large people; oxygen is produced by many different plants in fact the greatest producer of
oxygen is phyto plankton, so we can survive perfectly fine without a few trees; and the tree that produce
fruit aren’t the ones that are cut down and made into paper, so our oranges are perfectly safe. As you can
see, it is not necessary for us to significantly reduce our tree consumption because trees are not absolutely
necessary. Also, the affirmative team never addressed our evidence that there are plenty of trees, so that
argument flows negative and trees are clearly not in any danger of becoming extinct.

The second issue that falls under whether or not the affirmative case is needed is the fact that the
affirmative team is not addressing the top two producers of CO2, and we don’t have to completely get rid
of the power plants or cows to deal with this, there are ways to make them cleaner, and we should do
those things before we try and address something that isn’t nearly as important. If your house was falling
apart you wouldn’t wash the floor before you ensured the wall and ceiling were okay.

The Second question I would pose to you Judge, is the affirmative case worth it? The answer is no.

Page 23 of 28
Apart from the government’s work in saving the mongoose tailed lemming rat, which the affirmative
team doesn’t seem to feel is enough, the government is doing a lot more to help the environment. I have a
list here from WhiteHouse.gov stating all of the programs that the federal government started in 2007 to
improve the environment. The first program was after school activities that teach kids how to turn their
garbage into meaningful pieces of art, they also have subsidies for waterless farming, research into using
broccoli and other common vegetables to make into paper instead of trees and tax breaks for
biodegradable coffin companies, and these are just a few of the 127 programs listed.

Judge is it worth it to enact a plan that not only isn’t need, but will, as my partner stated, significantly
harm the sunscreen companies, and be detrimental to our children’s schooling?

Finally, will it work?

My partner has read evidence proving that trees will continue to be cut down because the federal
government, who uses more trees that NCFCA debate, will still continue to use enormous amounts of
paper, and politicians will still be able to talk, since nothing can shut them up.

So since the affirmative plan isn’t needed, isn’t worth it and won’t even work. I urge you Judge not to
enact their plan, and keep things the way they are

1AR

In their last speech the negative team asked three question, is our case needed? Is it worth it? And, will it
work? In this speech I will prove that the answer to all those questions is yes.

The negative teams arguments concerning whether or not our plan was needed were, that trees aren’t
necessary, and that we aren’t addressing the top two CO2 producers. But trees are necessary, for all the
reasons we have shown before. Also, just because some other things can do the same stuff as trees does
not mean we should not try to save this resource. After all, a computer can do roughly the same things as
our brain, but no one is suggesting that we run our minds on windows. As to the issue of our not doing
anything about the top producers of CO2, just because there more significant producers does not mean we
shouldn’t deal with the politicians. We don’t wait to provide for our homeless and hungry in the U.S. until
all the other countries in the world with more starving people are taken care of.

Page 24 of 28
Next the negative team claimed our case wasn’t worth it because we would create two disadvantages. The
first one was that we would put the sunscreen companies out of business. But,

Nothing will stop over protective mothers from slathering their kids with sunscreen

Trotting Poll, 2008

10% of mothers stated that they would stop putting sunscreen on their children if it were a cloudy day.
30% state that they would only stop if it were night. 60% of mothers stated that the only way they would
allow their children to go outside without sunscreen were if the sun had collapsed into a black hole.

As you can see over protective mothers, the ones who provide most of the business for sunscreen
companies, will still continue to slather their kids with sunscreen, even if there are more trees.

As to their second disadvantage that home school children would get distracted by their computers; they
only read one example, and since people are all different, they can’t prove our case will have wide spread
consequences. Also, the negative team never addressed our advantage about decreased weight for debate
boxes, which is just another reason our plan is worth it.

Finally, the negative team tried to claim that our plan wouldn’t work because; the federal government still
uses a lot of paper, and it is impossible to shut politicians up. But according to Whitehouse.gov the
government recently started cutting down on paper by having electronic copies of bills available and
sending memos by email. Plus the negative team has never refuted that our plan would succeed in saving
the 1.7 million trees that are sacrificed for debate. Regarding the argument by the negative team that our
plan would fail to stop politicians from talking, I would like to point out that the evidence never
mentioned anything about testing the effectiveness of duct tape, where as I read evidence in our 1AC that
duct tape works on politicians.

So, since our plan is needed, is worth it and does work. I urge you to enact our plan, and help to improve
our environment.

2NR

In this final negative speech I intend to refute the affirmative team’s arguments, and show once and for all
the affirmative case is not needed, isn’t worth it and won’t work.

Page 25 of 28
The affirmative team continues to claim that trees are needed. But we have shown over and over again
that trees are harmful and that there is no shortage of trees. Also, we need to deal with the more
significant producers of CO2 before we deal with the politicians. Plus the government is already doing a
ton of stuff to help the environment, as my partner has already shown. So why do we need to enact the
affirmative case when the problems that the affirmative team mentioned do not exist, and the government
is already working to improve areas where there is a problems?

Affirmative team also claimed that their plan was worth it because the disadvantages we read wouldn’t
come to pass. However I have a piece of evidence here from Walter Cheeseman, MSNBC, 2006 that says,

Sunscreen sales to overprotective mothers make up only 30% of the net total sales by sunscreen
companies. 60% are made up of sales to hypochondriacs and people deathly allergic to the sun. The final
10% are made up of sales to normal people.

So as you can see, overprotective mothers are not the only ones who buy sunscreen. So the
companies will still fail even if the mothers continue to buy sunscreen.

Also, there is still the danger that giving debaters laptops would harm their ability to do their school.

Finally, the issues with the affirmative team’s solvency. First, the affirmative team has read no evidence
that the steps the federal government is taking to reduce the amount of paper is actually working. How do
they expect to save the trees, that they claim we so desperately need, if 5 million trees are being used by
the government? They cannot solve the problem of losing trees if trees continue to be cut down. The
affirmative team also claimed that because the piece of evidence we read about not being able to silence
politicians didn’t specifically mention duct tape that it must still work. But these people are scientist who
have been researching this issue for many years, so they would know more about silencing politicians
than the affirmative team (unless of course the affirmative team has been doing some experiment on
politicians I didn’t know about.) If the experts say nothing will work, then nothing will work.

Page 26 of 28
2AR

This is the final affirmative speech, and I hope to convince you that our plan is the best solution to the
problems in the status quo.

First, the negative team continues to claim that trees are not needed, and that they not in danger. But we
have read evidence that shows that this wonderful resource is being squandered. Judge, by enacting our
plan you would ensure that there was one less thing consuming the trees of our country. Regarding the
argument that there are more significant producers of CO2 than politicians, as we said before, other
people are dealing with those problems, and we are addressing an issue that is not being addressed and
probably never will be. After all, can you imagine a politician ever proposing to limit his own words? The
affirmative team has stated that the government is already doing stuff to help the environment. But the
problems we mentioned in our 1ac are not being addressed. So I urge you Judge, to address them.

Moving on to the disadvantages that the negative team has brought up; they claim that Sunscreen
consumption would still go down because hypochondriacs and people deathly allergic to the sun would
not buy it. Let’s think about that for a moment shall we. Hypochondriacs would use sunscreen because
they are afraid of the sun’s rays, a fear that wouldn’t be diminished simply because there are a few trees
between them and the sun. Whereas people who are deathly allergic to the sun would still use it because
they are still allergic. So I don’t see how the industry is in a great deal of danger. The second
disadvantage deals with the dangers posed by laptops. I would like to reiterate the point my partner made,
a point that was never addressed by the negative team, the example they gave was of only one person, and
they haven’t proved that it isn’t specific to that one person.

Finally, the arguments the negative team had against our solvency. The first argument against our
solvency was that we wouldn’t save the 5 million trees the government uses each year. Well that is not
our point. Our point is to stop the trees that are being wasted because of debate, and making debate better
in the process. We are doing that. By giving them laptops we reducing the amount of stuff they have to
carry around, and believe me, those boxes get pretty heavy and we are reducing the chances of losing that
key piece of evidence before a debate round. On to the point of Duct Tape, in our first speech we read
that President Obama has used duck tape in the past to silence politicians. So, can we assume it will
work? Yes it can! As just to back up that point I have the fallowing piece of evidence.

Duct Tape will work on anything

Red Green, Possum lodge President, Possim Lake Gazett, June 2009

Over the course of my career I have found a solution to all problems faced by mankind; the handyman’s
secret weapon: Duct Tape. In the past I have used it to Tape two cars together, to put tractor tires on a
1990 Honda, and to mend the San Andréa’s fault. But by far the most useful use for duct tape is to shut up
Herald when he doesn’t stop talking.

Page 27 of 28
As you can see we not only have the example that was read in the 1ac about how well duct tape
works, we also have this piece of evidence, and both of them are specific to the effects of duct tape,
whereas the evidence the negative team’s evidence was very vague and never even mentioned duct
tape.

Since our case solves the harms and makes things better for everyone. Judge, I am asking you to pass our
plan by voting affirmative at the end of this debate round.

Page 28 of 28