Resolved: The United States of America should create coral reefs along its coastlines(Policy debate)
This debate is a rematch between Whiteflame and myself (TheJuniorVarsityNovice) on coral reefs, same rules as last time will apply; this is a policy debate with no kiritcs accepted. Unlike most debates about policy, the Burden of Proof will be equally shared. 10k character limit, the purpose of the debate shall primarily be fairness and education. Pro maintains the right to clarify his case to a reasonable extent and con maintains the right to say that a clarification is unfair and unreasonable.
This debate will be concerned with a plan to implement coral reefs in the US, to win this debate I must show that the plan will benifit the status quo more than it will hurt it while con must do the opposite.
Claims must be supported with credible citations, ones that are not will be considered as invalid by the judges. rounds will be as follows
2.) first constructive speach/ counter arguments
3.) counter arguments
4,) conclusion, and why either of us should win
These may be some of my citations in the round:
-First Affirmative Constructive will have these cites in order, in good faith I trust you won't open them until you accept.
 will be conceded by opposition no need to cite
 comes from world health organization http://tinyurl.com...
My primary sources draws from alot of different studies, All of which I will now list:
Sinderman, C.J., Ocean Pollution: Effects on Living Resources and Humans, CRC, p. 304
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
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).
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).
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.
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).
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
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
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
Reiswig, H.M., Particle feeding in natural populations of three marine Demospongiae, Biological
Bulletin (Woods Hole), 141, 568-591 (1971b).
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,
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-
Rouse, I., The Tainos: Rise and decline of the people who greeted Columbus, Yale University
Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Building capacity for Aquaculture in the Pacific: Ist SPC
Aquaculture Meet, SPC Aquaculture Technical Papers (2002).
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).
in this debate we will simply examine whether the USFG should implement Artificial Coral reefs on its coast lines.
OV1: It's concerning that Pro is inserting extra rules into the debate in R2. These are overly restrictive. As long as we are both clear enough to be understood, voters can ignore rules 2 and 3. Rule 1 is a mainstay: no responding to previously dropped arguments in the final round.
OV2: Pro's sourcing is unclear. He doesn't provide any clear numerical breakdown for how any of his sources from R1 apply, using none of those numbers in this round, and, despite providing a very long list of studies, has failed to source even one of them directly. This makes it extremely difficult to follow his facts. His 3 is literally just "n/a" (I don't know what it applies to, so I can't know why it's not applicable), his 4 assumes a concession for some unknown point, and his 11 is incredibly vague, as the WHO has a very large website.
OV3: The fact that he doesn't even provide background for what biorock is and how it's formed are huge deficits for anyone reading this without prior knowledge. Pro is seeking to use this technology very broadly, and yet he's not informing anyone of what that technology is and how it functions. He cannot rely solely on his links to provide that information. Pro is only contributing to misconceptions when he fails to provide this background.
Pro's inherency is entirely based on natural coral reefs, and yet he's not supporting conservation. Pro is right to cite misconceptions and their effects on initiatives. However, he's missed Goreau's point: this is a global problem, and one that cannot be handled unilaterally. As such, I propose a counterplan: let's pursue the wide-scale conservation initiatives as a country, and join our efforts with numerous national and international bodies. There are plenty working on it already. The commitment would be time, resources and attention, not just a down payment but a continuous resolve, and while putting a price on this is difficult, the $8 billion Pro requests should be sufficient to start. The scientific community would have the perfect opportunity to address misconceptions in this atmosphere. Now, let's compare to Pro's plan.
This plan is extremely vague. He doesn't say anything about how that money will be spent beyond arguing that it goes into "reef development". I don't see any assessment of what it costs to set the electrodes necessary for biorock to form, nor any way to monitor that growth. It's not readily apparent where the funds are even going. He doesn't talk about how these reefs will be constructed, who will be doing the work, how long it will take to complete, how long after completion it will take for the biorock to form, how thick these formations will be, or even at what depth they'll be placed. What is "baffled form" and how can biorock be made to fit it? No one should vote for such an ill-defined plan.
While Pro has the right to define and clarify, he does not have the right to expand his case. Hold him to what he's presented here.
For subpoint b, Pro misread his source. It does say that the median is the most accurate. It also says that $9 billion is the average cost, and shows that it's faulted because Hurricane Katrina dramatically skews the data. Stick with the most accurate number of $1.8 billion.
Grant Pro's subpoint c. This is a huge problem for Pro " he admits that the vast majority of hurricanes hit Florida or Texas, yet left off Florida from the list of states covered under his plan. Including Florida (or any other states not on his list) now would be a case expansion. Despite his evidence that the problem mainly applies to 2 states, his case spreads the distribution of these biorock formations across 9 states. Maine hasn't experienced a hurricane since 1987, Georgia since 1985, New Jersey since 1944, and California has never had one. He can't add the other states that have experienced hurricanes more recently " Alabama (2005), Connecticut (1991), Mississippi (2005), New York (2012), or Hawaii (1992) " leaving these states vulnerable without reason and potentially creating a political storm in the process.
On subpoint d:
Pro spends little time here, despite this being the only point that establishes any reason why his case could reduce hurricane damage. It doesn't.
Pro should reread his source. Beck says that "[m]ost (86%) of this wave energy reduction happens at the reef crest, a thin narrow band at the highest point of the reef where the waves break first." Biorock can't substitute for this formation. Considering that depth of placement isn't even defined, it's likely that they won't provide any wave attenuation at all: "The depth of reefs, particularly at the shallowest points, is critical in providing wave attenuation benefits." Pro will have to show the depth of placement is shallow enough to see any benefits, and that the height of the biorock reefs themselves is sufficient to attenuate. It's also a very slow impact, as the biorock formation is gradual, and without constant monitoring of 50,000 miles of ocean during its formation, it wont happen.
But it gets worse. The author states: "we don"t suggest creating new reefs in places they did not naturally occur. Reef restoration will almost certainly require adding to the height and complexity of existing reefs in order to enhance their wave-breaking power." In other words, he's arguing for conservation, restoration and recovery, all of which I support, and against deposition of new reefs, as Pro is arguing.
On cancer, I'll grant that these sources provide possible medical benefit, though it's rarely realized and minimally effective. Death tolls are still high, and major shifts can be attributed mainly to better screening practices rather than chemotherapies.[6, 7]
On HIV, all this protein does is block transmission, and unless this is made incredibly cheaply, it will never substitute for other means of prevention (e.g. condoms, abstinence, not sharing needles).
Moreover, in order for Pro to get any solvency on this, he'll have to show that artificial reefs garner similar marine life to that found on natural reefs. Not so:
Numerous "studies have shown that the communities that develop on artificial reefs remain quite different from those on natural reefs." No matter how well they're crafted or how carefully they're used, and that is largely the result of the complexity involved in how these communities form: "...restoration sites are different from those where secondary succession occurs after disturbance (Zedler 2000b), and restoring or creating an ecosystem of specific composition becomes quite difficult. Most successes appear to be only transitory (Lockwood and Pimm 1999)." So even if biorock garners communities, it's never going to be similar to the natural thing, and therefore we're never going to get the same benefits as natural reefs. In fact, as we're likely to do damage to natural populations and reefs, we're going to reduce the biodiversity that makes such pharmaceuticals possible.
Pro really should have spent more time here. All he manages to show here is that artificial reefs can be colonized, and that they're durable. That's not enough; Pro cannot fiat his solvency. He provides absolutely no evidence that biorock formations are adequate substitutes for the natural coral reefs he touts. In fact, I'd say that the exact opposite is true.
The sheer amount of influencing factors, which include "water quality, wave interaction, bottom composition, reef profile and materials used for construction" make any artificial reef project a risk, and one that can even "potentially cause harm to adjacent habitats", thus worsening our impact. It can even have direct effects on the ecosystem, "runn[ing] the risk of degrading our marine resources." Despite 50 years of research, we can't even determine if they're beneficial, and yet Pro wants to expand their usage dramatically.
Artificial reefs may only be pulling marine life from other habitats, rather than nurturing a higher prevalence of life overall. Several studies have shown that proximity to other reefs is an important factor that can affect density of reef fishes, which means it's likely that they're simply drawn off of these sources. The net effect is not an improvement to growth and reproduction. It also puts that life at risk, which may have initially be disparate, or at least focused in deeper waters, concentrating it in well-known, publicized spots closer to shore. That's great for fishers, but really bad for the aquatic life.
For activists, the plan will mask any harms to marine lives, and reduce any political clout they have. For law-makers, this is a major investment towards the environment, which will lead to reduced political will to fund marine conservation projects, which will be viewed as virtually identical despite the realities involved.
The main purpose of artificial reefs is to ensure that we can preserve and increase populations of various marine creatures. If there's a substantial effect on marine life, especially life that's currently in distress, it should be taken very seriously as some of them may even disappear completely. That loss of those life forms can have drastic consequences for ecosystems throughout the oceans, dramatically altering species present at numerous depths and thus harming ecological diversity. As these impacts can and do affect humans (see Pro's Advantage 2, as well as financial harms), and as they have a much broader effect that goes well beyond humanity, these impacts should always be preferred.
Back to Pro.
OV1: Disregard this, the rules stated are true in Any policy debate, as this is.
OV2: Look in the first round, “First Affirmative Constructive will have these cites in order”. Disregard OV1.
OV3: This argument is against abusive and addressed in the abuse argument below.
In his counterplan Whiteflame wishes to ‘pursue wide-scale coral initiatives’. He claims that I have misunderstood my author, Goreau. I’m not sure how he figures this though. My author literally wrote a study promoting mineral accretion reefs. The Counter Plan (CP) still does not solve for the inherent barrier which is political confusion. He has not provided evidence that scientists alone can solve this problem, if they could, they already would have. Reponse to counter-plan is permutation, the counterplan is not competitive. Con must specify, is the CP conditional, unconditional or dispositional. Ironically this CP is extremely vauge.
a.) Whiteflame is making an argument that my case is too vauge when in fact my case has all of the necessary pieces. We are debating the merits of the overarching ideas as they relate to reality, not every minute aspect. Whiteflame is making an argument that literally everything in the plan must be specified when in real policy debate, plan texts aren’t even a requirement. My plan text is 110% complete and nothing Whiteflame requests is vital or important to the debate. As I stated before, in a debate about cars, I need not show how the pistons in the engine work or the amount of torque the engine uses, but simply give evidence that the car will solve the problem at hand.
b.) Violation- Con has a completely backwards conception of a policy debate plan text and is using this to argue that the affirmative team cannot win the round until his requested components are given. Thus con has attempted to take the round hostage and has made an argument that, even if true would be overtly and offensively abusive.
c.) Voter’s issue- Whiteflame’s actions destroy education and fairness in the round by preventing standard debate procedures to be carried out and by detracting from the quality of information that can be presented. Because of Con’s actions he should not be eligible to win this debate until he concedes to the faultiness of his argument and thus ends the abusive argument. (Voter’s issue means this issue is the #1 issue in the round and is considered above any other arguments as far as voting)
This argument is also abusive. Whiteflame is ignoring the section of the plan text that says “all feasible costal states” will be considered and lists Examples of costal states. I will at this time exercise my right to define and clarify my case as necessary. If Con wishes to contest this then please give non abusive examples of defining and clarifying one’s case. This argument is not enough to take precedence over debate issues but should be considered.
ADV1-Hurricanes and Storm Surge
b.) Agree, 1.8 is the official average for a hurricane in the US.
c.) Covered above.
d.) This section heavily shows that coral reefs prevent hurricane and storm surge damage. By preventing 97% of wave energy from passing by the reefs you can of course reduces the force of the waves as they come onto shore, and thus reduce the amount of damage as a whole that might occur to the city.
The argument is simple:
1.) What destroys cities in hurricanes the most, is the waves.
2.) The plan places artificial reefs in the path of those waves.
3.) Mineral Accretion reefs prevent 97% of wave energy from hitting the coast
4.) Thus the damage in the city will be decreased by around 97%
5.) Thus not only does the plan save lives but makes money and pays itself off in only 4 years.
Effectiveness and potential of marine drugs
Whiteflame just kinda seemed to shrug this whole argument off. He assumes that marine medication is ineffective and that it’s no big deal, as he himself doesn’t see a huge impact within the SQ, at least not in chemotherapy. He doubts the potential in medications such as the protein within coral extracts that can completely block the transmission of HIV and he doesn’t realize the potentially revolutionary outcomes that would result from, say, using this protein in sexual lubricants or condoms themselves, or even using it for something as simple as preventing the continued growth of the HIV virus in someone already infected. Scientific medication such as this is fundamentally important to longevity of our society especially with new forms of HIV, which develop into full blow AIDS over 3 time faster than normal, emerging in places like Cuba .
Please extend my Caron 12 evidence which states that it is 400 to 600 times more likely to find cures to diseases in coral reefs than on land. They are quite literally the rainforest of the ocean.
A.) It has been established that there is a need for new Pharmaceuticals.
B.) It has been established that there is a vast potential to find new pharmaceuticals
C.) Industries that locate pharmaceutical compounds are thriving - Shows the prospects of Marine pharmaceuticals are real –substantiates impact 
“According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, marine biotechnology has become a multibillion industry worldwide, with a projected annual growth of 15 to 20 percent during the next five years…Chemists homogenized hundreds of kilograms of an individual species in hopes of identifying a useful compound. This technique often yielded a suite of compounds… less than 10 percent of coral reef biodiversity is known, and only a small fraction of the described species have been explored as a source of biomedical compounds [This fact further shows that there is huge room for market expansion in this sector]”
D.) (There is an inhibition) Recourse limitations prevent further discoveries because of an inability to mass harvest- Plan solves 
“Targeting a promising compound is only the first step; a renewable source for the compound must also be established before a new drug can be developed.”
E.) Thus being that the plan solves the (inhibition) problem with lacking enough corals to harvest, the plan can give billions of dollars to the US economy, and most importantly it can literally save millions of lives, not only in America but abroad.
What is an artifical reef?
Finally Whiteflame simply says, “Hey, your reefs are artificial, I found evidence that says artificial reefs are actually bad.” This is the most common argument that I hear against this case but what people fail to realize is that the term ‘artificial reef’ is a huge term which refers to a vast array of different types of reefs. It’s like saying “Hey, I read that renewable energies have over 3 times the cost of coal!” well that would hardly make sense right? You would definitely need to know what Type of renewable energy was being specified. Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Hamster?? In this debate we are talking about mineral accretion coral reefs which differ dramatically from what the state governments such as Texas, California or Mississippi have done with their reefs, using methods like throwing tires, trash mounds, old cars, boxes or other completely unnatural things into the ocean. We are not that, no, not by any means. Mineral accretion is a highly scientific method for creating coral ecosystems which exerts literally no negative force on the environment it is put into.
 “Life-Saving Products from Coral Reefs” by Andrew W. Bruckner, coral reef ecologist in the National Marine Fisheries Service's Office of Protected Resources, Maryland.
Thank you, I now pass the pen back to Con, and await the analysis.
OV2: Extend my point that Pro implies his 3, 4 and 11. None of these should stand as sources.
OV3: How is it abusive to request the basic underpinnings of your case? Pro is presenting a technology that few people understand, and expecting that everyone read deeply in order to understand any of the debate. He's still failed to explain how biorock functions, and that failure contributes to the misconceptions he cites.
Pro drops my point that his inherency doesn't support his case - it supports mine. All of his sources tout the benefits of natural coral reefs, not biorock reefs.
As for Goreau, don't take my word for it. Read his: "active global ecosystem restoration strategies are urgently needed to prevent crippling economic losses to marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism, and coastal resources." Biorock formation around a single country isn't a global ecosystem restoration strategy. Goreau may support biorock, but he doesn't support Pro's case.
On the CP:
1) I solve for political confusion (note that Pro doesn't) by ensuring that scientists are active participants in how restoration occurs. I'd argue that requiring scientific advisors will enlighten politicians, but it doesn't matter if the political sphere is still confused, so long as they're facilitating the activities of those who understand it. That's what my CP does. It puts scientists in a position to make changes to coral reef policy. It doesn't happen now because there's a lack of political will.
2) The perm fails. First, as I showed in my rebuttal, Pro's biorock formations actually harm natural reefs, which means that his case contradicts mine. Second, as I also showed, political will changes after plan passes. Pro can't do both because the problem is effectively masked and any support for it dries up after spending $8 billion on biorock.
3) Again, this is not formal policy debate. Most people reading this aren't going to know what these types of CPs are, or what a permuatation is. However, for your sake, it's unconditional.
4) Pro says my plan is vague, but never states how. I took the time to explain what was missing from his (even if he barely acknowledges them), Pro must do the same.
a) I showed that Pro's case lacks a number of essential pieces. Pro has not explained why any of these are unnecessary. As I go through the advantages, it will become clear why the lack of specificity has important implications, but for now, let's use that car analogy. It would be like saying that we need a car to solve a given pressing situation in specifics place, and that we will throw money at car companies with a couple of technical specifications until the car appears anywhere. Sounds like fantastic policy!
b) Again, this is not formal policy debate. I haven't taken the debate hostage - I've explained why several of these deficits affect Pro's case. Without specifics, his advantages oscillate between plausible and impossible.
c) So, specificity destroys education? Pro explaining how biorock works to an audience of non-scientists destroys education? And policy jargon is educational? Turn this voter against Pro: so long as he decides that it's not worth his time to explain the very technology he's employing, and instead emphasizes the very tropes of policy debate that make it impossible for outsiders to understand, Pro is damaging education in this debate. As for fairness, it is entirely unfair to present such a technology without background and expect your opponent to dredge up research just to comprehend it. If anything, the vagueness detracts from the debate, forcing me to argue against a shifting case that Pro can "clarify" when he chooses.
A great example of Pro "clarifying" his case. Still, I'll grant this so we can move on.
b) Per Pro's source: "$1.8 billion (2011 adjusted) is the median".
c) Pro drops that he's applying biorock to the coastlines of 4 states that haven't had a hurricane in at least 28 years, and thus wasting money and time there.
d) What Pro's  says is that natural reefs protect shorelines, not biorock. This doesn't function as evidence for his case because it's not showing biorock attenuating waves. In fact, if you look at the report (that's the source Pro says "is utterly wrong", otherwise known as HIS SOURCE), you'll see that it spells out what about the reefs makes them effective, and that's cheifly the reef crest. Lacking that, biorock formations make bad subsitutes. If you keep reading, you'll find that it talks about the depths of the reefs being an extremely important determinant in how much they attenuate. Pro drops all of this. He also drops that the author himself (Beck) makes a statement directly against Pro's case and for mine. Beck makes clear that creating new reefs is a bad idea, and that conservation should be prioritized. I don't know how much more case specific you can be. If that point is based on opinion, that opinion is very well-informed, and one Pro apparently respects.
Back to vagueness. Pro's case doesn't state how deep these mineral accretion systems will be placed, just that they will be along some coastlines. Looking at Beck's paper, the depth of the reef is essential. Assuming Pro thinks depth doesn't matter, he's going to have a high variability of placement. Depending on how far offshore it is, the effect on wave attenuation could be nil. Since Pro won't specify, I'll specify for him: these will always be placed far offshore to prevent any concerns with boats, and will thus do next to nothing to attenuate waves. It's up to Pro to prove his solvency, not up to me to disprove it (even though I've done just that).
As for my claims:
Accretion is a slow process, "Minerals have accreted to a thickness of up to 20 centimetres over three years." Going to need a lot more than 20 centimeters to see any effects on large waves, and that's supposed to be rapid. We're talking about decades before these reefs become a viable sea wall.
As for surveillance, this seems relatively straightforward. You're placing electrodes on the ocean floor. There are living creatures down there, and, in some cases, strong wave forces. They tend to move things around. There's no reason to believe that 50,000 miles worth of this stuff is just going to be fine on its own without regular monitoring. And, back to vagueness, Pro hasn't included any means of monitoring in his plan.
Pro drops my response on cancer. He can't just wish for a cure. The treatments he cites haven't made a dent in cancer mortality, and he gives no reasoning as to why a cure is even possible, let alone likely to come from these sources.
His response on HIV is non-sensical. We already have lubricants that fight HIV, and condoms are already effective without them. He doesn't contest that the price for this protein (which has to go through extensive and costly clinical trials) will far exceed other effective methods. His links don't show any therapeutic benefit ("preventing...growth") - they merely talk about preventing transmission.
Pro's entire case seems to rely on uncertainty, stating that there are life forms down there we don't know yet that maybe, possibly, have some unknown protein that cures disease. He's idealizing possible outcomes, when the reality is that most such efforts will represent a massive cost and no gain, with a success rate of 1-in-5000. And that's if they find something promising. The reality is that most organisms won't have any promising leads. Pharmaceutical companies risk a lot by pursuing them. This also assumes that biorock formations will be hot spots for marine life that we haven't seen, which he's failed to prove. Pro even talks about mass harvesting of marine life, and then ignores the fact that that will massively deplete marine life around these sites, thus reducing their biodiversity.
Pro writes off my responses. This is going to hurt. None of what I've cited as potential problems is specific to any type of artificial reef, and are thus applicable to all artificial reefs, including biorock. Like my , which shows that any marine life that clings to artificial reefs is going to be very different from those on natural reefs and any success transitory. My  shows that there are multiple factors that affect the success of any artificial reef, none of which his plan addresses, and that artificial reefs depopulate natural reefs. My  reveals that artificial reefs can degrade marine resources. My  even assumes that his reefs will attract fish, becoming publicized sites lthat lead to overfishing, further reducing populations and biodiversity.
Pro cannot assert that mineral accretion "exerts literally no negative force on the environment it is put into." He cannot assert the inapplicability of these points to his case. All of them point to problems that occur when new reef structures appear on the ocean floor, and that means any reef structures. They don't require specific materials to be applicable. Biorock is not infallible just because artificial reefs are worse.
Extend my point about masking and lost political clout for activists. Extend my argument regarding reduced political will for law-makers. Both of these function as independent reasons why the plan and CP are mutually exclusive, as well as disadvantages to his case.
Extend my weighing argument on the importance of marine life. This makes plausible biodiversity harms the most potent impacts in this debate. Pro has yet to argue that his case would in any way improve biodiversity, whereas I have shown that it will be harmed.
OV1: Whiteflame concedes that the rules are true in any policy debate but Whiteflame points out that: “A DDO debate is not a formal policy debate unless the rules in R1 make it so.”….Let’s get a quote from Round 1: “this is a policy debate”…..Let’s look in the resolution: “….reefs along its coastlines (Policy debate)”….Over.
OV2: Is this really relevant? I’d like to move on if you understand my sourcing.
OV3: See abuse argument.
The Chemical formula for limestone is CaCO3  and the chemical formula for calcium carbonate is also CaCO3, the plan aggregates limestone on top of wire mesh from the ocean water, while reefs use the death of organic matter to make calcium carbonate so they are the same thing. However, what the coral rests upon is irrelevant, all of my evidence talks about corals themselves which is the same in both reef types. And in fact, Solvency evidence will show that the corals on Mineral Accretion reefs grow much healthier in every way. Thus despite the derivation of the CaCO3 corals live on, the evidence is nonetheless, about corals.
Please read this evidence from my author Goreau:
“Current conservation strategies practiced by governments, international funding agencies, and large environmental organizations have in almost all cases failed tragically to protect and conserve corals, and diverted attention and funding from the critically urgent need to restore damaged reefs.”  (Sec. Restoration Is Crucial, p. 2)
The meaning of restore is ‘to bring back’; Goreau refers to restoring coral reefs as a whole, by creating new ones using mineral accretion. Flow this quote my direction because he is advocating for my plan, mineral accretion, as the solution to all these problems, I couldn’t run the fisheries advantage because I didn’t have enough space, due to the fact that I was forced to waste discussion on rules and abuse. Finally, I need not solve for political clout, I just solve the whole problem executively.
Counter Plan The Permutation
If the resolution was “Resolved: Let’s walk the dog for 30 min” and someone said “No, counterplan”: Let’s breath the air for 30 min instead, then you would say “Well this is stupid, we can do both at the same time”. Exactly, this is a permutation, it points out that nothing about the counterplan excludes the plan’s existence (mutually exclusive) and thus it doesn’t competewith the plan and is invalid. A mutually exclusive counterplan is that same CP but resolution is "Sit at the bottom of a pool for 30 min"
A permutation asks if the plan and the counter plan could physically coexist at the same time, or if the happening of one would cancel the other, this test is required by the Policy Debate God.There is no reason that we cannot physically ‘pursue…wide-scale conservation initiatives as a country’ while also creating coral reefs on our coasts. This is because one can conserve current corals while creating more thus the CP is noncompetitive and therefore void. As shown, this IS a policy debate.
First, you never explain why the analogy is just like my plan, sarcasm doesn’t prove your argument. I drop the abuse argument, but not the underlying objection. I have participated in maybe 20 policy debate with this topic and have never been required to provide the “cost of the electrodes”.
For the reason of specificity, Debate has come up with the process of “normal means”, which guarantees that the plan will go through reasonably normal ways as in real life, this is to prevent specificity abuse. It is forthrightly impossible for me to outline a real life plan to save the world, especially in 10k characters, that’s abusive.
You have to explain how I damage education, not just declare that I do. Also, on ‘prep time fairness’, that’s what policy debate is Lol, you shouldn’t get sympathy for not reading R1 or the res.
Adv.1 Hurricanes and storm surge
Mineral Accretion is a process whereby one takes industrial grade wire mesh and conforms it to the same shape as any coral reef. You plug electricity into the wire mesh (usually about 1/9th of a AA battery) and limestone (same composition of natural reef) begins to accrete on the metal. Limestone is actually heavier than cement and thus the reefs act the Exact same as any other reef (including the reef crest, as Whiteflame points out), thus it of course has the same effects on waves as natural reefs. As far as depth, corals can only grow at a certain depth, thus, obviously the plan puts them at that depth, which is the same depth that attenuates waves and prevents storm damage.
Next, I’ll fire your argument right back at you, this quote from my author, Beck, is about natural reefs, you have to give evidence that his quote relays to Mineral Accretion reefs (Not artificial reefs, Mineral Accretion reefs). This quote from Beck actually goes with my quote from Goreau which says current conservation methods suck, because methods of growing natural reefs back, are failing and Mineral Accretion is the only technology which is effective and leaves no impact on the environment. Lastly, Whiteflame, I am sorry to relay that you aren’t in control of my plan. The plan doesn’t limit depth because of ships and if you want to make that into an argument against my case, be prepared to justify that MA reefs are not any taller than regular reefs and thus they will present no further damage to ships than reefs in the status quo do.
As for your claims:
Where is your evidence that 20 centimeters of accretion is insufficient? This doesn’t prove it is slow, slow is determined by effectiveness and my evidence says it is plenty effective as it is. Keep in mind that limestone is heavier than cement. On surveillance; the NSA is surveilling everything already, so this is already covered. Hahah, sorry, had to lol…My response; simply pointing out that in any project that the government does, it doesn’t do itself, it hires contractors who specialize in that field. Such will be the plan, if the contractors feel that surveillance is necessary then so be it, if not, then so be it, they know what they are doing (normal means). The only argument here is that you might be able to say that the plan will overspend, but is that really a huge issue.
You made a one sentence analytical argument about cancer with no evidence, I saw no need to refute. I never said that reef medicine has saved the world from cancer, but they have helped. If we can save even 1 life, one child, one grandmother from fatal sickness of cancer, arthritis, HIV, or what have you, then we have succeeded. Con wishes to put a limit on human life which I deem wrong. Even if it doesn’t contribute in a fantastical, ground breaking way, even specialized medicines which treat rare conditions are important.
You’re evidence about making a dent on caner, may be true, but they have contributed and your evidence doesn’t support you, its just 2 arbitrary graphs on cancer. As far as price of HIV medicine, your evidence never says its expensive, not once, it says ALL medicines are expensive, great, so what? Its all about those impacts man. Extend that to all of your cost declarations. To the 1-5000; true, the success rate is low, is that a shocker? No, but how many microorganisms are in the sea? 3,670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The majority of these microbes has never been cultured, identified, or classified, but it is assumed to contain an enormous chemical richness (DeLong 1997)….Next, according to my solvency evidence, Mineral Accretion reefs become indistinguishable from naturally occurring reefs, except their exceptional health and growth rates. And Finally, your evidence about attracting fish from other reefs doesn’t make sense. There is nothing about a new reef that would pull fish from other reefs, unless that reef was lower quality in which case we want them in the new reefs, leading to higher, not lower, procreation rates and higher biodiversity. Keep in mind I never said Biodiversity was an advantage so you’re attacking a straw man here.
1.) You’re evidence here was the worst of all, obviously other factors will affect how successful the project will be, and yes, some locations may fail due to unexpected reasons, but again, we exclude infeasible locations. Contractors will know where to put them.
2.) Artificial reef no equals mineral accretion reefs, I’ve already explained this, if you disagree you should have refuted my claims in last round, since you have not, they must be true and your point invalid.
3.) On overfishing, there will be a TON of reefs, this isn’t one location of condensed fish this is 50,000 miles of places where fish could Possibly be. You need evidence for these claims, analytics don’t work.
4.) Whiteflame needs solvency evidence for lost clout and political will degradation, you again, can’t declare that into existence.
5.) BioD is irrelevant in many aspects. What’s important is number or animals alive, which must increase with the gaining of new habitat, especially being that Mineral Accretion reefs provide substantially healthier reef ecosystems.
“Biorock technology…are self-repairing…grow under conditions that would normally kill them (poor water quality or high temperatures would otherwise prevent it)… grow at 3-5 times record rates in areas where all the surrounding corals had been killed…In the Maldives 50-80% of the corals survived the high temperatures that only 1-5% of the corals on surrounding reefs survived. These reefs have preserved coral…that have vanished [and] Biorock reefs have effectively absorbed wave energy that they have turned an eroding beach into a growing one…Settlement of larval corals take place at exceptionally high densities…Larval and adult fishes are attracted to these structures at exceptional densities, quickly forming schools so dense that one cannot see across the structures.” 
OV3: Pro finally provides some of the basics of how the technology works! Happy to drop this.
I'll get to similarity on Adv. 1.
Pro drops that his case doesn't have global effects. This is key: only my case provides any means by which to ensure that global ecosystem restoration occurs, and Goreau explicitly supports global efforts. Even if they fail (they won't, since scientists like Goreau will direct policy " Pro dropped this), that still gives my case a better probability of solving for a global problem than Pro's. Natural reef degradation continues unabated under Pro's plan.
On the CP:
Pro grants my solvency by dropping that my case enlightens politicians and allows knowledgeable scientists to direct coral reef policy. Pro's plan doesn't solve for misconceptions or for a lack of political will. My case encourages action, not just letting nature take its course. The CP can employ biorock too, so long as it's employed solely in the restoration of reefs.
The CP garners both of Pro's advantages as well. It sustains protection for countries around the globe from hurricanes by ensuring that their reefs survive. It also maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for scientists in every country to collect samples, allowing for the pursuit of novel therapeutics anywhere in the world. Pro's impacts only affect the U.S., but mine extend much further.
The perm still fails. Sorry, the Policy Debate God doesn't have jurisdiction here, and the "test" of physical coexistence doesn't apply. Pro is just trying to get out of a straight up net benefits debate. Not only do the cases contradict one another, but there is an inherent barrier that prevents taking action after implementing Pro's plan, which makes the perm nonsensical.
Pro still hasn't explained why any of my requests for specification are unnecessary. I've already shown and will continue to show the implications of his vagueness, whether he thinks it's important or not. Pro is providing money to a nebulous group of people with only a rudimentary set of specifications and minimal clarity on placement. All of those missing pieces matter.
Applying "normal means" to an abnormal case that forces actions that have never been done by any government before is absurd. This is the first round Pro has even used the words "normal means" and I can't make any sense of what those means look like. If I was asking for specifics that weren't necessary to establish his solvency (or lack thereof), then fine. But these are integral to Pro's case, and his repeated failures to respond to these concerns leave his case with only a risk of solvency, at best.
Let's look at similarity. Pro mentioned that mineral accretion reefs were extremely tough back in R2. He's right, they're much tougher than natural reefs.. This might appear to feed his argument, but it's that hardness that makes the formation of these reef crests extremely unlikely, since they require a careful balance between erosion and building of the reefs. Also, the organic matter in natural reefs gives rise to life, meaning that calcium carbonate is not the sole factor that Pro needs to replicate in order to get either of his advantages, since those populations stabilize reefs.
Pro assumes the formation of reef crests. However, these crests must be populated by specific kinds of algae to form and be maintained. We don't know that the biorock corals would be populated by this algae, and if they aren't, then the biorock will never form these crests due to erosion. Pro continues to ignore the second quote altogether. Beck is clearly stating that adding new reef sites by artificial means is problematic. This is Pro's own expert speaking against Pro's case, which seeks to dramatically expand the number of locations at which reefs are placed.
20 centimeters is not enough to affect waves that are between 50 and 150 times larger.[22-24] It's up to Pro to prove that he's going to get enough growth to see any impacts within a reasonable period of time. And recognize that these 20 centimeters were only achieved by transplanting corals, which aren't a part of Pro's case. His reefs will grow slower, and with far more variability due to widely varied conditions.
Pro's right that I don't have control over his plan, but apparently, neither does he. He assumes that contractors will be diligent and surveil if necessary, but it's not a part of his plan (or clarifications), so he's banking on an assumption that they'd do it as a matter of course. He's only speculating as to what could limit reef depth in a beneficial manner (without ever stating what that depth is, or sourcing it). He's leaving it up to contractors to decide these depths without any guidance, on top of deciding what makes an optimal locations for growth. Grant him that uncertainty. It showcases that he only achieves a risk of solvency, which needs to be weighed against all the probable failures I've explained.
As for costs, Pro seemed to care about the cost of an average hurricane, but I'm fine with dropping this impact out.
Pro asserts that all pharmaceutical companies need is another lead or two to produce an important health benefit. The problem is that companies have no shortage of drugs moving through their pipelines. The flood of new information brought on by recent technologies has practically paralyzed the industry, resulting in FEWER new molecular entities (NMEs) being developed. Throwing more potential NMEs at the problem only compounds the problem. Every lead will require huge time investments and tremendous costs. Those costs are in the link: $802 million, per drug. And that cost creates a trade-off. Companies have to select a small number to potential drugs to pursue. In order to come to that number, they screen through a tremendous number of possibilities. That screening can be costly as well and, as Pro dropped, most organisms won't have any potential whatsoever. More importantly, each drug pursued has a massive opportunity cost, as others could be potential lifesavers; Pro hasn't provided any reasoning to believe that marine resources are more likely to produce results.
Those costs matter, particularly for Pro's HIV drug. I've shown why companies would have to charge a large amount for these protective proteins, and Pro dropped the point that cheap and effective alternatives exist. His only evidence of a benefit is a minimally effective chemotherapy, which may have saved a few lives, but came at the cost of other potentially life-saving drugs.
Flashy as it is, the 3.7 decillion number isn't impressive - it's actually a little high. There's no reason to believe that the other 6.3-28.8*10^29 microorganisms on the planet should be ignored in favor of these when almost all of them require unknown conditions to culture and require intensive study.
Pro asserts that "contractors will know where to put them", but I've already shown that the criteria for exclusion are too complex for anyone to fully understand. Pro drops those criteria. This is 50,000 miles of ocean, and very little of it will be the vision of perfection. At the very least, these issues will affect growth rates, which Pro's case is dependent on being rapid.
He continues to try to no link my evidence on artificial reefs, but even if Pro proves that artificial reefs are exactly like natural reefs (he doesn't), that doesn't change the fact artificial reefs have NEVER been successfully grown and maintained marine life akin to natural reefs. That includes biorock. My links include actual evidence of artificial reefs depopulating natural reefs, leading to reef degradation. Biorock doesn't avoid these harms.
I provided evidence that fishermen will overfish these sites. Pro ignored it. Pro hasn't contradicted my point that publicized locations where fish congregate will be sought out fishing sites. Long as these strips are, they're much more defined than current fishing spots. Either Pro's biorock attracts marine life, which means he's biting this harm along with degradation, or it doesn't, in which case he gets no solvency on his Advantage 2 and reduced solvency on his Advantage 1.
Pro ignores the links I've provided on lost clout and political will. When a government spends billions on ecological restoration, the problem is viewed as solved - we spent the money, we spent the will, time to move on. Whether it's because Congress deems other matters more important or because constituents don't see a long term project as worth their tax dollars, the focus is likely to be pulled away. Political will for environmental problems is particularly low, even when the cost is minimal, because its impacts are long term and thus appear more distantly important, and so spending political capital on it substantially reduces that will. It masks the global reality that natural reefs are being degraded.
The drops on biodiversity, however, are the most important. I gave an extensive explanation for why this particular argument deserves the most weight, particularly because any loss to biodiversity turns Pro's Contention 2, on top of harming many species within the environment. Pro doesn't say how biorock "provide[s] substantially healthier reef ecosystems" and my arguments prove the opposite. I'm not attacking a straw man here - I'm showing why Pro's case has a very clear, certain and substantial harm, and how my case solves for it. Pro's drops here leave his case dead in the water.
Whiteflame is absolutely making this argument on purpose, he and I both know that this debate has been a policy debate from day 1.
1.) I retain the R1 right to define and clarify my case: I now clarify that this is policy debate.
2.) I am not responsible for your negligence, as the author of the rules I can objectively state that this is and always has been a policy debate. Whiteflame should receive no sympathy.
3.) A reasonable person would think the resolution referred to “formal” policy debate, all context clues and statements clearly indicate this. Saying “policy debate” in the resolution and the rules would be superfluous if it were simply to note that the debate was about a policy, so there is simply no reason that I would have added that if I wasn’t referring to ‘formal’ policy. This is a debating site for Christ’s sake.
4.) Whiteflame wouldn’t have told me his CP was ‘unconditional’ if he thought the debate was not an official policy debate, as the advocacy of a CP is only relevant in policy debates.
5.) Even if you are right, all policy debate rules should still apply because they are directly derived in order to have fair and educational debates.
6.) If this debate is NOT a policy debate, then what gives Con the authority to even run a CP? Cancel the CP if this is not a policy debate.
1.) Although Whiteflame has an extremely nasty habit of falsely accusing me of dropping arguments I have never dropped, Whiteflame actually drop multiple of my arguments, one of which is that conservation, what his CP advocates, fails (See Crtl+f:”Current con”). It says you can’t conserve natural reefs with current methods, the people in the CP simply have no way to conserve reefs effectively. This turns con’s interpretation of my author Beck’s quote (See Crtl+f:”suggest creating”), because natural projects meant to conserve corals are futile. Con can no longer refute.
2.) Another thing Con drops is my interpretation of what the author Goreau means by ‘restoring reefs’ (See Ctrl+F:”The meaning”). This interpretation is correct and means that conservation is futile and thus the CP is futile, and that my case is the only way to solve.
1.) Whether this is policy or not, CPs should be mutually exclusive. Con’s only job is to say “the Plan at hand shouldn’t happen!”, but the fact is that CPs which are not exclusive give literally no reason that the plan is actually a bad idea and shouldn’t happen. The CP itself is just an argument against the plan. It argues that there is A better plan to spend our time on, right now, than the one pro offers, so we should do that one instead. So if a CP doesn’t actually reveal a reason the plan is bad and/or shouldn’t happen, then is it really a sound argument? The debate world contends no. There is no true reason that we cannot conserve and create corals simultaneously, and thus Whiteflame’s CP is an easy permutation.
2.) Con’s arguments against the perm make no sense, he must go into as much detail as I have to explain.
3.) Can’t fiat any of the groups in the CP, as this is nonreciprocal and unfair. CPs should only have as much fiat power as Pro’s. see above
4.) Plan doesn’t reduce political or activist will because the plan is fiat-ed into existence, there is no action by politicians nor activists for which to make them lose their will, you can’t even assume they will know about it necessarily. Strikes the decreased-will argument
5.) Even if the plan somehow decreased will, this doesn’t escape a perm because, again, the whole point of enacting a plan is to override any opinions the populace or politicians may harbor, it simply happens.
1.) Debates should be about the meat of the topic and not details. This doesn’t mean I should give literally no details, it means judges should trust in standard procedures of government operation which govern normal means of carrying out real life plans, and should not require the pro to have a literally air-tight plan, as this is simply impossible. Whiteflame’s strategy has at times been to exploit these inevitabilities, he hasn’t run a single disadvantage to my case.
2.) Reefs cover 109,800 sq mi and at least 25% of the world’s reefs are dead, so about 27500mi are gone. Consider that the plan creates 50,000 miles of reef. Thus the plan more than restores corals back to their former glory. Solves the entire problem executively.
1.) Erosion plays no role in formation of the reef crest/the accretion doesn’t happen from a flat pane growing upwards. The mesh is shaped like the reef and accretion brings the limestone, another ignored Goreau quote shows accretion reefs attenuate (See:Ctrl+F:”reefs have e”) and are thus sufficient to attenuate.
2.) By ‘tough reefs’ the evidence meant they are impervious to the environment, not literally hard.
3.) Government contractors who regularly implement these reefs will know their depth, normal means. Same for surveillance of underwater gear.
4.) Biorock reefs garner the same life as any natural reef, solvency evidence.
5.) Plan pays itself off in 4.5 years and saves lives of those hit by hurricanes.
6.) You have come about as close to showing we can’t figure out zoning criteria, as prehistoric man to the moon. Mineral accretion is Already a thing, contractors zone reefs every day throughout the world.
1.) You concede that Accretion reefs are being conflated with the general failures of so called ‘artificial reefs’ (See Ctrl+F:”what is an”). Was never responded to and is now irrefutable.
2.) You concede all of my evidence that there is a need, and a real potential to find pharmaceuticals AND that we could get more pharmaceuticals if we had a place to get more samples AND that the plan solves for this. (See Ctrl+F:”A.) It”). This was literally never responded to.
3.) Con’s says it costs $802 million to simply investigate a chemical lead. This evidence really says that it costs $802 million to successfully find a drug that effectively treats a real disease. To these guys that about 10 bucks. In any case this is irrelevant because these industries are expanding rapidly and know what they are looking for. Corals will only give higher quality leads.
4.) Why investigate coral life for cures instead of land? Because it is 400 to 600X more likely to find a cure in reefs than on land. See R2 Caron evidence.
5.) Con’s cite  doesn’t come close to stating that industries have too much inflow of potential medicines, in fact it says: “The ’pipelines’ of forthcoming drugs on which its future health depends have been drying up for some time.”
6.) Coral reef medicines do cover, and have the potential to protect thousands of people. This is round 2 level evidence. Its pretty simple, we either stick with current land based medicine finding, or we open the route which is 400-600x more likely to find a cure for a disease.
1.) As has been stated, neither con’s source  nor  support the conclusion that reefs pull away fish, even if they did you haven’t proven it does so significantly. I have also argued that this claim doesn’t make sense on a purely analytical basis (See Ctrl+F:”There is nothing”)
2.) my reefs are the exact same as natural reefs compositionally and organically, as my solvency evidence states in R2 states which means it garners the exact same marine life. I have evidence, this is yet another one line ‘argument’ which was not backed with proof.
3.) Whiteflame completely conflates artificial reefs with mineral accretion reefs.
4.) The argument on overfishing is completely analytical and simple, con must recognize that 50,000 miles of reef is no specific location to go over-fish, and this impact is non unique because this is already happening in the status quo, at the very least, the judges know that con’s argument here is possibly wrong but on the other hand, know that if my argument is right, then there is at least a chance to save and heal the fish population. Furthermore, you previously quoted my author Goreau in saying that through restoration we can save the fishing industry. Con accepted that as true but was using a faulty definition of restoration, as previously argued by me and conceded by con…Restoration actually means the regrowth of corals as a whole, including new ones, not just helping current reefs, thus through the plan we save the fishing industry, this is a turn to Con’s quote earlier (See Ctrl+F:”active global”) which happens to serve as a Con endorsed advantage to the plan.
5.) The argument that Biodiversity gets damaged doesn’t quite line up. Even if fishers try to harvest the reefs they take proportional amounts of fish each time and the actual ratio of fish types is never degraded, the only possible degradation could be killing off life in general but again this happens readily in the status quo and Biodiversity is an assumed advantage, never proven.
SEE most important quote on solvency Ctrl+F:"self-repairing"
Through this debate I have consitently provided strong clash of argument and defended my case fully. I have shown that this is and should be considered a policy debate and have even given justifications as to why those policy rules are only fair in any case. The counter plan is the easiest choice, it is easily permed. But besides that fact, the CP is unfair in its fiat ability and lacks solvency. The plan completely restores reefs to their former levels but the most important thing to remember is that even if a judge doesn't like one of my advantages, the other is sufficient to enact. The plan must simply offer something that is better than the status quo, so if my plan only makes the current situation 1% better, that is suffiecient to vote pro. We have established an undeniable potential for medicines in reefs and have shown that the plan solves the lack of specimine to culture. Furthermore the plan is paid in no more than 4.5 years and literally prevent 97% of wave damage in a hurricance, how could you Not vote pro?
-Thank you, TJVN
Policy vs. Formal Policy
1) Pro's can clarify his case, but can't add rules after I've accepted the debate based on the rules in R1.
2/3) Pro keeps asserting how obvious things were in R1, that there were "context clues", and yet he felt the need to include new rules in R2. If it was so clear, why clarify?
4) Pro asked for the status of my CP. Responding to a request doesn't mean I acquiesce to his format. It's a courtesy.
5) Pro gives no reason why formal policy is more fair or educational, whereas I showed previously that it makes voter engagement more difficult.
6) We can still compare policies (the CP and plan) and not be constrained to the rules Pro has laid out.
However, both of us have followed basic policy structure, so this only matters with regards to the perm. If his arguments here fail, then the perm fails. If they succeed, you're only considering it.
All Pro has argued on solvency is that current efforts have been ineffective. I agree. I've argued that conservation efforts have been stymied by a lack of investment on the part of countries (i.e. continued harmful behavior, lack of funds and effort, a lack of understanding). I solve for all 3 of these. Pro hasn't shown how that solvency is insufficient. My case can even utilize biorock, as I've shown, so it must have at least SOME solvency, otherwise neither does Pro's case. Pro's attacks on the status quo are not attacks on my CP, thus he drops my CP's solvency.
On the perm, I've shown that engaging in one task that seeks to restore natural reefs while damaging them is contradictory. As long as damage to marine life or degradation is even decently likely, mutual exclusion is established. The clear policy barrier to engaging in my conservation efforts following the enaction of plan also establishes mutual exclusion. Either of these reasons suffices to dismiss the perm.
Pro presents new points on fiat. Both Pro and I are fiating governmental action - that's all we're able to fiat. My case (and only my case) can change established mindsets by altering how much power scientists are given in decision-making, but I'm not fiating an altered mindset. Pro does appear to be trying to expand his fiat. He can fiat the passage of a bill, but he cannot fiat that that passage alters established mindsets, nor can he fiat how people perceive the passage of said bill. None of Pro's policy changes address any of the misconceptions he's presented. Passing a bill by fiat doesn't change how the passage of that bill affects political will, which I showed would be markedly reduced. Note that all of Pro's fiat points should be ignored since they're new responses to old points.
But let's say you're buying the perm. That means is that you're defaulting me back to status quo. I can win on that, too.
Pro really wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants you to agree with Beck on wave attenuation, but ignore his opinion that we should not start building artificial reefs in new locations (otherwise known as Pro's case). He wants you to focus on the meaning of the word "restoration" and ignore the meaning of the word "global". Adding 50,000 miles of reefs around the U.S. doesn't solve Goreau's clearly stated problem of global reef loss, which only my plan addresses.
Pro gives no evidence that biorock has ever attenuated waves, while claiming that my sources aren't specific enough to his case. He drops the differences between biorock and natural reef compositions. I clearly showed that erosion is essential to the formation and maintenance of reef crests.[20, 21] Pro's assertions to the contrary are ineffective. And yes, toughness affects erosion rates. Remember, reef crests are essential to wave attenuation, so a failure to form them destroys his solvency.
Pro drops that 20 centimeters isn't enough, meaning 3 years isn't enough to see this benefit. He asserts that 30 centimeters (the maximum potential growth in 4.5 years) has a huge attenuating impact on waves that are over 35 times taller without any support or reasoning. This is like stating that a high speed monster truck would be practically stopped by a speed bump. He's persistently ignored the factor of depth and its effects on attenuation, which will reduce attenuation even further. That, compounded with the complicating factors I've presented, make it clear that most of this biorock will form extremely slowly, if at all, and that any beneficial effect is extremely distant. He wants you to believe that all of this will be magically solved by contractors who have never done work on this scale, aren't required to engage in surveillance, and could not possibly account for every single complicating factor. Skepticism is warranted.
I explained why the need for new potential therapeutics need is not only non-existent, but why adding more potential proteins to the heaps of R&D that these companies are already doing is actually net detrimental, further paralyzing a system that is not able to properly process them all. That is supported by my , which Pro should have continued reading: "the sequencing of the human genome... provided thousands of potential targets for new drugs that researchers must sift through. The flood of information has caused a kind of 'paralysis by novelty'". In other words, the reason the pipelines are drying up isn't a lack of new leads, but rather an overabundance of leads and targets that leads to delayed selection.
Pro then throws out baffling assertions. Pro's stated $10 cost is absurd. The $802 million is the average amount of money necessary to bring a drug from discovery to market. This is the cost necessary for any of these therapeutics to make an impact. Pro ignores the realities of resource and time consumption, barriers that reduce their sale and impact on public health, and the resulting extremely low likelihood of their success.
He also states that "industries are expanding rapidly and know what they are looking for." Another unwarranted, unsourced statement. Pharmaceutical companies have been increasing spending on R&D for decades without seeing an increase in NMEs. They're hardly so directed as Pro asserts, but even if that was true, they still have a 1-in-5000 chance of success, and that's after they find something promising. Pro continues to assert that "Corals will only give higher quality yields", and even his "evidence" (Caron) provides no extra support for this, merely repeating his numbers without reasoning. His 2 examples, acquired over 56 years, also aren't evidence of this virtual treasure trove.
This argument occupied several turns on Pro's case, and it's key to the debate, whether or not Pro considers it a disad.
His continued failure to address the draw off of marine life and subsequent degradation of natural reefs is enough to vote on by itself. The only response Pro provides is an assertion that I'm conflating all other artificial reefs with biorock reefs, yet I've shown that they aren't specific to any type of artificial reef, and that they apply directly to biorock. Pro has simply ignored those links, and the sources that support them [my 8-12]. He only challenges  and , providing no reasons why the analytics are wrong and ignoring the evidence in those links.
Pro drops the specific [20, 21] and general [8, 9] changes to marine life. Both of these points, as well as the toughness of the reefs, showcase how biorock is different from a natural reef, and why communities will develop differently. His argument that biorock has "a chance to save and heal the fish population" is yet another new assertion without reason. Pro is providing a set of hot spots (50,000 miles of ocean is still much less than the whole ocean) and, contrary to his assertions that marine life will be fine, providing publicized, heavily concentrated fishing sites close to shore locations makes hauls much larger and more rapid. Pro is ignoring and exacerbating current concerns with depletion of fish populations.
It's baffling that Pro would be willing to risk the very biodiversity that makes pharmaceutical finds possible for the sake of finding more. Any harm to biodiversity turns Pro's solvency on pharmaceuticals. This turn applies whether or not you buy the perm, since status quo doesn't incur it. So if Pro's advantage 2 garners any benefit, that is a reason to vote Con. Moreover, since biodiversity stands as a harm separate from indirect harms to humans, it is by far the strongest point in this debate.
Pro's case only risks solvency. He requires that: the placement of his reefs is the correct distance from shore, that it sits at the right depth, the conditions are conditions are optimal, his reefs aren't going to require any monitoring, they'll all grow rapidly, the contractors are all expert and reliable, and they function exactly like natural reefs. These minimize Pro's solvency.
My CP, on the other hand, garners both of these advantages globally with far more certainty. Voters can pick me up right here. Those boosts to solvency are enough by themselves, and it doesn't bite the biodiversity harms.
You could also vote on those. My biodiversity points are more potent and certain than anything Pro's presented, and buying any one of these points is enough. Pro hasn't presented any reason why his case would improve biodiversity or even increase population size, so his best case scenario is that shifted marine populations cause no harm directly, though fishing and mass harvesting would still reduce their size. Worst case, Pro's dramatically harming these populations, leading the degradation of marine resources. Both of these scenarios turn Pro's advantage 2 and exhibit larger harms. Whether you're buying the perm or not, this is reason enough to vote Con.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|