1

2AR - In The End – Linkin Park

T, Ks, Condi, and Voters.

1941 words
 2

There were a lot of claims of drops in the last speech; all of these points were
absorbed/grouped into other points (aka lump and dump). I did not have a little letter by
each of the responses, but you can draw little arrows into the points if that makes you feel
better.
 3

Topicality - Standards

I. Common Man/Brightline. His only point is that I “dropped” brightline is fxt, but he
misunderstands my argument completely. How do we determine fxt? He is arbitrarily
determining my case is fxt because of his brightline standard. His brightline is artificial.
Cross-apply my 1AR/2AC analysis. Prefer the common man understanding of
definitions.
 4

T- Policy
II. Violation

There is not one reason to accept his double-bind. I gave you simple analysis. Policy is a
plan of action. Regulations are policy. The Lacey Act is reformed with our case. The
Lacey Act is policy. Period. He never refuted this. This debate is over because I am the
only one with reasons to prefer my interpretation.

II. Voters

A. “No case is Topical” is abusive. His responses (both points) assume that I have at
least one case to run. I don’t under his interpretation. Therefore, they are invalid. This is
not new; it is merely clarification of my previous arguments.

B. His “how to be T” is non-existent. He claims it’s there, but I’m not seeing it because
it doesn’t exist.

C. Uh, no ground is, like, destroyed ground… I’m not sure why he thinks my 1ar
arguments are new. (Besides it was an A/T his 2nc double bind soooo…)

III. In The End. He has no standard, no reason to accept his brightline analysis, no
access to his impacts, and he destroys the resolution (all of it.)
 5

K – Invasive Species

I. No Link

1. Goldstein and my discourse. (This is 2ac/2nc point 1 and point 2 in one.)

a) Tain’t new. (See my A. Point in the 2AC.) If Goldstein is saying X, and I’m saying
Y… I don’t link. Simple.

b) I’m saying the indictment Goldstein is putting forth is not related to what I am doing.
(aka my advocacy.)

c) Walk aways. The term “invasive species” is not the problem. The problem is the
rhetoric some people use with the term. That’s what I’m saying, that’s what Goldstein is
saying. Read the evidence. Not what Malson read into it.

2. GBA

a) Show me the money. Show me where I advocate/use language that supports

ecological purity and I will turn myself in. I don’t.

II. No impact

I don’t look through the “racial/ecological purity” lens. (see above and my three impacts
in the 2AC.) This case/my language has nothing to do with Nazi Germany’s
policies/rhetoric. This has been a nice tango but it is time to throw this impact in the
dumpster.

III. Alternative

a) no alt = no K. If he doesn’t have an alternative phrase then why is he debating this? It

is like saying democracy is bad. Sure its got problems, but it beats the other systems of
government. It is not a reason to reject democracy.

b) If its not his job, then it’s not an issue. Seriously, so he hates the phrase invasive
species. If you can’t provide an alternative, then you can forget the K completely. Even if
he won the previous two points, he looses the K right here.

IV. In The End. Association ain’t good enough, Germany’s glasses need cleaning – but
mine don’t, and his argument internally collapses because he’s got nothing better.
 6

Representation K

Really the only relevant point right now is the Link.

I. No Link

A. Diner doesn’t advocate. Seriously, look at my 1ar analysis. Completely ignored. This is
relevant because his representation is merely fact telling not political scare tactics. My case has
nothing to do with human extinction. A fact that has been completely ignored. But this point is
really irrelevant anyway because of…

B. Literature mis-quote (This addresses his link card and my 2ac C. Point. BTW). There
is a little misunderstanding here. The quote I pulled in my 1ar was his link card. His
argument is based on his literature. His literature has nothing to do with my case, or my
advocacy. Are invasive species a problem? Yes. Why? See my three 2AC impacts.
(These were 2AC arguments that he dropped in the block. They are not new.) That
has nothing to do with “OMG the world is going to collapse if we do x in y forest!.” The
whole point that Doremus is making in his article is that preservationism horror stories
cause all of those bad, bad, bad “case turns.” In other words, the reason the horror story is
bad is because it is used to justify “hands off nature completely” policies. This is not
what I am saying. Chuck this argument. (BTW this is also a cross-apply to alt and impact
arguments.)

II. In The End. Read the evidence. Not what Malson read into it. It doesn’t indict my
language at all.
 7

Condi/Contradictions

I. Clarification. All of his 2NC “condi good” points assume that it he has the option of
SQ v. CP. Not SQ v. CP 1 v. CP 2. It is the difference between “I am deciding between
car insurance and no car insurance” and “I want two different car insurance policies at the
same time.” I ain’t smokin’ weed.

II. Impacts.

A. Game Changer.

a) That’s absurd. (See I can do it too.) The difference is being for something and being
against something. It is like being against coal plants versus being for nuclear plants.
When I am against coal the burden is on the coal industry to prove that coal is good.
When I am for nuclear (because coal is bad) it is my burden to show that nuclear is better
than coal. France can’t duck out of nuclear power because someone hammered their
safety record. It is sort of hard to go 80-0 in 5 with a nuclear power sector. It is really
hard to take chemicals out of a reaction. It is impossible to take advocacy out of a debate
round.

b) It’s as new as Moses. See my advocacy impact in the 2AC, and it is obviously a
response to his block points so…

c) What this means. He has dropped all my analysis on this point since the 2AC.
Meaning I should win this point which means I should win this argument anyway.

B. What we say.

a) He’s missing the point. All four of his responses hinged on the idea that CP’s are the
same as any other argument. They are not.

b) No weight to our words

i] It’s a great argument. Talk to an English professor or a logician. Seriously, why are we
even talking?
ii] It is about as new as your negative block… oh wait.

c) Ahhh, no. I cannot be for guns and against guns at the same time. Likewise you cannot
advocate one thing and the exact opposite in round. (Remember that K framework? “In
round advocacy matters.”)

C. Multiple worlds.

a) Ahhh no. Defendants won’t change pleas after they submit it to the court. Scientists
will not change their thesis mid-paper. [the politicians part was a joke ;) ] It is like I am
telling you to take out the trash and wash the car at the same time.
 8

D. Perms (This takes on his A-sub-3, B-sub-4, C-sub-1, and D)

1) No. no. no. Perms do not check all CP’s, they check non-competitive ones. Your CPs
were competitive. I can’t check abuse. (Competitive CPs cannot be permed with any
“kind” of perm.)

2) My point is I really don’t get multiple worlds like he claims.

3) Throw out all his perm arguments because they don’t match theory.

E. Reject His advocacy not him.

a) “[cards] do[]n't matter foo debate me.” Couldn’t resist. I’m not saying reject him. I’m
saying you should reject his contradictory advocacy.
b) Is that a concession? Well since you lost your T and Ks arguments…

F. All is condi.

a) see my A point for why the T drop is different then the CP kick.
b) Says who?
c) My point is made. Conditionality is not reciprocal. ;)

G. Err on neg.

1. All five points are irrelevant because they are all reciprocated back to you.
2. Point is you had “infinite prep time” to prepare those Ks even if you got them from
someone else.
3. We agree on something.
4. Coming from the guy who has taken me up and down the flow without a single
argument on my case that is ironic.
5. Ask a C-X question about conditionality in the first C-X, it is not that hard.
6. Erring on neg. doesn’t outweigh my voter.

H. A/T He doesn’t get Voter.

a) Hey don’t blame me. You’re the one who overloaded on condi responses.
b) I’m sorry, did the judge cast his/her ballot while I wasn’t looking? Don’t count your
chickens before there are eggs.

I. A/T “He drops G-J”

a) I must say it again; all of this is irrelevant because your advocacy changes when you
run a CP. It is no longer just a test of the aff case, but a defense of your idea. That all
applies to standard arguments.
b) Voter outweighs.
 9

III. In The End. Really this all boils down to should we allow logical contradictions. I
realize he kicked both his CPs, but that still does not excuse his advocacy. Can I advocate
both A and not A at the same time? Can I support something and then support the exact
opposite at the same time? Can I contradict myself as long as I eventually correct it? The
answer to all of these is a resounding no. This is about Logic and rhetorical consistency.
 10

In The End (Voters)

1) The Only Solution Is To Vote Aff.

He has dropped every single argument that is related to the 1AC. What does that mean? If
you vote negative you get harmed ecosystems across every State. You get those three
2AC impacts. You continue to spend $123 billion on a problem that can easily be
remedied. You continue the broken, decaying system. So because the entire 1AC has
been completely dropped – so much for “defining the playing field.” – Vote aff.

2) Logical Contradictions Are Enough To Reject Negative Advocacy.

I won’t beat a dead horse my remaking this argument but I do have a little bit to say
about weighing this. Contrary to what he claims this point outweighs everything he has
brought up. Because if you can advocate a logical contradiction, then none of our
arguments matter. Not Topicality, not Ks, not CPs, not any on-case point. Logic is the
foundation of this debate, you undermine that and we have nothing to argue with or
about. Vote aff.

3) I Have Cool Music.

All of my speech have titles with cool music. He doesn’t have any Titles on his speech
whatsoever. So vote aff. on style. ;)

4) I Have a Cool Closer.

Dr. Lodge said in 2009:

“It is neither fair nor economically rational to allow importers of harmful alien species to
reap profits while others suffer disease or damage or are left to pay to control the
imported species that spread and cause harm. We do not allow drugs to come to market
or chemicals to enter the industrial pipeline without screening for harmful side effects.
Why should we accept analogous risks from alien species when an alternative policy of
screening would bring both financial rewards and large environmental benefits? ”

Vote aff.

~ Schow over and out.