The Instigator
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
christopher1006
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 913 times Debate No: 70126
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

In this debate we will simply examine wether the USFG should implement Artificial Coral reefs on its coast lines.

We will debate on the standard and accepted rules:

1.)silence is compliance and dropping an argument or responding to it after the point when rebuttals starts means that you concede.

2.)Disadvantages must be run, and arguments made in an orderly fashion, they must be labeled as any of the following: Offcase arguments, Disadvantages, tradeoffs, counter plans, k's, theory arguments...and the like.

3.) You must label all of your claims in an obvious manner so that the opposition can easily see what arguments there are to counter, however you do not have to inform them of what they have conceded until rebuttals begin.





I hope to see you on the battlefield of intellect, here are my opening arguments:







Inherency:

a.) Research published in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, point out that coral declines are reaching crisis proportions: Astro Biology Magazine 12
"Coral abundance in the Caribbean Sea has gone down about 80 percent in the past 30-40 years, and about one-third of the corals around the world are threatened with extinction,"

b.) Misconceptions about reef resilience are stopping large scale coral initiatives now: Goreau 5 Ph.D in Biogeochemestry and President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance
threats from globally rising temperatures are found everywhere. Corals are in no way resilient to such stresses, and the confusion caused by claiming that resilience to small-scale, short-term stresses, confers resistance to continually increasing global stresses, has effectively baffled policymakers about the effects of human activities on coral reefs.

the plan:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its development of artificial coral reefs on U.S. coastlines through the use of mineral accretion.
-The plan will take place on all feasible costal states: (California, Louisiana, Texas, South Caronlina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine) are all up for consideration
-The total cost of the plan will be $225,000,000 funded through Congressional passage
- This funding allows for 49,515 mi of reef development, the coast of the US is 60,218mi excluding Alaska thus we will provide protection to about 82% of our shoreline cities
We will exclude any regions which are inaccessible, unusable or infeasible.
We develop these reefs anywhere between 12 to 30 miles off of the coastline
The reefs will be placed in a baffled form in order to preserve normal ocean wave patterns
The Affirmative team observes the right to define all terms and clarify our case as necessary


Advantage 1- Storm Surges and Hurricanes

a.) Hurricanes exacerbate suffering and lead to needless deaths " decimates basic human rights: Clinical professor of law at Berkeley University 2005
natural disasters, make vulnerable populations even more vulnerable. Disasters wipe out the investment and savings of economic actors, leaving them unable to reestablish their livelihoods. a tsunami leads to destruction of identity papers and makes it impossible for survivors to receive aid, secure employment, obtain health care, and receive inheritance Women and children, are at risk of exploitation, without the safety net of family and community to protect them

b.) The Average cost of a hurricane is between 1.8 and 9 billion dollars: Accuweather 11
$1.8 billion is the average amount of damage caused by an Atlantic hurricane in the United States. The median cost is the most accurate measure of a hurricane at close to $9 billion.

c.)Most hurricanes strike Florida and Texas: NOAA Hurricane Research Division 2013
on average, close to seven hurricanes every four years strike the United States, Eighty-eight percent of Major hurricanes strikes have hit either Florida or Texas

d.) A new study finds that coral reefs reduce the wave energy that would otherwise impact coastlines by 97 percent: United States Geological survey
"Coral reefs serve as an effective first line of defense to incoming waves, storms and rising seas," said Dr. Michael Beck, lead marine scientist of The Nature Conservancy and a co-author of the study

Advantage 2 Pharmaceuticals

a.) Coral reefs key to new developments in medicine"chemical compounds are already showing major advances: NOAA 11
the identification of beneficial chemical compounds found in coral ecosystems is termed bioprospecting and has been common in terrestrial environments for decades. bioprospecting is relatively new in the marine environment and is nowhere close to realizing its full potential. Creatures found are important sources of new medicines being developed to induce and ease birth labor; treat cancer, arthritis, asthma, ulcers, human bacterial infections, heart disease, viruses, and other diseases

b.) Doctors develop Cancer-curing drugs from Sea Sponges from Coral reefs:
Caron 12:
Stephanie Wear describes the reefs as the "New York City" of the oceans, "where everything is happening," because it is 400 to 600 times more likely to find a source for a drug in the ocean than on land. But climate change threatens the sea life that house these healing properties. "The coral reef population is diminished by about 80-90 percent across the Caribbean. scientists hope put out corals in order to battle some of the worst diseases known to humankind like: cancer, leukemia, AIDS Lupus, Alzheimer"s, and Parkinson"s. Arden O'Connor, a 34-year-old who lives in Boston,, beat leukemia with help from Ara-C, a chemotherapy drug derived from sea sponges that thrive in the coral reefs. Halaven, another drug also derived from sea sponge and has improved survival rates among women who have metastatic breast cancer."In order to make this natural product a drug by synthesis, we would require over 60 steps," "the typical drug which can be found in reefs is produced in 10 steps or less.

c.) Coral reefs offer a unique protein to prevent the spread of HIV:
Lamontagne, Member of American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2014
Researchers have discovered a new class of proteins capable of blocking the HIV virus from penetrating T-cells, this protein appears to block HIV infection"and to do it in a completely new way. there is a pressing need for anti-HIV microbicides. the proteins block HIV transmission without encouraging the virus to become resistant to other HIV drugs.The research team tested their activity against laboratory strains of HIV. The proteins proved astonishingly potent, capable of blocking HIV at concentrations of a billionth of a gram by preventing the first step in HIV transmission, in which the virus must enter a type of immune cell known as the T-cell."We found that cnidarians bind to the virus and prevent it from fusing with the T-cell membrane.

d. HIV is the world"s leading infectious killer- without a way to stop infections, millions will continue to die: World Health Organization:
35.3 million people worldwide are currently living with HIV/AIDS HIV is the world"s leading infectious killer and 36 million people have died since the first cases were reported in 1981, an estimated 3.34 million children worldwide are living with HIV and Over 700 children become newly infected with HIV each day.


Solvency


b. Artificial reefs become enhanced versions of any other natural reef ecosystem in the world:
Provenzani, member of the Global Underwater Explorers association

artificial reefs act as a natural rocky bottom, providing living space for a new reef community. What was once "artificial" now becomes a progressively intensifying natural reef ecosystem.


c. Mineral accretion coral reefs are extremely tough and are impervious to factors such as sea rise, making them the only option to solve
Global Coral Alliance,
Warming has caused significant reef mortality. oceans will continue to warm, and therefore rise, until world leaders recognize the long-term consequences of turning a blind eye to the problem. Governments have tried to address the problem by building sea walls out of concrete, steel, coral rubble or sand bags. But these materials soon rust, corrode, collapse and need to be rebuilt. In contrast only reefs made by mineral accretion can provide permanent, cost-effective protection capable of keeping pace with rising global sea levels. Mineral accretion coral reef growth rates, are about 3 to 5 times faster than normal coral reefs.


Here are each card's websites in order:

http://www.astrobio.net......, 7/1/14, JW)

http://www.globalcoral.org......

n/a

https://www.eastwestcenter.org......

http://www.accuweather.com......

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov......

http://www.usgs.gov......

http://coralreef.noaa.gov......

http://dailynightly.nbcnews.com......

www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-04/asfb-crp042814.php

http://aids.gov......

https://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org......

http://www.biorock.or......
christopher1006

Con

The flow of the debate will be as follows:

Inherencies with the plan

Analytics

DA – Cost

DA – Fails to protect states

DA – Blocks ships

Analytics

The affirmative fails to provide an agent of action, merely claiming that they will substantially increase investment in the use of mineral accretion. In addition, they fail to say who will enforce the execution of this project and the source of this funding. Without these three critical parts, the plan cannot move forward as there is no assignment to any department in the United States Federal Government to begin work on this plan.

DA – Cost

The median cost for building artificial breakwaters is USD $19,791 per meter, compared to $1,290 per meter for coral reef restoration projects.

U.S. Department of the Interior
5/13/2014

http://www.usgs.gov......

The affirmative is using faulty calculations according to their own evidence. The con will break down the actual cost of construction according to the Affirmative’s evidence. The first step is the conversion of the miles that the plan calls for to meters. This results in a calculation of 49,515 miles being equal to 79,686,668 meters. After that the con multiplied the converted number by the cost per meter to achieve a final number of 1,577,078,846,338 or One Trillion –five hundred and seventy seven Billion – seventy eight million – eight hundred and forty six thousand – three hundred and thirty eight dollars. This is exponentially higher than the affirmatives claim of a mere 225 million dollars.

http://www.usfederalbudget.us......

2014

The usfederalbudget.us site provides a relatively simple breakdown of the US budget which is 17,704.4 billion dollars or 17.704 trillion dollars. The actual cost of this plan is roughly 9 percent of the entire federal budget. The Con requires that the Affirmative fulfill their burden of proof in showing that the government can take this absolutely staggering blow. The Affirmative is charged with providing the source of this money as this cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, let’s compare this cost to the Average cost per hurricane provided by the Affirmative. It would take slightly over 175 hurricanes that do 9 billion dollars in damage a piece to justify the cost of this enormous project.

Atlantic Hurricane Season 2014

Kristen Rodman – May 18, 2014

With roughly 10 named tropical storms, five hurricanes and two major hurricanes predicted for the Atlantic Basin this season, AccuWeather.com's long-range forecasting team anticipates two storms, either tropical storms or hurricanes, to make landfall in the United States.

http://www.accuweather.com......

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov......

With the 2014 year being so inactive and NOAA showing that there has been 60 hurricanes per 100 years, it will be over 200 years before this plan generates a net-profit. The Affirmative must justify this long term investment in the face of technological advances out dating their plan.

DA – Fails to protect states

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov......

Mississippi, Alabama, Oregon, Washington, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Hawaii. What do all of these states have in common? They’ve been hit by hurricanes and yet are not protected by the Affirmative plan. As the Affirmative failed to clarify the exclusion of these places, it must be assumed that they have been unintentionally left out and therefore will suffer the consequences of this ill written plan.

DA – Blocks ships

A U.S. Navy container ship remained stuck on a coral reef near Okinawa for a second day Friday.
January 23, 2015 – Frances Burns http://www.upi.com......

Coral reefs block ship movement. Ships trying to cross them, as proven by my evidence, get grounded and are even damaged.

http://www.ers.usda.gov......

Agricultural exports in 2013 amounted to 320 billion dollars and supported over one million jobs.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com......

This proves that Ocean trade is important historically, presently and in to the future. This plan would destroy US trade which, in 2000, shipped 736 billion dollars in that single year. Compared to the cost of the plan and the long term investment required to get anything out if it, it’s apparent that the economically destructive artificial coral reefs blocking shipping cannot be justified.

In summary, the face value cost of the plan is staggering. That’s not even including billions of dollars in lost trade as ships cannot make it to other countries, being pinned in by the new reefs. Lastly, the plan fails to protect all states that are actually hit by hurricanes, bringing in to question as to states with major population centers such as New York are not covered. This plan requires elaboration and revision in order to give it a chance of consideration.

Debate Round No. 1
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro



CASE DEFENSE

I. COST

A.) Cost of the plan itself

Con has claimed the the price of the plan will be somewhere around 9% of the GDP using his personal calculations. Con has however pointed something of concern out. The plan I presented was premade by someone else and thus I have no idea how the calculations came about, this means I cannot support the plans stated cost however using evidence I found, which I know is correct, I came out with another answer. The number is much higher the one listed in the plan, yet Much Much smaller than the fabricated price that con created. My calculations resulted in a price of 7.2 billion dollars, I then cut the distance in the plan from 49,515 to just 30,000 miles leaving us with a price of 3.6 billion dollars, a price which I can still easily justify…

But before I tell you how I got that answer let’s examine why con came out with the wrong answer.

Christopher used his 2014 Department of Interior citation (I’ll refer to it as the DOI from now on) stating that the average cost of building an artificial breakwater is [$19, 791 per 1 meter] he then multiplied this DOI estimate times the number of meters constructed in the plan. This gave him the answer of 9% of the GDP.

The real cost of construction per meter is not $19,791 because the plan does not call for the construction of Artificial Breakwaters, it calls for the construction of Mineral Acceretion Artificial Reefs, two different things. The real cost is found in my first citation which is a study by the coral reef alliance using the results of at least 12 other credited studies:

“each kilometer of shoreline can be protected for about $50,000 to $100,000 [using mineral accretion]. This is only around 0.3 to 0.6% of the cost of a conventional sea wall, which provides no tourism or fisheries benefits.”

Here is the exact method I used to get my answer of $3.6 b:

$75,000/1kilometer = $75,000/ 0.62 mile = $120,967.75/ 1 mile

Now I can use a proportion to find the price of 30,000 miles of reef construction:

$120,967.75/1mi = $X/ 30,000mi (cross multiply) X= $3,629,032,500 or about 3.6 billion dollars


B.) Time the plan needs to pay itself off

Im my evidence from Accuweather given above, the median cost of a hurricane is 9 billion dollars and the average is 1.8 billion (dont understand the differenc but thats what they said) this means that if one hurricane with the median price range strikes (9b), then the plan has paid for itself 2.5x over! even if a hurricane with the average cost strikes (1.8b) the plan is paid off by only 2 hurricanes. This sharply contrasts con's evidence stating that the plan will take hundred of years. Keep in mind that the biggest hurricanes like Hurricane Katrina costes the US about 125 billion dollars in revenue.


But how long will it take for those hurricanes to strike?

Dina Spector, 8-29-2012, "When Will The Next Nightmare Hurricane Hit The US?," Business Insider, <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.businessinsider.com...;

"In an average decade the mainland U.S. gets hit with about seven Category 1 hurricanes, four to five hurricanes that rank as Category 2 and about the same number that hit as Category 3 hurricanes, but just one Category 4 hurricane."



That's 1.7 hurricanes per year meaning the plan will almost certainly be paid of in less than 2 and half years.



II. Fails to Protect all states

A.) Con has misinterprited the plan text

Con has stated that I must exclude all states I didn’t list in the plan from having coral construction done on them however this is simply untrue. If I reference my plan text it clearly states that: “The plan will take place on all feasible costal states” that means that unless it is impossible or would result in the downfall of the plan, those states will be constructed on.




III. Trade Disadvantage

A.) False evidence

Con predicates his entire argument on one ship that is currently stuck in okinawa, not only does this Not prove that ships will Always get stuck, it also doesnt neccisarily apply to Mineral Accretion Coral Reefs because they are different things. In order for this argument to remain con must prove that mineral accretion coral reefs will cause shipping accidents using credible sources. I will also use further reasoning to show that this argument holds no substance.






This is a picture of the ship off of Okinawa, it is small however if you look you can see that it is nowhere close to 12 to 30 miles off of the coast as required by the plan.
It is plainly impossible for a ship to get caught on something 200-300 meters deep which is the depth of the ocean between 12-30 miles off the coast.






CASE OFFENSE


Further Explanation of the Plan

A.) Mineral Accretion

The plan calls for a vast area to be converted into reefs using mineral accretion. In my own words here is mineral accretion: electricity runs through a piece of metal which rests in the ocean. Through the proccesses of chemistry the electricity in the metal pulls out certain elements and compound floating around in the water which harden on the metal, usually limestone. If you have ever seen white stuff around your fosset that is the stuff that hardens on it. As it turns out the electricity and the the limestone offer corrals the energy they need to constantly grow and feed. Mineral Accretion also creates superior resilience to the effect of global warming and increases growth rates of the coral dramatically, its like corals on steroids. Now here is the technical stuff:



definition of MA (mineral accretion):

Mineral accretion is a new method that uses low voltage direct current electricity to grow solid limestone rock structures in the sea and accelerate the growth of corals providing homes for reef fish and protecting the shoreline. The electrical current causes minerals that are naturally dissolved in seawater to precipitate and adhere to a metal structure.The result is a composite of limestone and brucite with mechanical strength similar to concrete. Derived from seawater, this material is similar to the composition of natural coral reefs and tropical sand beaches.

In the plan the government will use industrial grade aquatic wire mesh and adhere it to the ocean, then run a current through it (1.2 volts, a AA battery has 1.5 volts) which will begin the proccesses of mineral accretion. Mineral accretion begins in just hours and will be finished within a few months, corals will then start to attach themselves to the mesh and reproduce causing a flourishing environment to grow for miles on end, with 80% of corals now dead in the caribean it is easy to see why we need this in America.

But what about global warming? wont it just kill off the rest of the reefs when we plant them? No.

"Corals were grown at sites in Jamaica where all the corals in the nearby reef had been killed by algae overgrowth caused by high nutrients, and where no new coral settlement was taking place. These had coral growth rates up to three to five times the record rates for many species, and settlement of hundreds of corals per square meter (Goreau and Hilbertz, 1996)."

Biorock is a technology which harnesses the same power of mineral accretion, they have used their technology in certain areas and seen amazing results:

"Corals grown in the Maldives on Biorock structures had 50-80% survival from the severe high temperature bleaching events that killed 95-99% of the corals on surrounding reefs (Goreau, Hilbertz, Hakeem and Hameed, 2000). Survival of Biorock corals was from 16 to 50 times greater than surrounding habitats (Figure 1). A large population of corals was being grown in the same habitat using conventional cementing methods and being used as controls to compare growth"


B.) Previous Arguments

Please note the the opponent has conceeded the humanitarian benifits of the plan such as cures and further innovations for disease and the amount of lives we save by implimenting coral reefs


Summary: We have deterined the cost of the plan to be 3.6 billion dollars which will repay itself within no more than 2 and a half years, furthermore we have discredited con's second argument because he simply misinterprited the plan text. On Con's final disadvantage he states that implementing MA reefs will halt all trade however he doesnt have substantial evidence to support this claim and I have shown that all MA reefs will be well below the depth of passing ships. After concluding this things I moved away from Defense contentions to Offense contentions where I supported the strength and full out solvency of the plan while also explaining some of its details furthermore the con has conceeded that implimenting MA reefs will lead to cures for a plethora of diseases while also saving thousands of lives from hurricane mortalility. I look forward to the next round and I now pass the gauntlet to Con to craft his responses...

christopher1006

Con

The cons arguments will flow as follows.

Analytics
Cost
State protection
Trade disadvantage

Analytics

The fact that the plan was premed does not excuse a lack of familiarity with the subject by the affirmative. The pro, in this debate, is expected to provide a plan and defend it. They may not claim that they copy-pasted this and therefore should receive leniency.


Cost

First off is that the con will not let the changing of costs stand. Insofar that the plan defines a specific amount of coastline to protect and the pro may not simply amend their plan in the middle of the debate. This destroys educational value and makes it flat out impossible for the con to win when the pro may patch holes at will.

The con will also observe that these new claims from the affirmative very much exceed the 225 million dollars that the plan originally allocates to this endeavour. Using this in tandem with the first cost argument, this raises the cost of the affirmatives plan using their equation to $7,968,666,800; something that is significantly greater than what was allocated in the funding and even claimed in the previous response by the pro.

Moving onwards, the plan calls for artificial breakwaters.

"Coral reefs serve as an effective first line of defense to incoming waves, storms and
rising seas," said Dr. Michael Beck, lead marine scientist of The Nature Conservancy and
a co-author of the study[sic]

This is directly from the plan, falling under the definition of a breakwater.

breakwater: a wall that is built out into the sea to protect a harbor or beach from the 
force of waves.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Therefore, as the DOI evidence does not explicitly limit the use of mineral accretion, the cons numbers of over 1 Trillion USD still stands.


The pro tries to use Katrina as an example, claiming that over 100 billion dollars in damage is to be expected. From their evidence, the con recovered two lines that negate this.

 -There were also engineering problems. Katrina was especially damaging because the levees designed to protect the below-sea-level city burst under the hurricane's 25-foot high storm surge.
-Since 2005, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent $14.5 billion to improve New Orleans' system of levees, floodwalls, pump stations and surge barriers.

Therefore, this is irrelevant as the USFG has already solved this issue Pouring money in to a fixed problem is a waste of money that the pro must justify under their plan text.

State protection


The pro is twisting the plan text instead of defending it. The verbatim text is as follows:


-The plan will take place on all feasible costal states: (California, Louisiana, 
Texas, South Caronlina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine) are all
up for consideration

This explicitly defines the states to be considered, con arguments still stand.


Trade disadvantage

The pro has provided no evidence stating that this is not a real risk. In fact, all the pro side has done on this subject
is claim that the con is presenting false evidence without providing counter evidence. As the pro has the BoP, it is
their duty in this debate to prove the validity of their case.


However, the con will present two more examples of ship groundings on coral reefs.

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov...

Summary

The pro has failed to provide acceptable measures on cost, even changing their plan to come up with a cost that is
well over their budget. In addition, Pro has not proven that the other states will be protected. Finally, Pro has not
fulfilled their Burden of Proof to show that US naval trade is in no danger. As it stands, the United States of America
stands to lose over a trillion dollars with billions more lost in trade.
Debate Round No. 2
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro


Let's begin..

Case Defense

I-Cost

I would like to say that I am truly apologetic for the misunderstanding concerning cost however the con’s demands are very unfair and limiting. I will agree that it is abusive for me to change the cost and the distance in the plan during the second round but the change comes far from the middle of the debate; so what is the impact of my abuse on the round itself? Whatever it may be I would like to point out that it should not be that the con team gets to fabricate their own price, that is unfair and that is abusive. If the con should get to decide his own price then the debate is literally already over because he can fabricate a price as high as he wants, is that fair…remember that I Never said that the price listed was wrong, I simply showed that I couldn’t support the price because I don’t have the proper evidence

I Do have evidence which supports a cost though, and I have presented that evidence. The con team cannot deny this. Con wants to label me a cheater and an abuser because I have been forced to alter the plan, yet he wishes to create a falsified price in order to make it impossible for me to win thus ironically being the abuser himself.

This is the resolution to the problem which I will propose and like it or not this is simply the only reasonable option remaining in the round. I see that it is abusive to change things in the round. I have changed 2 things, the distance and showed proof for a different cost. Thus I will keep the distance at 49,515 miles of construction for a cost of 8.1 billion dollars. This does nothing but help con, it may not help him as much as letting him fabricate a price but it still definitely helps his case while hurting mine. To be honest I have no qualms about this price because it can still get paid off if 1 hurricane with the median cost strikes the US. This really only extends the payoff time to 4.5 years as well which is really not bad. Take it as my word, the plan will not be changed any longer. I would also specify that the plan will be paid for through normal means.



II-Cost II

Here is exactly why your price is invalid, again I will reiterate. Con is literally claiming that because artificial reefs have the qualities of an artificial breakwater that they actually are artificial breakwaters. This is simply illogical and is analogous to claiming that a sponge, for instance, is the same as a straw because they both suck things up. It is completely irrational and should be invalidated as any sort of point.


III-States

I dislike that con and pro are playing some sort of sematics/interpretation game but here is the fact on this. I clearly stated that the plan will take place on All Feasable Costal States, I then gave some Examples of a few costal states, If con misinterpreted the plan text then that is unfortunate but the way any rational person would understand it, is as I would in my opinion and thus I wont go into this very much.



IV-Trade

Con has ignored my evidence. It is impossible to for a ship to get caught on any reefs I will build as they will be from 12-30 miles off of the coast line which is as deep as 400 meters deep. It would literally be impossible for any ship to get caught on our artificial reefs at this distance as I have proven. If con disagrees he cannot prove the contrary by citing cases where a ship has gotten caught on a Regular Reef that is not even between 12-30 miles off of the coast. Really con needs to find quoted evidence proving that artificial reefs which are never more than 10 feet tall would somehow block all trade in the US while in water that is at least 300 meters deep.












Case Offense

Aids/HIV

A.) Staggering numbers of people have HIV and are dying from the epidemic

World Health Organization

[Since the beginning of the epidemic, almost 78 million people have been infected with the HIV virus and about 39 million people have died of HIV. Globally, 35.0 million [33.2–37.2 million] people were living with HIV at the end of 2013.]



B.) As stated in first round, Coral reefs provide a plethora of cures to diseases. The government has literally found a protein derived from coral reefs that prevents the spread of HIV

National, April 29, 2014, "Coral reefs provide potent new anti-HIV proteins," EurekAlert!, http://www.eurekalert.org...#

[Testing the proteins against laboratory strains of HIV, the researchers found that cnidarians were highly potent, blocking HIV at miniscule concentrations—one billionth of a gram. They worked by binding to the virus and preventing it from fusing with the CD4 membrane.
“It’s always thrilling when you find a brand-new protein that nobody else has ever seen before,” senior investigator Barry O’Keefe, PhD, deputy chief of the Molecular Targets Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Cancer Research, said in a release. “And the fact that this protein appears to block HIV infection—and to do it in a completely new way—makes this truly exciting.”]

Furthermore

[Researchers will now look to produce larger amounts of the proteins for further testing.
“Making more of it is a big key,” O’Keefe said. “You can’t strip the Earth of this coral trying to harvest this protein, so our focus now is on finding ways to produce more of it so we can proceed with preclinical testing.”]

Now folks, logically, what might be the result of creating a utopia of coral reefs in the U.S.? Simply put, the preventative cure for HIV. The evidence above states that the only thing needed is More Coral Reefs, the plan provides and thus will significantly reduce the amount of HIV/AIDs in the world and US given more time to do research.





Fisheries

I-Status quo of the fishing industry and environment

A.) Fisheries Doomed

If every coral reef in the world was a strictly protected area, and if every fisherman was prevented from fishing, unlikely as these options are, coral reef fisheries could still not recover. Many or most reef habitats are already so badly degraded that they cannot regain the carrying capacity for economically valued species that they formerly had.



B.) Fishing methods are unsustainable, industry wont change

The richest countries like the European Union, the United States, Japan are the most damaging, and 90% of the top predatory fish are now gone (Myers and Worm, 2003)...the coral reef habitat and thereby the future fisheries are permanently destroyed



C.) Situation is getting worse

the degradation of marine ecosystems and fisheries can only be expected to worsen



D.) The situation is getting worse II

areas are too severely degraded to allow recovery of corals, fish, and invertebrates to former levels because the habitat quality is so badly degraded that reefs have lost most of their carrying capacity for these species. Even if every reef was strictly protected and all fishermen were eliminated today, the fisheries would still not be able to recover to former levels. There is no doubt that over-fishing has been disastrous almost everywhere (Pauly et al.,1998; 2000)





II-Significance/Harm of Reef Degradation

A.) impact on countries

Over 100 countries could lose their major source of marine biodiversity, beach sand supplies, tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection in the next few years if current trends continue, with severe but incalculably high economic losses (Goreau and Hayes, this volume).



III-Solvency: what do we do now and what are the benefits?

A.) Now is The Time to Start Saving Reefs

The tools are now in our hands for saving coral reef and oyster reef ecosystems from extinction from over-harvesting, global warming, and pollution, protecting coastlines from global sea level rise, increasing fisheries, and saving beaches and tourism economies. There is of course a real cost, but the sooner large scale investments are made in marine ecosystem restoration the greater the benefits will be and the lower the expenditures needed. There is now no other alternative to effectively reverse global marine degradation that is accelerating out of control except to do nothing.



B.) Mineral Accretion is now the only effective way to revive our reefs and fishing industry

Large-scale habitat restoration of degraded areas is now the only hope for recovery of the coastal fisheries, biodiversity, sand supplies, and shore protection that only large healthy reefs can provide. Unless the vast wastelands of degraded reefs are restored, all tropical coastal countries will soon face crippling economic losses. Unfortunately, at this time there is no serious funding for large-scale coral reef restoration.



C.) Healing Powers of Mineral Accretion

In the Maldives Biorock [Mineral accretion] reefs have effectively absorbed wave energy that they have turned an eroding beach into a growing one (Goreau, Hilbertz, Hakeem and Hameed, 2000). In Indonesia dense schools of fish in Biorock [Mineral accretion] structures have caused fishermen to start building similar structures to increase catches (Goreau and Hilbertz, 2001). Settlement of larval corals can take place at exceptionally high densities, hundreds per square meter, under conditions where poor water quality has prevented all settlement on natural substrates (Goreau and Hilbertz, 1996). Larval and adult fishes are attracted to these structures at exceptional densities, quickly forming schools so dense that one cannot see across the structures.

D.) The Value of Reefs

While most benefits of coral reefs can not possibly be quantified in monetary terms, such as the value of biodiversity, biogeochemical cycling services, and esthetic beauty, three of them are amenable to direct economic valuation: fisheries, tourism, and shore protection

E.) Monetary Estimate of the value of reefs

When considered as earnings per kilometer of reefs, the values for fisheries and for tourism typically ranged from several thousand dollars to several million dollars per kilometer of reef per year


no space for a summary, but citations in comments section. Thank you

christopher1006

Con


The cons argument will flow as follows:


Cost


State protection


Trade


___________


Case offense answers


Hurts biodiversity



Cost


The pro's claim that the demand by con to protect their case rather than amend it during a debate is invalid. As this is a policy debate, the entire point of this is to evaluate the Affirmative team plan to see if it is viable. These are not strict limitations by the con but rather a standard rule that is seen in policy debate. Were this something such as a Congressional debate, the pros actions of amendment would be perfectly fine; however, this is not the case.


Pro then goes on to claim that the con is now fabricating prices. However, all the con did was replace the shortened amount of miles that the pro decided to use with the actual amount in the plan text. Therefore, the cons numbers is the only valid amount between the two sides.


The pro came up with a new cost in this round, claiming that the final amount is 8.1 billion dollars, which still far exceeds their budget. To put this plainly, the USFG cannot create something that takes more resources than they give. The pros plan calls for a budget of 225 million dollars, the con has proven that the actual cost is significantly higher and pro, even when trying to cut the amount of land protected, still far exceeds their budget.


Finally, addressing the breakwaters, pro has not proven that the cons definition is false. As the con has taken their own plan text and compared it to a definition, proving that these artificial reefs are technically breakwaters, con must assume the worst-case scenario and give the maximum cost estimate.


State protection


Pro refuses to answer the state protection as they claim that this is simply semantics. The con will reiterate that this is Policy debate. In this form of debate, we evaluate the pros plan, or policy. As their plan text explicitly defines the states to be evaluated, this plan is exposing states that the pros evidence shows are under threat from hurricanes.


Trade


Pro asked for proof that the ships would be running aground, the con will point to the Great Barrier Reef, a reef that has grown to be the largest of its kind in the world. These reefs obviously will present a danger to our shipping industry. As they grow to surround our nation, ships will hit them, causing massive amounts of environmental damage.


http://www.abc.net.au...


http://www.abc.net.au...



Hurts biodiversity


The pro claims that this will help the industries of fishing, tourism and coastal protection. However, the con will prove that the first two are short term at best (the coastal protection part is covered in State protection).


Starting with fishing, the pros evidence on fisheries proves that the fishing industry destroys biodiversity.


areas are too severely degraded to allow recovery of corals, fish, and invertebrates to former levels because the habitat quality is so badly degraded that reefs have lost most of their carrying capacity for these species. Even if every reef was strictly protected and all fishermen were eliminated today, the fisheries would still not be able to recover to former levels. There is no doubt that over-fishing has been disastrous almost everywhere (Pauly et al.,1998; 2000)


This alone invalidates their solvency. Over-fishing has destroyed coral reefs. No matter how many we build, unless over fishing is addressed, artificial coral reefs will have to be rebuilt, as the marine life that usually inhabits them is dead or dying.


Moving on to tourism, the con will reference material in the evidence below. Tourism may provide a small economic boost, however this will be short lived. As tourism hurts reefs in addition to overfishing, it may become difficult to keep them coming back when the reefs are skeletons from all the damage done by humans.


Recreational activities also have a huge impact. For example, careless boating, diving, snorkeling, and fishing have substantially damaged coral reefs in many parts of the world, through people touching reefs, stirring up sediment, and dropping anchors. [Sic]


The plan fails to address the dangers of human interaction with these reefs, so one must assume that the same dangers will apply. This means an increase in many factors including, but not limited to, seafood consumption, disturbing animals such as whales and sharks, and pollution. Therefore, this is not an advantage at all and flows con.


http://wwf.panda.org...


Debate Round No. 3
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro


Let's try and begin here:








Fairness



Cons claim

1.) The “entire point of [policy debate] is to evaluate the Affirmative team plan”

2.) It is absolutely against the rules to ever change or amend a plan in a policy round

3.) Pro has changed or amended the plan by changing the price

4.) Pro has attempted to break the rule and has hurt fairness in the round

5.) Thus, Pro has no more say and must accept con’s price of 9% of the GDP

Rebutal

1.) Pro has never proclaimed or mandated that this is a policy debate

2.) The ‘entire point’ of policy debate is NOT to evaluate a plan, but is to promote education and learning

3.) Con wishes to implement his own price, which I will later explain doesn’t make sense anyways, thus making the round literally impossible to win

4.) This destroys the educational value of the debate because there can be no education if there is no round in the first place. Not only this, but it wastes space in the debate reducing the amount we can argue that actually has educational value.

5.) This also hurts the sportsmanship of the game and promotes tension between the players. This clearly also hurts educational value.

6.) Thus, Con’s propositions are abuses which far outweigh any abuses which I have commited and the second price should stand.


Why pro’s price is dead wrong

1.) Artificial reefs are artificial breakwaters because they have a similar definition

2.) a DOI report indicates that artificial breakwaters cost $19,791 per meter.

3.) He multiplied this number by the total meters in the plan to receive 9% of the GDP

Why this is wrong

1.) Artificial reefs are NOT artificial breakwaters just because they have a similar sounding definition.

2.) Thus the price of artificial breakwaters is NOT the same as the price of artificial reefs

3.) I also have provided quoted evidence from a massive study which declares artificial reefs of the mineral accretion assortment only cost 50,000-$100,000/ kilometer which equals about $75/meter, giving us a grand total of 8.1 billion dollars for the plan

4.) Thus because I have professional evidence and because Con is using completely flawed logic for his calculation, my answer is the one should remain in play






States

1.) The plan literally states: “the plan will take place on all feasible coastal states”

2.) The plan doesn’t Ever state: “only the listed states will be up for consideration”

3.) This means that con is using sematics and assumtions which aren’t based on what is literally in the text, while I am.

4.) Finally the plan also states that I affirm the right to clarify my case as necessary, meaning if there is a simply word confusion, like this, I can clarify what it really means.

5.) Thus my and the literally stated interpretation must be the accepted version

6.) Thus please strike out the states disadvantage






Government agency

Cons claim

1.) A governmental agency is necessary to carry out the plan and funding must be named

2.) Con doesn’t list them and that is abusive

Rebutal

1.) The plan will be carried out through Normal Means, Just as Every Single Policy Debate Plan Is.

2.) This means that the plan will be carried out in the normal way that congress would pass/fund/ and operate any given plan

3.) Thus the agent of action and funding are all taken care of

1.) the agent of action is not critical to supporting the educational value of the debate

2.) Thus it doesn’t matter in any case

1.) There is no rule which mandates that an agent me named

2.) Thus I have not broken any rules and no abuse has been done






Trade

Pros claim

1.) There are 4 examples of ships getting caught on something in the ocean

2.) Thus every single ship will get caught

3.) This will prevent all forms of trade costing the US billions or trillions

4.) Thus don’t do the plan







Rebuttal

1.) 4 examples are not enough proof to make a general claim about every single ship in the world

2.) Each example con listed was not in the range of 12-30 miles off of the coastline

3.) Each example stems from ships either being to close to land or wrecking on a very small patch of land that suddenly goes from the bottom of the sea to about 30 meters below sea level causing the ship to get stuck

4.) These have nothing to do with reefs or they are not within the coastal distance

5.) Thus they cannot be applied to the case

6.) Con must provide case specific evidence about Mineral Accretion coral reefs, from a quoted author that makes his same claims, single examples do not prove

7.) Thus please cast out cons trade advantage







Fisheries



Solvency

Pros claim

1.) Con has evidence which claims it is currently to late for fisheries to heal just by halting fishing

2.) Thus he has show the entire plan wont help because according to his evidence nothing will help

3.) Thus delete the entire advantage

Rebuttal

1.) All evidence in the fisheries advantage come from one single study

2.) This study is in support of mineral accretion reefs to help fisheries

3.) Thus the writer of those very lines disagrees that it is too late for ANY recovery, he has simply said that HALTING FISHING WOULD NOT BRING BACK ENOUGH FISH TO SAVE THE INDUSTY and other measure are neccesary

4.) He then concludes in my solvency evidence that only mineral accretion coral reefs offer the solution to the problem which can help and revitalize the fishing industry and thus save millions of dollars

1.) Even if this advantage is wrong, you have conceded the health advantages and the shoreline advantages are also still in play

2.) Thus the plan should still happen given that the opponent’s argument is true, which it is not.

1.) Yet again con has attempted to re-read the plan and ignore what is plainly clear but let me just use solvency evidence which cancels out con’s claim:

Large-scale habitat restoration of degraded areas is now the only hope for recovery of the coastal fisheries, biodiversity, sand supplies, and shore protection that only large healthy reefs can provide. Unless the vast wastelands of degraded reefs are restored, all tropical coastal countries will soon face crippling economic losses. Unfortunately, at this time there is no serious funding for large-scale coral reef restoration”

When considered as earnings per kilometer of reefs, the values for fisheries and for tourism typically ranged from several thousand dollars to several million dollars per kilometer of reef per year

Thus please extend the fisheries argument







Tourism

1.) Tourism is never mandated in the plan

2.) Con must provide case specific evidence that tourism hurts Mineral Accretion Coral Reefs for it to be a real disadvantage

3.) Con simply states that tourism can bring bad health but never states how bad of degradation this causes and thus there is not significance to his claim

Con has done literally nothing bad exaggerate, lie, and attempt to ruin the educational value of the round as far as I am concerned and it is shown clearly in his mannerism and clear disregard for the fairness of the round. I have effectively shown why con has been abusive, and why his claims are unfounded. He has yet to provide a solidly grounded argument and thus I can only see the round leaning my way right now. I pass the turn back to con for a hopefully educational round.

christopher1006

Con

1. Pro has never claimed that this is policy debate

(From the Government agency rebuttal)

1.) The plan will be carried out through Normal Means, Just as Every Single Policy Debate Plan Is.

Policy: a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Plan text: The USFG should increase construction of mineral accretion coral reefs in the US

Therefore, as the United States Federal Government is accomplishing this and it is a high level plan, this is a debate on policy making it policy debate. The pro stating that they never claimed to be doing a policy debate does not excuse the fact that the resolution implies it.

2. The ‘entire point’ of policy debate is NOT to evaluate a plan, but is to promote education and learning.

Policy debate is a form of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

While the con generally frowns on the use of Wikipedia as a main source, the description is accurate and relies on multiple debate organizations for their definition. More importantly, it’s more evidence than the pro, who holds the burden of proof, has provided.

3.Con wishes to implement his own price, which I will later explain doesn’t make sense anyways, thus making the round literally impossible to win

The pro has not explicitly stated in any round how the con is fabricating prices. As the con made sure to use the evidence provided by the pro, in addition to simple mathematics, it’s impossible for the con to have fabricated a price that was not equal to the actual cost of the plan.

This destroys the educational value of the debate because there can be no education if there is no round in the first place. Not only this, but it wastes space in the debate reducing the amount we can argue that actually has educational value.

The educational value is elicited by those viewing this debate. It will teach them to not amend their plan or otherwise change rules without stating them in their 1AC, thereby destroying the structure of policy debate. In order to maintain the future of education, infractions must be addressed so as to keep them from becoming the norm.

This also hurts the sportsmanship of the game and promotes tension between the players. This clearly also hurts educational value.

This tension is irrelevant if any is felt. As the point of the debate is to evaluate the Affirmative teams plan, the con is not obliged to sidestep possibly sensitive subjects to the pro in order to keep their emotions manageable. However, the con recognizes that antagonizing the pro, or con for that matter, is not acceptable and apologizes if it appears that that was the goal.

Thus, Con’s propositions are abuses which far outweigh any abuses which I have committed and the second price should stand.

Con has disproved abuse by the Negative team, therefore the issues that were stated previously still stand against them.

Price

1. Artificial reefs are NOT artificial breakwaters just because they have a similar sounding definition.

Actually, that’s exactly how something falls in to a category. The con has provided evidence of a category and used the pros own evidence to prescribe the actual cost resulting from this. The pro has failed to provide evidence that artificial reefs are not a type of artificial breakwater, thereby refusing to provide clash which is an integral part of education in a debate.

2. Thus the price of artificial breakwaters is NOT the same as the price of artificial reefs

See Price-1 for analytics that disprove this statement.

3.I also have provided quoted evidence from a massive study which declares artificial reefs of the mineral accretion assortment only cost 50,000-$100,000/ kilometer which equals about $75/meter, giving us a grand total of 8.1 billion dollars for the plan

The pro provided evidence on a possible cost of artificial reefs. However, as they never disproved that these man-made reefs were not a type of artificial breakwater, the con must assume the worst as the possibility of over 9 percent of the USFG budget being lost is still very real.

4.Thus because I have professional evidence and because Con is using completely flawed logic for his calculation, my answer is the one should remain in play

The con has used the pros own evidence and simple mathematics to determine the cost, unless the pro is claiming that their own evidence is actually flawed analytics. In that case, the pro argument is negated as they have then failed to provide any evidence of cost and con arguments still stand.

States

1. The plan literally states: “the plan will take place on all feasible coastal states”

Again, the con reiterates that this is twisting the plan text by avoiding what is really said. The real plan text is as follows:

The plan will take place on all feasible coastal states: (California, Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maine) are all up for consideration

As the judges can see, the full sentence significantly changes the context. Instead of saying all feasible coastal states of the USA, it specifically defines the states up for consideration. This is an issue when there are specific states, defined earlier in the debate, that have been hit by hurricanes and are not protected.


2. The plan doesn’t Ever state: “only the listed states will be up for consideration”

This is correct, the plan does not state this. However, the plan ends up doing what this sentence implies as proven in States-1.

3. This means that the con is using semantics and assumptions which aren’t based on what is literally in the plan text, while I am.

The con disagrees that it is using semantics when the subject is whether or not the plan actually does what the pro claims it will do. Considering the plan is supposed to protect people endangered by hurricanes, the blatant dismissal of threatened states must be addressed.

4.Finally the plan also states that I affirm the right to clarify my case as necessary, meaning if there is a simply word confusion, like this, I can clarify what it really means.

Clarify: to make (something) easier to understand

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The pro implies that this is difficult to understand, however the con is having no issue in reading the text. The dilemma is the fact that this plan is explicitly defining the states that can be evaluated. In fact, the line below it specifically excludes Alaska.

5.Thus my and the literally states interpretation must be the accepted version

The pro never provided a definition. Their interpretation is that the con is wrong which is not a counter definition nor a clarification.

6.Thus please strike out the states disadvantage

Using evidence from above, pro argument is effectively dropped, flow to con.

Government agency

1.The plan will be carried out through Normal Means, Just as Every Single Policy Debate Plan Is.

http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org...

The con recommends that the pro browse through the open evidence project. It has plenty of policy debates that have actual funding programs and agents of action.

This means that the plan will be carried out in the normal way that congress would pass/fund/and operate any given plan.

Congress funds and operates any given plan by finding a source for the money and an agent of action. As the Pro has never been able to define either, con argument stands.

2. Thus the agent of action and funding are all taken care of

See Government agency-3

3. the agent of action is not critical to supporting the educational value of the debate

As pro never defines what is actually educational, the con will state that the agent of action is critical to supporting the educational value of this debate, thereby negating them as they are using analytics as well.


4. Thus it doesn’t matter in any case

This is an unreasonable jump in logic, suggesting that no entity in the USFG acting as an agent of action matters. The con will call this untopical and leave it at that as it provides no worth to debate this under the resolution.

5. There is no rule which mandates that an agent me named

The con will assume that the pro meant ‘an agent be named’. And this is true, no one has to execute the plan by your text, therefore no one will, therefore billions will be wasted on a plan that no one is executing.

6. Thus I have not broken any rules and no abuse has been done

The abuse lies in the claims that the con is fabricating claims in addition to complaints about the con not allowing amendments to the plan text at the whim of the pro. The con assumes that the pro is at least somewhat familiar with the basis of policy debate to respect the base structure of it and demands that it be given so as to allow for structured debate instead of letting emotional bias take effect.

Trade

Pro failed to provide counter evidence. The plan also does not establish the distance that they claim the reefs will be at from shore.

Fisheries

The fisheries evidence came from the pro, so the pro trying to discredit their own evidence is not showing a healthy and well made plan. The con has already provided the evidence and quotes needed to negate the pros arguments in the previous round, extend them and note that the first quote from con in the previous round still negates the pro arguments as they came from the pros own evidence. The shore protection, as stated in the previous round, is covered under the state protection disad.

Tourism

Pro evidence claims that artificial coral reefs are made of the same material as a coral reef, calcium. Therefore the same dangers to biodiversity apply unless the pro had proven that these man-made reefs would be stronger.

Debate Round No. 4
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

Every single objection brought up in the last round was fundementally logically deficent, pushed hypocritical terms, limited the round educationally made an inumerable amount of hasty generalizaitons among other logical fallacies and debased this entire debate. Instead of crafting a debate with disadvantges directly relating to the case and coral reefs, con has intentionally decided to twist the plan text, manipulate connotation as well as denotation of words throughout the manuscript, and has repeatedly fabricated and promoted completely, flabbergastedly false arguments . I can barely express the discontent I hold for the diservice con has done to this debate. Every argument I made from the very begining of the debate has not been detered or challenged in the most minescule bit since con has laid eyes on it. The only mistake I have made through this debate is the lack of evidence supporting the cost of the plan, that is my fault I completely submit however con's actions are unchallangably unjustifiable. I am beyond words.

For the reason that con has contorted the value of this debate

For the reson that con has attempted to super inflate the price of the plan uncompromisingly

For the reason that con has showed slugish and indifferent intonation and argumentation throughout this debate

And

For the reason that this entire debate has been among the grounds of false logic, and has never once touched the True subject matter of coral reefs, disease prevention, nor hurricane destruction:

I forfeit and unapologetically look down on anyone who would vote in support or opposition of this utter failure of a debate
christopher1006

Con

In summation:

Pro dropped Cost disad.
Pro dropped State Protection disad.
Pro dropped Trade disad.
Con negated Tourism/Fishery advantage.

Con dropped medical benefits disad.


As far as the debate itself went, pro failed to fulfill their role as the affirmative team. This is a Policy Debate which demands that the pro, or whichever side is the affirmative, fulfill their burden of proof. The con went to great pains to find evidence and even use evidence that the pro presented to attack their case on valid points, somehow not satisfying the pro who claims that there is faulty logic without even pointing at what it is they wish to call cheating or lies this time. Instead of debating, the pro continually complained that the con was being abusive as the pro tried to amend their policy during a debate. What the pro claims was sluggish indifference, the con sees as reiterating facts that the pro either would not negate, drop or understand, particularly those in relation to the structure and general rules of a policy debate itself. As it stands, the con has proven that the plan may cost up to 9% of the US federal budget and there's no one to even execute this.

The con has also proven that this presents a massive threat to our trade due to a lack of specificity in the plan text and the explicit exclusion of threatened states from protection. As the pro did not adequately, and in some cases did not at all, disprove, negate or present impact calcs to prove that their case is truly needed, the con can see no other ballot than that of the Negative Team.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Building capacity for Aquaculture in the Pacific: Ist SPC
Aquaculture Meeting, SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers (2002).
http://www.spc.org.nc...
Shiganova, T.A., Invasion of the Black Sea by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and recent
changes in pelagic community structure, Fisheries Oceanography, 7, 305-310 (1998).
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Reiswig, H.M., Particle feeding in natural populations of three marine Demospongiae, Biological
Bulletin (Woods Hole), 141, 568-591 (1971b).
Reiswig, H.M., The spectrum of particulate organic matter in shallow bottom boundary waters of
Jamaica, Limnology & Oceanography, 17, 341-348 (1972).
Reiswig, H.M., Water transport, respiration, and energetics of three tropical marine sponges,
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 14, 231-249 (1974).
Richardson, L., Coral diseases: What is really known? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1311,
438-443 (1998).
Rinkevich, B., Restoration strategies for coral reefs damaged by recreational activities: The use
of sexual and asexual recruits, Restoration Ecology, 3, 241-251 (1995).
Rinkevich, B., Steps towards the evaluation of coral reef restoration by using small branch
fragments, Marine Biology, 136, 807-812 (2000).
Rose, C.S. and M.J. Risk, Increase in Cliona delitrix infestation of Montastrea cavernosa heads
on an organically polluted portion of the Grand Cayman fringing reef, Marine Ecology, 6:345-
362 (1985).
Rouse, I., The Tainos: Rise and decline of the people who greeted Columbus, Yale University
Press (1993).
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Science, 294, 1655-1656 (2001).
Nixon, S.W., Coastal marine eutrophication: A definition, social causes, and future concerns,
Ophelia, 41, 199-219 (1995).
Page, C., Coral diseases on the Great Barrier Reef, Australian Institute of Marine Science
(2002). http://www.aims.gov.au...
Patz, J.A., P.R. Epstein, T.A. Burke and J.M. Balbus, Global climate change and emerging
infectious diseases, Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 217-223 (1996).
Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalgaard, R. Froese and F. Torres, Fishing down marine food webs,
Science, 279, 860-863 (1998).
Pauly, D., V. Christensen and R. Froese, Fishing down aquatic food webs, American Scientist,
88, 46-51 (2000).
Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. Tydemers and R. Watson, The future for
Fisheries, Science, 302, 1359-1361 (2003).
Porter, J.W. (ed.), The Ecology and Etiology of Newly Emerging Marine Diseases, Kluwer
(2001).
Powell, K., Eat your Veg, Nature, 426, 378-379 (2003).
Reiswig, H.M., , In situ pumping activities of tropical Demospongiae, Marine Biology, 9, 38-50
(1971a).
Reiswig, H.M., Particle feeding in natural populations of three marine Demospongiae, Biological
Bulletin (Woods Hole), 141, 568-591 (1971b).
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Mignucci-Giannoni, K.V. Hall, J.V. Rueda-Almonacid, J. Sybesma, I. Bonnelly de Calventi and
R.H. Boulon, An epizootic of cutaneous fibropapillomas in green turtle, Chelonia mydas of the
Caribbean: Part of a panzootic? Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 6, 70-78 (1994).
Williams, E.H. and L. Bunkley-Williams, Caribbean marine major ecological disturbances.
Infectious Diseases Review, 2, 110-127 (2000).
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Sinderman, C.J., Ocean Pollution: Effects on Living Resources and Humans, CRC, p. 304
(1995).
Soong, K. and T. Chen, Coral transplantation: Regeneration and growth of Acropora fragments
in a nursery, Restoration Ecology, 11, 62-71 (2003).
Unestam, T., On the host range and origin of the crayfish plague fungus, Reprt, Institute of
Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, 49, 202-209 (1972).
Unestam, T., The dangers of introducing new crayfish species, Freshwater Crayfish, 2, 557-561
(1975).
Unestam, T. and D.W. Weiss, The host parasite relationship between freshwater crayfish and the
crayfish disease fungus Aphanomyces astaci: Responses to infections by a susceptible and
resistant species, Journal of general Microbiology, 60, 77-90 (1970).
United Nations Environment Programme, Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste, The State of
the Environment, Global issues, Global Environmental Outlook (2000).
http://www.unep.org...
United Nations Environment Programme, World Atlas of Coral Reefs, UNEP (2001).
US Environmental Protection Agency, Condition of living resources, Condition of the MidAtlantic
Estuaries, Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (2000).
http://www.epa.gov...
Weaver, A.J., O.A. Saenko. P.U. Clark and J.X. Mitrovica, Meltwater pulse 1A from Antarctica
as a trigger of the Bolling-Allerod warm interval, Science, 299, 1709-1713 (2003).
Wilkinson C.R. and R.W. Buddemeier, Global climate change and coral reef, Report of UNEPIOC-ASPEI-IUCN
Global Task Team on Coral Reefs, IUCN 124 (1994).
Williams E. and L. Bunkley-Williams, The worldwide coral reef bleaching cycle and related
sources of coral mortality, Atoll Research Bulletin, 335, 1-71 (1990a,).
Williams, E.H., and L. Bunkley-Williams, Helpline for giant clams, Nature, 345, 119 (1990b).
Williams, E.H., L. Bunkley-Williams, E.C. Peters, B. Pinto-Rodriguez, R. Matos-Morales, A.A.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
ya thats cool, well stick with summary endings
Posted by christopher1006 1 year ago
christopher1006
Thanks, I'll review the source later. And I tend to lean towards the latter viewpoint. It's mainly due to the fact that I, as the negative, can add in arguments that you can't counter which I view as unfair to the debate.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Hey chris I have to apologize, I forgot to add in my biggest source..

This is a study by 2 scientists posted in the World Resource Review Vol.4 No.2 on mineral accretion...

http://www.globalcoral.org...

As far as the rebuttals I was simply going to have summaries in the end where no new arguments can be made...however I differ in my opinion of a new argument in that for me a new argument is a completely new point or disadvantage vs a continuation of argumentation on a certain contention. Most people think there should be Absolutely NO new arguments but then what is the last round except the exact same material that has already been said....those are my thoughts but if you have any objections just let me know
Posted by christopher1006 1 year ago
christopher1006
Also, on an unrelated note to the previous question. You mentioned that your source on cost was the first piece of evidence. When I click it I just get linked to what looks like a home page. Same for the second source as well.
Posted by christopher1006 1 year ago
christopher1006
Quick question, are you wanting to do pure rebuttals? If so, what round are we going to be doing that? Otherwise I've been assuming that we're just going to keep addressing points until the last round where we summarize.
No votes have been placed for this debate.