The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass Bill H.R. 4304

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,607 times Debate No: 75291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (4)

 

lannan13

Pro

I would like to thank FourTrouble for accepting this debate.

This debate is about whether or not the US federal government should pass HR 4304 or more commonly known as the Defense of Envirnment and Property Act which can be seen here. (http://www.gpo.gov...)

Rules
1st Round is acceptance.
2nd Round is for Opening Arguments and Constructives. NO REBUTTALS!
3rd Round is for Rebuttals.
4th Round is for Rebuttlas and Conclusions.
No semantics.
No profanity.
No Trolling.
FourTrouble

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

The purpose of this bill is to do several key things; redefine "navagatable waters," redefine "wetlands," and cut down on what the EPA (Envirnmental Protection Agency) can do.

Contention 1: Commerce Clause and innerstate regulation.

Firstly for this debate lets define the Commerce Clause as this is a key part for this debate. Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court Case, Gibbons V Ogden ruled the following three things:

  • Commerce is "intercourse, all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."
  • Commerce among the states cannot stop at the external boundary-line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior... Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one."
  • The Commerce power is the power to regulate, that is "to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed" which "may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution." [1]
Escentailly meaning that the Commerce must travel outside of state lines in order to be regulated by the Commerce Clause and hence the federal government. This is one thing this bill intends on doing by limiting what the EPA can regulate to that what goes across state boarders. This also exspands to allowing the state governments to regulate on their own as well as many instances and run ins with the EPA have been that of ones of which the accused has gotten proper authorization from the state government and most times even from the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers themsevlves, but still somehow find themselves in violation of EPA rules and regulations.

Contention 2: Redefine "Navigatable Waters."

This bill will redefine "Navigatable Waters" as it is highly key that this is done so. In the Supreme Court Case Rapanos V. US, the Supreme Court Justice Roberts defined such as, "" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams[,] ... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes" [2] However, the EPA and the Army Corps of Enginers continue to insist on using a broadend definition that includes many other things and they also use the loosely defined "wetlands" as well. In this case Rapanos's land was over 20 miles away from the nearest waterway and the EPA attacked Rapanos claiming that he had Nexus Waters. This means that simply that his lands were "close" enough to Navigatable Waters, but once again they were over 20 miles away. Another crime was that it was "Hydrologically connected" and in violation of the Migratory bird test. This means that during the birds migration south for the winter is a bird lands on your land it can be protected by the EPA for it being Hydrologically connected. Under this bill this corrupt protection will be nullified. [3] This bill will ensure that these waters are in fact navigatable meaning that not only can one travel through said waters, but they are also flowing and standing wateres as well. This is a key part as to actually protect these waters we have to ensure that there actually is water to protect. Things have gotten so obseen that things as simple as drainage ditchages are concidered "Navigatable Waters" by the EPA and that shouldn't be permitted. [4]

Sources
1. (The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 428)
2. (http://www.gpo.gov...)
3. (http://www.epa.gov...)
4. (http://dailycaller.com...)
FourTrouble

Con

Introduction

This debate is about the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA's stated objective is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” To achieve its objective, the CWA prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant" -- defined to include "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source" -- without a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Currently, the CWA defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." The "waters of the United States" is undefined, and courts have defined it broadly to include not only traditional navigable waters but also waters that have a significant nexus with traditional navigable waters. This definition includes wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, as long as there's a showing of a significant nexus with the traditional navigable water.

H.R. 4304 proposes to change the definiton of "navigable waters" to waters that are "navigable-in-fact" or "permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact." The bill explicitly excludes waters that "lack a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters," "man-made or natural structures or channels through which water flows intermittently or emphemerally," or "wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are waters of the United States." The bill also prohibits application of the "nexus test," so the EPA "may not use a significant nexus test... to determine Federal jurisdiction over navigable waters." This places severe limits on the authority of the Corps and EPA to regulate the "Nation's waters" under the CWA.

The issue we're debating is whether limiting the Corps and EPA's power under the CWA is good or bad policy. I'll be arguing it's a bad policy. Instead, I propose a definition of "navigable waters" under which the authority of the Corps and EPA extends to the limits of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. In effect, I'll be arguing for stronger environmental protection while my opponent argues for less environmental protection. I argue that "traditional navigability" isn't an appropriate test for environmental protection, so "navigability" should be understood as a technical term that simply refers to the limits of congressional power to regulate the Nation's waters. However, a quick clarification: I'm not saying the Corps and EPA should actually regulate the Nation's waters to the limits of interstate commerce. The issue isn't what the agencies should do with the authority given to them by Congress but rather how much power they should be given in the first place. I trust expert agencies like the Corps and EPA to perform cost-benefit analyses as required by the CWA and therefore to regulate the environment appropriately, not excessively. I prefer a comprehensive regulatory scheme that gives greater power to the Corps and EPA because it gives these agencies more flexibility and it limits potential loopholes in the regulatory program. This leads to better environmental regulations.

Contention 1

The scientific evidence shows that pollution of wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters threatens the water quality of the traditional navigable water. Any pollutant discharged into an adjacent wetland has the potential to move downstream and degrade the neighboring water body's quality. And this happens even when the two waters are separated by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like. In fact, even dams, which are specifically designed and constructed to impound large amounts of water effectively and safely, don't prevent all water flow, but rather allow seepage under the foundation of the dam and through the dam itself. [1] And even in the unlikely event that a particular wetland lacks any surface connection to a neighboring water body, a subsurface connection between the two is highly likely to exist. Below ground level, water tends to flow into a wetland from uphill areas and from a wetland to downhill areas. Such flow will typically connect wetlands with nearby waters, so these subsurface connections can have significant practical effects. [2] For instance, wetlands that have subsurface connections with downstream waters may serve as nutrient sinks that protect the quality of those waters even in the absence of a surface connection. [3] The more extensive the wetland, the greater its potential importance as a source of water to keep the navigable waterways full and clean. Thus, federal jurisdiction under the CWA should include any adjacent wetlands that are in reasonable proximity to other waters of the United States, because these wetlands are part of the aquatic system. Polluting these waters has effects on the entire water network, including on traditional navigable waters.

[1] https://www.ferc.gov...
[2] http://www.nap.edu...
[3] http://www.nap.edu...

Contention 2

The CWA should give the Corps and EPA substantial discretion in deciding which waters fall under the CWA's coverage. Unlike Congress or the courts, these agencies possess technical expertise in environmental regulation generally and water regulations more specifically. Agency offiicals are thus better equipped to employ their own scientific knowledge and make their own interpretations about which waters the CWA should cover. The EPA is better-suited to determine the extent to which a river is navigable. Furthermore, giving these agencies greater discretion allows them to be more flexible, and to respond to the changing conditions of the Nation's waters and environment generally. Given potential impacts on the Nation's waters from climate change, it's absolutely necessary to give these agencies more flexibility, not less. As I said before, this doesn't mean the agencies will regulate to the full extent of the power given to them. Rather, it means the agencies will evaluate the science, and then reevaluate the science every year, and each year they'll be able to promulgate new regulations that best reflect new scientific data. Flexible regulatory schemes which give substantial discretion to expert agencies produce better regulations. When it comes to environmental regulations, and specifically to water regulations, it's extremely important to give agencies discretion because the environmental landscape is changing so rapidly from climate change, and the science is developing at a pace that requires that agencies constantly be reevaluate the regulations.

Contention 3

A case-by-case approach to defining navigability is better than a categorical approach that excludes a large number of the Nation's waters. Currently, the EPA employs a case-by-case approach which applies Justice Kennedy's "substantial nexus test" as developed in Rapanos. Justice Scalia's opinion in Rapanos said "navigability" requires permanent standing water or continuous flow. In other words, the proposed bill here is a reflection of Justice Scalia's opinion. Justice Kennedy's opinion argued for a substantial nexus test, which would allow for wetlands or waters that "significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters" to be considered navigable. Justice Kennedy thus allowed for a much broader interpretation of "navigability." Under this interpretation, the EPA and Corps must evaluate each water on a case-by-case basis, by applying the nexus test. This case-by-case approach gives the EPA and Corps greater flexibility and is thus better than the categorical approach advocated by Justice Scalia and the proposed bill. The case-by-case approach also has the potential to expand CWA protection for urban and western rivers, like the Los Angeles River. If you google the Los Angeles River, you'll recognize it as the gritty scene of car chases in tons of hollywood action films. The Los Angeles River is what it is today because the Corps said it wasn't "navigable." But recently, in 2010, the EPA finally declared it "navigable," by applying a case-by-case approach. And that's a positive development, becasue it acknowledges the reality of urban rivers as part of the Nation's waters. Establishing CWA protection for these rivers is absolutely necessary and critical.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

lannan13 forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

After talking in PM with lannan about the forfeit, which seems to be because of stuff outside lannan's control, I've decided to pass on this round to keep the number of rounds even. We'll just do the debate as if it only had 2 rounds of debate instead of 3.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

Okay, I do appologize for my forfeiture last round as there was something outside of my control I had to deal with. If need be I will forfeit my Conduct point to continue this debate.

For this first piece of evidence I would like to bring up the Sold Waste Agency of Northern California V. Army Corps of Engineers. Here we can see that the EPA ruled this out as the area that the SWANC attempted to fill was already a gravel pit! This is attrouous as we can see that the EPA called this area out due to the Migratory birds was in fact part of a "bird Nexus" meaning that the birds stopped their on their way to waterways in their migratory south. [1] We can see that this is a huge abuse of power on behalf of the federal agency as there's no probably way of finding out that these birds stop here on the way to their "waterways" and if that's the case then there are hundreds of thousands of key areas of which are under this juristiction. The EPA has recently, in 2015, broadend their defintion of these waterways to, "‘waters of the United States’ so broadly that it covers virtually any wet spot – or occasionally wet spot – in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large ‘buffer areas’ of land adjacent to every waterway.” [2] Due to this we can see how rediculoius this is as these areas are not even close to being that of navigatable and this is just simply attroucous as these waters might not even run off into rivers, lakes, nor the Ocean.

Mr. Gaizano, head of the Senate Committee of the Envirnment stated on the rulings that, "it is not just costly and destructive for farmers, ranchers, and rural residents,” but also that “urban and suburban citizens and their local governments will be subject to increasing federal micromanagement and costly mandates.” [3] Here we can see that even the head of the Committe in the Senate is showing how terrible it is that our own executive branch is growing and abusing power to that of harming our own economy from not just big business, but the common man is being hurt to. We need to see that these waters need to be in fact navagatable in order for us to violate this act. We also need to look to the bill to see that Rivers are include as part of the inclusion in the bill. So the LA River would be protected whether or not it is or isn't navagatble.

If we look at the Raspanos case we can see the governments hypocracy as, on the same plot of land that he got the okay from to build houses did Raspanos plan to build a third house. This third house was between two already pre-built houses and he had already gotten the okay from the EPA and local agencies to build. He began and the EPA went against him even though he'd gotten their okay. [4] This is another key example of federal abuse as when one gets the okay from the organization we need to see that they give permission to come onto that said person's land AND that they shouldn't go back on their promise. Oh, by the way, did I tell you he was 20 miles from the nearest waterway? This case was a simple repeat of the SWANC case as the Courts nor the government could reform the EPA to meet it new needs.


For the above arguments we can see that my opponent's arguments are negated and that we need to pass the Defense of Envirnment and Property Act.

Thank you and please vote Pro!

Sources
1. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...)
2. (http://www.wsj.com...)
3. (https://www.pacificlegal.org...)
4. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...)
FourTrouble

Con

Overview

I suggest weighing the debate by evaluating (1) who best furthers the the CWA's stated objective ("to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"), and (2) who supports better regulations generally. I've shown that defining "navigable waters" broadly to include adjacent wetlands furthers the CWA's stated objective better than H.R. 4304. I've also shown that my definition promotes better regulations generally because of its greater flexibility, and because it gives substantial discretion to agencies who possess more technical expertise than Congress.

Pro drops C1. Specifically, Pro drops that the scientific evidence shows that polluting adjacent wetlands has effects on the entire water network, including traditional navigable waters. This shows that regulating adjacent wetlands is just as essential to the CWA's stated objective as regulating the traditional navigable waters. Pro also drops C2 and C3. These contentions show that the Corps and EPA should be given substantial discretion because of their technical expertise (Pro drops this) and because it leads to flexible regulations (Pro drops this too). Finally, Pro drops that evaluating waters on a case-by-case basis is better than a categorical rule because it gives the EPA and Corps greater flexibility.

What are Pro's counter-arguments? Pro cites two Supreme Court cases, SWANCC and Rapanos. In SWANCC, the Supreme Court held that the "migratory bird rule" exceeded the Corps and EPA's authority under the CWA. The "migratory bird rule" is the idea that purely *isolated* waters (including wetlands) fall under the CWA as long as migratory birds use the waters. Under the CWA's current definition, without any modification, the "migratory bird rule" doesn't apply. SWANCC is actually a reason to prefer my alternative to the proposed bill, because under SWANCC, the CWA already doesn't cover isolated wetlands used by migratory birds. Thus, the proposed bill has no impact in relation to the "migratory bird rule."

Pro also cites Rapanos. In Rapanos, the Supreme Court held that all waters with a "significant nexus" to "traditional navigable waters" are covered under the CWA. The specific wetland in Rapanos was 20 miles from the neareest waterway. The Court held that such a wetland doesn't pass the "significant nexus" text. Justice Scalia's plurality opinion suggested that the law be changed to only cover traditional navigable waters, as in H.R. 4304. But the operative law in Rapanos is found in Kennedy's concurrence, which applied the "significant nexus" test and found that the specific wetland at issue, which was 20 miles away from a traditional navigable water, didn't meet the test. Scalia preferred a categorical rule that would exclude all wetlands; Kennedy preferred a case-by-case evaluation of waters. As I've said throughout this debate, a case-by-case approach allows greater flexibility, and gives more discretion to expert agencies, which in turn produces better regulations. Overall, the Supreme Court (with the exception of Scalia) agrees with that. Pro doesn't give any reason to prefer a categorical approach to regulating the Nation's waters. Flexibility, and greater discretion to technical experts, are both reasons to prefer a case-by-case approach.

Again, let me emphasize that Pro dropped the scientific evidence entirely. And the scientific evidence shows that polluting adjacent wetlands affects the entire water network when those wetlands have a "significant nexus" to the navigable water. In fact, the scientific evidence even shows effects on navigable waters when there's no surface connection between the two. As I explained in R2, water tends to flrow from wetlands into downhill areas below ground level, which will affect nearby waters downstream. And remember, I gave the example of wetlands with subsurface connections to downstream waters which serve as nutrient sinks, which thus protects the quality of downstream waters even in the absence of a surface connection. Regulating these waters furthers the CWA's objectives, and produces better regulations via increased flexibility, greater discretion to technical experts. Each of these reasons means better regulations. Thus, prefer my alternative to H.R. 4304 because it produces better regulations, better protects the Nation's waters, and better furthers the CWA's goals.

Rebuttal

Pro argues two things: (1) Commerce Clause, and (2) Ordinary Meaning (I'm not sure what else to call this argument).

(1) Commerce Clause

Pro says the bill limits what the EPA can regulate specifically to "what goes across state borders." First, this isn't true. Second, even if it were true, that doesn't matter, because Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate activities as long as those activities (a) have a substantial affect on interstate commerce, or (b) regulating these activities is essential to a comprehensive regulatory scheme. In this case, regulating adjacent wetlands falls under both (a) and (b), so Congress clearly had authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate such waters.

First, Congress has authority to regulate "purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." [1] This is known as the "substantial affects" test and it's well-established as part of the Commerce Clause. The test is whether there is a "rational basis" for Congress's determination that the class of activities substantially affects interstate commerce. As long as there's a rational basis for determining that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the regulated activity falls under the Commerce Clause power. Applying the test to the CWA, the activities regulated under the CWA are obviously economic in nature. Discharging pollutants into waters occurs primarily as a result of economic activities, including manufacturing, constructing, resource extraction, agriculture, waste disposal, and so on. And the Nation's waters are vital not only to these economic activities, but also to transporting goods, and to the fishing industry. The activities regulated by the CWA are thus clearly economic. And the pollution of adjacent wetlands has substantial effects on interstate commerce. The scientific evidence I cited in R2, which was entirely dropped by Pro, shows that wetlands remove pollutants from the Nation's waters; they operate as nutrient sinks which help keep the Nation's waters clean. The effects of nutrient pollution via adjacent wetlands can be devastating. Commercial fishing, for example, could be totally destroyed by elevated pollution levels. This could wreak havoc not only on the navigability of the waters (which is affected by pollution), but the Nation's fishing industry, as well as the amount of discharge from other industries cited above. So at the very least, Congress has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands that pollute traditional waters.

Second, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has power to regulate purely intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause if it's an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme. In Raich, for example, the Court upheld a federal ban on purely intrastate possession of marijuana to avoid creating a "gaping hole" in the comprehensive federal drug control scheme. [1] Like Congress's authority to regulate intrastate possession of marijuana to avoid creating a hole in a comprehensive reuglatory scheme, Congress clearly has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands to avoid creating a "gaping hole" in Congress's comprehensive scheme to combat water pollution. So even if adjacent wetlands are purely intrastate, they're still fall under Congress's power to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme (the keyword being comprehensive, which the CWA is).

Finally, even if both the above reasons don't convince you (and they really should because of they're based on well-established Supreme Court precedents), there's yet another reason Congress has authority to regulate adjacent wetlands: to protect navigability. The power to protect navigabilty is fundamental under the Commerce Clause, and adjacent wetlands provide critical flood-control functions vital to continued navigability of the Nation's waters. [1] The scientific evidence I cited in R2 proves this fact true. Adjacent wetlands affect traditional navigable waters, which means they affect the navigability of these waters. That means regulating adjacent wetlands -- at least the ones that are found vital to continued navigability of the nearby water -- are within the fundamental core of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

(2) Ordinary Meaning

I don't actually understand what Pro's argment is but it seems to be that we should define "navigable waters" to mean waters that are "navigable-in-fact," instead of giving the term a "technical meaning." But that's not how complex statutes likes the CWA work. If you look at any comprehensive regulatory scheme like this (e.g. the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Affordable Care Act, etc.), they always contain a "definitions" section. That "definitions" section defines words in specific ways that have nothing to do with their ordinary meaning. The fact that "navigable waters" is defined to mean "the waters of the United States" doesn't mean there's a problem with the underlying policy. The point of the statute is to restore and maintain the Nation's waters, not just waters that are "navigable-in-fact." This is a comprehensive regulatory scheme, and "navigable waters," the word that's used to define the CWA's scope, should be defined broadly so as to achieve the stated objectives, to increase flexibility in the regulations, and to defer to the agencies' technical expertise. Nothing Pro argued suggests otherwise.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
I am perpetually amazed by the RFD's that so many cast.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Bleh, double post. Sorry about that.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I took that into consideration, and if you hadn't attacked Pro's case, that would have put you over the top on the basis of purpose alone. It's another layer, and it matters. The issue is that purpose isn't the only means by which I assessed the debate, and my first instinct is to move towards an assessment of net benefits. Purpose isn't a part of that valuation. Perhaps I could (and should) have focused on purpose as the major lens through which to determine what impacts matter, and as I said, it would have been a next step if needed. Nonetheless, I wanted to assess the debate based on which case was better on the whole, since that's just generally a simple means for assessing a debate on policy, and so that's the route I took.

Hope that makes sense.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I took that into consideration, and if you hadn't attacked Pro's case, that would have put you over the top on the basis of purpose alone. It's another layer, and it matters. The issue is that purpose isn't the only means by which I assessed the debate, and my first instinct is to move towards an assessment of net benefits. Purpose isn't a part of that valuation. Perhaps I could (and should) have focused on purpose as the major lens through which to determine what impacts matter, and as I said, it would have been a next step if needed. Nonetheless, I wanted to assess the debate based on which case was better on the whole, since that's just generally a simple means for assessing a debate on policy, and so that's the route I took.

Hope that makes sense.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
Also, Whiteflame, thanks for the RFD. I realized my questions might seem defensive, so just to clarify, I'm not trying to attack your RFD. I'm just trying to understand what went through your mind as you read the debate so I can improve how I frame the issue, emphasize the right points next time, etc.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
Also, @YYW: I hate bad votes too, and I agree that Tej really needs to improve his voting. It's pretty sh!tty in every debate I've seen him vote on.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
@Whiteflame

How is impact analysis of pollution relevant to the debate? The debate's about the CWA. H.R. 4304 is a proposed amendment to the CWA, so both sides accept the CWA as a starting point. I began my argument under that assumption, which is why I began by emphasizing the goals of the CWA. The goal is to reduce pollution of the Nation's waters. That's the underlying assumption for the whole debate. Both sides accept that. So why is impact analysis of the harms from pollution relevant?
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
May I suggest that we leave this space for comments concerning this debate? Thi really isn't an appropriate place for lobbing insults at fellow judges (especially those who haven't even voted yet). I suggest that if someone has an issue with another member, they should contact that member directly in a respectful manner.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD:

There isn"t much to cover here, so I"ll be brief.

Both sides present an opening round that does a good job establishing cases and links, but makes no attempt to explain the impacts of their arguments. Each side insinuates harm, but it takes until the final round for each to make hay of their proposed harms.

Pro talks about how the EPA is imposing on too broad an array of peoples and locations without explaining why that becomes harmful. He eventually gets to the reasoning in R4 " that these regulations end up costing peoples quite a bit of money " but throughout R2, I"m left stumped as to why I should care about regulations at all. In fact, the money bit is missing a link or two that establish how regulations place large financial burdens on individuals.

Con discusses pollution and how it spreads through waterways. Again, I don"t seem to get any impact analysis in R2, as it"s just sort of assumed that pollution is a bad thing. In R4, I get some explanation, though even there I don"t get a full explanation. Con says that it reduces the navigability of waters and damages the fishing industry, but both of these come without a couple of links showing what pollutants are causing these problems and examples of their spread through underground water.

So both of you are functioning on numerous assumptions, often lacking a great deal of support. What decides this debate for me is how well I can reach those conclusions. Pro does very little on case defense, and absolutely nothing on offense. He builds on his case in R4, but only through examples and minimal impacting. Con, by contrast, spends a great deal of his final round emphasizing drops and focusing on offense, showing that Pro"s case is less flexible and that his own case isn"t likely to cause any of the harms Pro cites. Maybe there"s some risk of harm on his part, but Pro"s drops make the risks of his plan far more certain. Hence, since likelihood is all that separates the impacts of each case, I
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
This is next on my list. I'll likely have a vote up tomorrow.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
lannan13FourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed excellent conduct by waiving a round so the two could have even rounds!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
lannan13FourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
lannan13FourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really have time to vote on this, but I am to remove the annoying action item, haha. I'm not voting on args and sources because I don't really have the time, and you've both asked to refrain from awarding conduct, so I'm just awarding S&G. Pro's S&G was very poor, and he constantly misspelled words. "Escentailly" instead of "essentially", "obseen" instead of "obscene", "ditchages" instead of "ditches", and "appologize" instead of "apologize" were particularly painful to read. "as it is highly key that this is done so" is a grammatically incoherent phrase. "Firstly" is used incorrectly, thus is incoherent. "attrouous" instead of "atrocious" was also painful. This poor S&G really hurt readability. Thus, S&G to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
lannan13FourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.