THUNDERCATS

ARE
GOOOOOOOOO!!!
(1NR)
Topicality
First, let's note: He concedes that T is a voter, and that our interpretation is best. Great.

1.)He misunderstands our interpretation; a policy in the system must be abolished. He concedes that
he doesn't do that. (Look at the second sentence under point A from the 1NC T-press. Jinkies!)
2.)He doesn't even meet his own interpretation- nowhere in his plan does he amend the Clean Air
Act. He doesn't get rid of the loophole in the law that he's referencing!
3.)We contend that loopholes aren't inherently abusive, but just idiosyncrasies in law and therefore
don't fit the definition of malpractice.
O-Spec
He might not be responding to this, BUT I AM!

First, another overview: He concedes that overspecification is bad and is an a priori voter for abuse
and also guts his solvency. Let's look at his arguments.

1.)AT: Hypocrisy: In c-x, he said he was familiar with pre-emption. That's what this is. I ran the O-
spec as a gun to his head in case he tried to run theory on the funding hijack CP, and in case I needed to
kick the counterplan. (I'm allowed to do that, by the way- I declared conditionality in the 1NC and he
never challenged it, which means if he runs Condo-Bad in the rebuttals, you disregard it because it's a
new argument.) It's not hypocrisy, it's strategy.
2.)Regains ground: Judge, right now the only check on us accessing the impacts of the O-spec is the
fact that we regain the ground we lost because we can claim competition on the counterplan from it.
This is what's keeping the round fair- for now. If he goes for the “funding hijack bad” argument
(Counterplan response 3) in the 1AR, that means that the round is skewed again and we access 100% of
the conceded impacts on the O-spec- which means that he loses.
3.)We kick, we win: Judge, remember, if we kick the counterplan at any point in the round, we
basically instantly win on the O-spec impacts, because his only response will be history, allowing us to
access 100% of the unanswered impacts.
On-case
1.)Quantification of water- His card fails to respond to our fundamental argument. Sure, 63 cities
across America have contaminated water. Zippedy-doo-dah! Now how many people have actually been
hurt by it? He doesn't know, and neither does anybody else. All he's winning is a crazy-vague
undebatable “COAL ASH IS BADDDDDD YOU GUYYYYYYYZ” impact, which is straight-up not
enough.
2.)Not going for the MPC's.
3.)Enforcement- He says that the EPA's “slapping you with a hefty fine” will solve, but (A.) there was
absolutely ZERO mention of this in the 1AC, so you shouldn't count it, and (B.) there was zero
evidence or warrant presented for why this would solve. We don't have anybody but him saying the
fines will work. The blue book might be full of cases about how bad the EPA is, but guess what? I don't
have the Blue Book, and you didn't read the cards. Judge, don't count his claim for solvency because he
phailed at supporting his allegation.
4.)Existing vs. Future- He claims that the EPA did a study on this and it totally was awesome and
supported his plan I mean like wow, but he fails to actually read from the study. Discount this until he
does.
5.)Agency- He says the DOE does the retrofits, but (A.) this was NOWHERE in the plan text, and (B.)
his answer assumes infallibility on the part of his plan writing. He says “if the lit supports the DOE
doing the retrofits then OBVIOUSLY that's what we're doing.” Under this standard, anybody could get
away with just writing mad vague plan texts and assimilating the neg's evidence and claiming that's
what they meant all along. Don't let him do that, throw out this answer. The impact is that this guts his
solvency- no agency, no plan.
Hemp = cheapness!
Jack Herer, author and two time Presidential candidate, 1999, The Emperor Wears no Clothes,
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/Jack_Herer_-
_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes_%5BHow_Hemp_Can_Save_The_World%5D.en.pdf

In the early 1900s, Henry Ford and other futuristic, organic, engineering geniuses recognized (as their intellectual, scientific
heirs still do today) an important point - that up to 90 percent of all fossil fuel used inthe world today (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.)
should long ago have been replaced with biomass such as: cornstalks, cannabis, waste paper and the like. Biomass can be
converted to methane, methanol or gasoline at a fraction of the current cost of oil, coal, or nuclear
energy - especially when environmental costs are factored in - and its mandated use would end acid rain, end sulfurbased smog,
and reverse the Greenhouse Effect on our planet - right now!* * Government and oil and coal companies, etc., will insist that burning
biomass fuels is no better than using up our fossil fuel reserves, as far as pollution goes; but this is patently untrue. Why? Because,
unlike fossil fuels, biomass comes from living (not extinct) plants that continue to remove carbon dioxide pollution from our
atmosphere as they grow, through photosynthesis. Furthermore, biomass fuels do not contain sulfur. This can be accomplished if
hemp is grown for biomass and then converted through pyrolysis (charcoalizing) or biochemical composting into fuels to replace
fossil fuel energy products.* * Remarkably, when considered on a planet-wide, climatewide, soil-wide basis, cannabis is at
least four and possibly many more times richer in sustainable, renewable biomass/cellulose
potential than its nearest rivals on the planet - cornstalks, sugarcane, kenaf trees, ect.
K clarification
The K argument has gotten pretty muddled, so I'm going to clear it up.

1.)He misunderstands the link. We never claim that he doesn't care about the environment. The point
is that what ecological conscience he has is shallow, because- as he has admitted and maintained time
and again- if it comes down to humans vs. ecology, he will choose humans. He says this blatantly in the
2AC, under link response 1. This is the DEFINITION of an anthropocentric viewpoint, and it is the
definition of shallow ecology and a perfect link to the K. He claims it is “surely not unreasonable”, but
I say it is when the impact story of the K (shallow ecology → ecological holocaust and humanity's self-
destruction) has gone 100% cold-conceded.
2.)His link 2 answers don't respond. Even if the plan isn't exactly the same as the one described in the
1NC, he still reflects exactly the same mindset, which is what the K is all about.
3.)He treats it like a disad. In link responses 2 and 4, he talks about the effects of the plan. That's not
the point of the K. The point is that his MINDSET is bad. We wouldn't have a problem with the effects
of the plan, if it didn't have the shallow ecological mindset. Don't bring post-fiat affects into pre-fiat
issues.
Theory- No New After the Block
A.) New1AR answers are baaaaaaaaaaaaaad juju, because they skew the entire block strategy by
allowing him to make new responses that undermine our old ones.

B.) If he tries that, you should do two things:

1.)Vote him down. Attempting to skew the round like that is inherently abusive and warrants a neg
ballot.
2.)Disregard the answer. If the answer is brand new, just don't count it in your analysis.
Underview- why we win.
Judge, this debate is functionally over. He crows a lot about how we don't debate the merits of his
“epic uber-pwning chuck norris lol” case, but we don't have to, because...

1.)We control a priori. Judge, there are three issues in the round that he has cold-conceded operate on
a higher level than the plan- the O-spec, the K, and the T. He has attempted to leverage zer0 offense
off of any of these, he just tries to link out (even though he links). His only offense is on-case. If we
win any of these three, we win the round.
2.)We control the case. On the counterplan level, he hasn't permed the counterplan., said hemp was
bad, or contested that solving coal solves the case. His only claim on the counterplan that matters at all
is claiming that it can't replace coal. It clearly can. We have all the evidence and all the warrants on this
question, so we hold all the cards on-case..
3.)O-spec guarantees victory. Our O-spec scenario guarantees that if I say “we kick the counterplan”,
the neg wins instantly, no matter what else he wins. BOOMHEADSHOT!