Round overview

He makes MASSIVE drops in the 1AR, and those are going to

give us the round. His responses barely even count because he
cold concedes almost all of our analysis under every point. In the
end, you should vote neg on the K and the O-Spec, even though
we still win the case debate and he makes new answers which are
all independent voters.
Kritik
Judge, he still doesn't understand the link, either that, or he understands it and is just losing the
argument. Doesn't matter, he still loses the round right here. The arguments that he drops are the
final nail in his coffin.

Let's look at what he's dropped: He cold drops the analysis that his criterion, which is what he
wanted to weigh the entire round on, was all about humans. He concedes that he would ALWAYS
choose humans over nature without hesitation. He concedes that he thinks that man is the most
important. His drops alone are more than enough to link him into the kritik- he inherently values
man more than nature. As such, any ecology that he has only applies as long as there's no conflict.
That's not deep ecology. That's shallow ecology. You're going to vote him down for this.

All of his “clarifications” in the 1AR totally don't respond. He CLEARLY links to the K, but he just
hems and haws and tap-dances around the real issue. Let's clear this out.

He admits that when there's a choice, he'll save the human, every single time. He says that when the
choice is necessary, he would choose humans, every time. He claims over and over again that mankind
is what's most important. Guess what? That's his assumption. Kritiks are supposed to challenge those
assumptions. He inherently values humans more than nature. Guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE K IS ABOUT. When it doesn't affect the well-being of his species, the forests are all fine
and dandy. But as soon as the opportunity comes up, whoops! Bye-bye, Hundred Acre Woods!
Hellooooo, SHOPPING CENTER!

Just because he claims to care about the environment doesn't mean that he doesn't link to shallow
ecology. If he says “oh, but I care about the environment!” You shouldn't listen to him, because that's
not the point. Caring about the environment is awesome. But he's clearly shallowly ecological AND
anthropocentric, valuing humans inherently, always, 100% above nature. Under a deep ecological
framework, you would value them both equally. He doesn't do that, and he admits this over and over
again. He loses the debate, because his mindset causes not only an ecological holocaust, but the
destruction of man himself.

We don't link.
1.) I did say that I would save the human, but as I said, that decision was arbitrary, just because I
had to choose one, I chose the human at random. Do it again, and there's an equal chance I
would side with nature. He chose the human because he values the human more.
2.) He concedes that the alternative presented in the 1NC solves. Great. That means if you vote
negative, it doesn't matter if we link in, because enacting the alternative will solve that. Pwned.
3.) New argument. Throw it out and vote him down for it.
Counterplan

WE'RE KICKING IT!

That's right, Judge. We're not going for the Counterplan. All of
his points on the counterplan and all of our points on the
counterplan are null and void.

We are within our rights to do this. We said in the 1NC that the
counterplan was conditional, which means that we can kick it at
any time that we want for any reason. He didn't run
conditionality-bad, so if he runs it in the 2AR, you should vote
him down for abuse.

He loses on the O-spec.

O-Spec
His answers on the flow look like the Detroit Lion's record last year. Let's look at what he concedes:
1.) He concedes that he over-specifies. He never contested this, extend it. 2.) Extend the conceded 1NC
reason B why he loses. At this point I'm winning that he has zero solvency for the plan because of
his extratopical funding. He never addresses this, which means you should INSTANTLY vote neg
right now. I'm not going to address the “merits of the plan” WHEN THERE AREN'T ANY. 3.) He
concedes that if we kick the counterplan, we win. Fannnnn-TASTIC. We kicked the counterplan. That
means we win, because we access both impacts of the O-spec, which he never responded to.

Let's go to his responses:

1.) Hypocrisy- Not only did he never impact this even once, besides “loss of credibility” (which
means nothing), but guess what? We kicked the counterplan. No hypocrisy. He claims that he
never ran theory on the funding hijack, but that's completely untrue. He said that the funding
hijack was “false competition” and was a reason for you to reject the counterplan. That's theory.
We have fulfilled BOTH conditions for us winning the O-spec- we kicked the counterplan,
AND he ran theory.
2.) Ground loss- I honestly cannot believe that he STILL doesn't understand our argument! Look.
The only way that he can claim the O-spec as a wash would be if he had allowed us to hijack
his funding without complaining about it. We would have both lost and gained the same amount
of ground. But since we kicked the CP, we no longer take his ground, so this answer goes away.

He loses the debate right here and right now. There is literally no
answer he can make that will dig him out of this hole. He steals
our ground by over-specification. He concedes that is bad. His
only answer to the O-spec has gone away, because we kicked the
counterplan. You should pull through all of our analysis, because
he pretty much conceded it anyway. If you don't count the kick,
though, we still win the CP.
Counterplan- He loses the case debate.
1.) Solvency- He loses the debate right here. We solve the case.

A.) Can vs. will- He gets the context of the card wrong- that sentence that says that hemp can replace
all fossil fuels doesn't come with that qualifier. He wasn't speaking in purely energy terms, he was
talking holistically.
B.) Canada- Judge, he FINALLY brings up an example where hemp hasn't worked, but the warrant of
Canada's failure is 100% new in the 1AR, which means you throw it out AND VOTE HIM DOWN, AS
HE CONCEDES. But even so, the example fails because guess what? CANADA DOESN'T
SUBSIDIZE IT. THE COUNTERPLAN DOES. THIS POINT FAILS.
C.)Cheaper- Judge, he's grasping at straws. The 1NR card says that biomass can produce energy for- a
FRACTION of the cost of coal or oil, and that cannabis (which is hemp) is at least four times better
than any of its rivals! HE COMPLETELY DROPS OUR EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT, WHICH
MEANS HE LOSES. The card explicitly says that biomass is cheaper than coal. Our counterplan
cuts all ethanol subsidies and all of his mysterious “special interest grants” and then subsidizes hemp
energy, which cuts the cost even more. This means that coal companies will either switch to hemp, or
be buried alive by the free market. That means we solve the case.

2.) Exclusivity- This is an argument that has absolutely ZERO impact, but I'll answer it anyways.

A.) NO IMPACT- Listen. HE MAKES NO ARTICULATION OF WHY THE PLAN AND THE
COUNTERPLAN SHOULD COEXIST. He never gives ANY impact AT ALL as to why a “non-
exclusive” counterplan is bad. “It doesn't disprove our plan” means absolutely nothing. If he's trying to
say that both the plan and the counterplan should exist, then guess what? That's a perm. A perm that
you should reject based on our analysis in the block.
B.) Drops- He drops ALL of our block analysis on this point, including the most crucial one- ONLY
THE PLANS IN THE ROUND MATTER. Extend that point. Only the plan and the counterplan that
have been presented in this round should be compared. If, in some theoretical round, somebody ran our
counterplan without the same funding as his plan, it probably wouldn't be competitive, but that doesn't
matter, because that's not this round. He made the choice to specify funding. He made the noose, I
just hung him with it.

Voting neg gets you all the aff's advantages, multiplied over, plus a whole bunch more. Cross-
apply the conceded case defense on the on-case arguments, and this round is over.