Jordan Bakke 1 of 7

Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

Topicality on “significantly reform”.....................................................................................................2

Interpretation.........................................................................................................................................................................2
Violation..................................................................................................................................................................................2
Topicality on “environmental policy”...................................................................................................3
Capitalism................................................................................................................................................4
Sharkfin links.........................................................................................................................................................................4
Mindsets................................................................................................................................................................................4
His case links........................................................................................................................................................................4
I don’t link..............................................................................................................................................................................5
Uranium...................................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................7
Jordan Bakke 2 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

TOPICALITY ON “SIGNIFICANTLY REFORM”

Interpretation
This definition has nothing to do with that of “environmental policy.”
I didn’t conclude that Sharkfin takes out the phrase “environmental policy.” I think he referred to my
statement that he only meets one plank of his definition. The point of my statement is that his
definition of “reform” has two parts – “put into a better form” and/or “put into a better condition,” and
that he only requires his plan to meet the second part, whereas I require it to meet both. With this in
mind, read his 1AR again and see that his only argument about why his definition is good is that it
doesn’t remove the word “environmental.” Mine doesn’t remove that word either, so the only contrast
between interpretations that exists in the rebuttals is that mine weeds out squirrels that his
interpretation fosters. He cold conceded this, along with my arguments that you should use the
interpretation that’s better for debate. Therefore, use my definition. Before voting affirmative, think of
all those impossible-to-research cases you’d encourage.

Violation
Indeed, it’s boiled down to “does Sharkfin change how environmental policy works?” For the sake of
argument, let’s assume for a moment that nuclear loan guarantees are environmental policy (even
though they’re not.) So...
He enables the process of giving out loan guarantees to be used, but he doesn’t change what that
process is.
WOW. His “Impact2” is just like my gas tank analogy. He implies that by his understanding of how I
define “reform,” you can reform a computer by turning it on. Since the violation is where he argues
that he meets my definition, he’s basically saying, “my plan changes how environmental policy works
in the same way that flipping the switch of a computer changes how the computer works.” Never has
the distinction between changing condition and restructuring how something works been clearer. To
reform the computer, you could change how it works by installing a different power supply unit. To
change its condition from “off” to “on,” you flip the switch. This analogy stands for me even if he tries
to drop it in the 2AR.
Or consider a software application. You change how it works by editing lines of source code and
recompiling; you change the condition of an instance of it by inputting commands to change variables
in memory. Metaphorically, Sharkfin runs the loan guarantee program, but doesn’t change the program
itself.
Apply this to his plan. The process he’s focusing on is that of giving out loan guarantees. He changes
the condition from “not being given out” to “being given out.” He doesn’t change what happens when
the government gives a loan guarantee. He should hope that the process is not reformed, because if it
is, then that would destroy his solvency. Marilyn Kray in the 1AC solvency evidence was talking about
loan guarantees as they work now, not about how they would work after an affirmative team reforms
them.
Again, before voting affirmative, think of the ground you’d skew and the research you’d kill by
encouraging non-topicality.
Jordan Bakke 3 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

TOPICALITY ON “ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY”

I’d get to it if I had more words to spend. :-/
Jordan Bakke 4 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

CAPITALISM
Sharkfin links
Mindsets
He says that because I couldn’t read his mind when he wrote his case, I can’t prove that he links to my
criticism of capitalism. He’s missing the point, which is:
By voting affirmative, you’d encourage capitalism.
He can’t dodge my kritik by saying that I don’t know what went on in his head when he wrote the case.
What matters is what happens if you as the judges vote affirmative. If you do, then you make a
statement that the environmental strategy for which Sharkfin argues is worthy of support. You can’t
do this, since we’ve agreed that you shouldn’t vote for someone who presents a bad philosophy in
the round.
His case links
He’s playing games with definitions. His only way to challenge my criticisms of promoting greed,
commoditization of nature, and squandering of the earth is to redefine “capitalism” and “communism.”
Again, he sidesteps the main point of my argument. The problem with his case, which stands through
the round as cold conceded by Sharkfin, is:
His case as a whole (including the plan) advocates destructive principles, namely competition for
capital.
It matters not whether you call it “capitalism or “communism.” The principles are still the same. I
quote my 2NC exactly: “The entire conception of capital is what I’m advocating a revolution against”.
The conception of capital, and competition for it, is what he supports. Sure, he involves the
government, but refer to my third argument (which he conceded, go figure) under “Sharkfin links” in
the 2NC about his strategy of using capital to promote environmental technology leading to the
squandering and destruction of nature. Call it capitalism or call it communism, when you vote
affirmative, you encourage a destructive real-life strategy and mindset that simply makes humans more
powerful destroyers of nature.
In the end, the most important argument under the kritik is that he promotes competitive enterprise (by
encouraging banks to lend their own money so nuclear companies can make their own profits, more
untouched details), which buttresses consumerism (untouched since the 1NC), which puts nature at the
disposal of infinite consumption (again, totally conceded), which eliminates nature. What you have is
someone who agrees that this is bad, yet continues to advocate this kind of environmental strategy.
Vote negative to stand up against this.
Jordan Bakke 5 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

I don’t link
It’s ironic that he says “Orly? WHERE!?!>@?!” to my revolutionary communist alternative and then
bases his entire argument that I advocate capitalism on the truly imaginary idea that I said I like the
way things are in the world. Honestly, I’d like to see one sentence, even one clause in any of my posts
where I said we should keep things the way they are. He’s using faulty debate theory that says the
negative has no choice but to either run a counterplan or argue that the current situation is good. All
I’m doing when I say that the plan will fail due to uranium shortages is saying that his plan wouldn’t
work the way he wants it to. We don’t need more bad ideas in a world already infected with the bad
idea of capitalism.
Jordan Bakke 6 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

URANIUM
I discovered a way to end all poverty for $1 million dollars per year, and I won’t tell you how it works.
I don’t need to, because it’s your job to prove that it doesn’t work.
Now replace “end all poverty for $1 million dollars per year” with “jumpstart a dying uranium industry
in time for American nuclear companies to benefit from it.” Sharkfin does precisely this. And no, my
“ONLY” response is not that he doesn’t explain why supply and demand works. He ignores (that is,
concedes) the exquisite details in my 1NC and 1NR about the uranium industry failing to meet rising
demand. Supply’n’demand won’t work in the future if it fails now.
Jordan Bakke 7 of 7
Sharkfin vs. Halogen – 2NR

CONCLUSION
If you vote affirmative, you skew ground, kill research, welcome squirrel cases, encourage the
destruction of nature, and endorse blind faith in the unfounded and empirically denied idea of supply
and demand.