The Instigator
pr0nk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Greg4586
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 78118
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

pr0nk

Pro

First of all I would like to thank anyone who accepts this debate, as it is my first, and also anyone who is willing to judge.
I will define intentional as deliberately done, ban as a Marine Mammal Protection Act, whales as the marine species of mammal, and lifted as repealed or waived.
The weighing mechanism for this round is going to be indigenous culture; the judge should vote for the team that best represents the Natives of America's voice within this round, because it allows for an understanding of whaling practices beyond modern Eco-conservatism.
The first observation is the Makah Tribe.
The Makah Tribe is an group of American Natives who have cultural roots in hunting grey whales as a means of sustenance(Stevens 12). Recently due to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, also known as the MMPA, the tribe's whaling rights have been revoked and several of their members arrested by Coast Guard officials. This act violently silences the voice of the Makah people, because it attempts to whitewash their culture without regarding their input. This sustains colonial violence and sovereign domination that plagues native land by:
1. Revoking a practice that they use to sustain themselves
2. Erasing their culture, despite it being non-violent and eco friendly, more on that later
3. Violently apprehending their people without for seen warning.
I isolate two impacts.
First is sovereign violence.
This whaling ban repeats colonial violence that was present in the trail of tears and the biological warfare that we have harassed Native Americans with. This type of sovreign violence in which we, as outsiders, force our belief onto a non-normative group results in genocide and violence which can be seen in both the natives resistance to Manifest Destiny and the natives resistance to the MMPA. Further more this exact colonialism makes economic exploitation and eco-racism inevitable(Sciullo 8'). This form of violence must be rejected under the weighing mechanism because it makes the Indigenous voice invisible by reaping from them their culture and their belief systems.
The second impact we isolate is poverty
Makah poverty is high right now due to their inability to whale, however allowing the continuation of their whaling practice would boost their native economy, alleviating poverty(D'Costa 5'). This alleviation of poverty would increase education, allowing for more Native scholars to present the voice of the indigenous people. Thus under the weighing mechanism you have to reject poverty because it subverts the Indigenous voice by taking away their access to education. We can never gain the ability to access the Indigenous mind if we never can hear them.
My Second Observation is legalism.
Legally the Makah Tribe has the right to whale under the Treaty of Neah Bay(Stevens 12'). Despite their legal ability to hunt whales the MMPA is still being used to justify silencing their voice through violence, for example coast guard arrests, surveillance, and police violence. Thus the MMPA, the ban at hand, is being used to circumvent our legal recognition of Indigenous voice and must be rejected on face for sustaining colonial violence, go ahead and cross apply our impact of eco-racism and economic exploitation from our first observation.
My third and final observation is solvency.
Firstly repealing the MMPA wouldn't harm the environment due to population resiliency, if the population dips it will rise again(D' Costa 5'). That means their is no reason to take narratives of Eco-apocalyptism to evaluate. Not only that, but only the Makah Tribe is really into hunting whales in the Atlantic and they take a max of twenty whales a year, which means their will be no adverse environmental effects to worry about. And in the Pacific whaling is capitalized on by Japanese which means there will be no room for poachers to get there hands in to the business.
Secondly the pro acts on a rhetorical level by attacking the sovereign violence of colonialism by preserving the Indigenous voice. That is key to evaluating this round.
Greg4586

Con

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to engage in this debate as I am excited to take part in it. Now let's begin

Resolution: The intentional ban on hunting whales should be lifted.

As you defined it "I will define intentional as deliberately done, ban as a Marine Mammal Protection Act"

So, therefore you have to convince the audience that we should lift the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and I will be arguing that we should keep the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

"The weighing mechanism for this round is going to be indigenous culture; the judge should vote for the team that best represents the Natives of America's voice within this round, because it allows for an understanding of whaling practices beyond modern Eco-conservatism." I disagree, the weighing mechanism for this round should be who speaks best for the greater good of the world.

Now onto your first impact: "This type of sovreign violence in which we, as outsiders, force our belief onto a non-normative group results in genocide and violence" This would be a possible outcome if we were a few hundred years back in history. This, however is not the case. This impact is overblown and is outright unrealistic. This is also proved by the fact that the ban has been in place for a long time, yet no genocide or mass violence has taken place.

Next: "Makah poverty is high right now due to their inability to whale" If this truly is the case, we can not reasonably be blamed, we are not stopping them from adapting nor changing.

Onto legalism

"Legally the Makah Tribe has the right to whale" No they don't actually. They lost it with the MMPA.

Now onto offcase

DA: International law
International law is strong and it helps us keep the peace. (MacCallum 14). If we remove the MMPA act we weaken international law which hurts international relationships and will be detrimental to our ability to keep the peace. When we lose our ability to keep the peace tensions, political instability and a possibility for war become very real (Weeramantry and Burroughs 05).

DA #2 Whales!
The MMPA was put into place for a reason. It is needed to protect the marine ecosystems and specifically gray whales.
Right now the population of gray whales is recovering thanks to the MMPA act, but if we remove the act the whales will be put at a serious risk, for they are still vulnerable. (Mulvaney 13) If the MMPA act was never put in place the population would be extinct. We need the act in place for the very reason to keep the gray whale population, and many other populations alive. (Jenkins and Romanzo 98) We need to protect whales for a few reasons. 1. They are so critically important to the ecosystem, for they recycle nutrients and allow the ecosystem to thrive. 2. Whales reproduce very very slowly, so if we do not protect them we risk losing them. (Zelko 13). Losing whales would be very bad because we would lose a very important part of the ecosystem. This is capable of causing a domino effect leading to a moderate to severe environmental collapse. Some believe that this could result in extinction, but whether you believe it will go that far or not, what you can't deny is that this cause some very severe impacts. This includes harming the fishing industry and hurting food supply for many people from all over the world.

CP: Make an exception for the Makah tribe without lifting MMPA. If the tribe's practice is as harmless as you say we can keep the act in place while making one exception without causing any harm. This Counter-plan solves for all of your impacts while avoiding all of the DA's I have.

Now back onto Framework: Within your framework I believe I should be considered the winner, for I spoke for the Makah people and other people from different cultures, because they would be harmed by harm or destruction to the ocean ecosystem. If I am not winning than I should be tied with you.

However in my framework I am the clear winner, because I speak for what is best for the human race as a whole, while you only speak for a small percentage on the population.
Debate Round No. 1
pr0nk

Pro

First off thank you for the wonderful response, I am honored to have my first debate against you, so let's just go ahead and get into the debate.
First let's look at the weighing mechanism.
The weighing mechanism goes virtual dropped by the con, meaning you as the judge are going to have to weigh the round in the terms of indigenous culture. While the con does say that the weighing mechanism should be who speaks best for the greater good of the world they provide no brightline for why this is substantially better than my weighing mechanism. This weighing mechanism is in fact inherently worse for natives because, it flood out there voice. When you have to speak for the entire world, the Native voice will not be heard over the voice of the white majority. Thus you lean pro on the weighing contention.

Next let's move into the CP.
1. This CP is abusive to the pro, because it avoids the role of the con. The con states specifically that they should prove to the judge why we should not lift the MMPA, but this CP cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, which makes it impossible for the affirmative to win. If we are going to make this a debate in which both sides have decent ground to argue on you are going to have to reject the CP out right on abuse claims.
2. Perm do both: Do the pro and if any negative effects pursue do the CP; this solves any real offense on the CP anyways.
3. Historical Erasure DA- This CP exemplifies the rotten, corrupt legal system that erases history by still attempting to whitewash the Treaty of Neah Bay. This further promotes the exact colonial violence that the aff and the CP oppose and is not only a solvency deficit, but is also a disadvantage to the CP.
4. Native marginilization DA- The CP marginalizes other native groups by assuming that only the Makah want whaling rights; while the affirmative does isolate the makah in our impacts we will defend our ability to solve for all natives.
Thus in retrospect the CP actually further hinders the Native voice by undermining the Native groups and whitewashing a history of violence that lies within the legal system.
Next let's move onto to the IL DA.
1. International Sea law is not high right now in the U.S. because of our failure to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty that would bolster International maritime law. Thus the DA has no real impact, because International Law is already low.
2. MMPA hurts International law, because it is a federal law that is not in coincidence with any other world power like Japan and Russia that actually exemplify whale hunting. Thus the DA would trigger its own impacts.
Next let's move onto the Whales DA.
It is game over for the con on this argument, because they drop critical arguments from my last speech that cover the DA already.
1. Repealing the MMPA means no harm to the environment, because whale populations, especially the grey whale, are naturally resilient. That means there won't ever be a sever dip in whale populations. They concede this, it means you aren't going to be accepting any answers to it in future speeches.
2. Only Natives are really into hunting whales anyways and they take at max 20 a year. That means there is hardly any actual impact to whale populations and their internal link story is defunct. They also concede this, it means you aren't going to accept any further argumentation on that.
3. Grey whales aren't a keystone species that means a domino effect is impossible. No impact to the DA.
Let's go ahead and move onto case.
First on solvency; the entire solvency contention goes conceded so you are going to assume that the pro's rhetorical resistance to colonialism solves best for the weighing mechanism. This is game over for con because they have conceded that pro solves best for the weighing mech.
Let's move onto sovereign violence.
They say that the MMPA has not caused any genocide and violence and genocide can not occur because we are in a post colonial setting, however the MMPA is used to exclude natives from an economic opportunity, whaling, which causes them to starve and be exploited by other means, not only that but we commit genocides still to this day against native populations and it is the fact that their voice is no heard that we don't recognize this. We literally dump nuclear waste on native reservations which gives the cancer and countless other complications. A slow genocide is the worst genocide.
Onto poverty
They say we aren't stopping Natives from adapting or changing, but this statement further marginalizes the native voice. It shows that con doesn't care about native culture and in fact would rather have it done away with so that they can "adapt" that triggers all the impacts of the pro.
Onto legalism
Con concedes that under the Treaty of Neah Bay, which was never repealed, that tribes have a whaling right. That means we win this entire contention hands down. MMPA doesn't justify Indian giving. Pro wins because pro preserves the Indigenous voice.
Greg4586

Con

Thank you for taking this debate seriously and giving a meaningful response, as it seems people who will take this website's debates seriously is in short supply.

We should still weigh this round on who speaks for the greater good of all people. We should weigh this round this way because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I speak for all people including Native Americans. Pro only speaks for native Americans which is a small percent of the population.

" this CP cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, which makes it impossible for the affirmative to win. If we are going to make this a debate in which both sides have decent ground to argue on you are going to have to reject the CP out right on abuse claims." I am going to argue that the CP is not abusive and the fact that I can use the CP is on you, for you could have easily made the resolution specific to if the Makah should be allowed to whale or not. You could have easily avoided this situation, but did not and that is your fault. Therefore you should be given no lenience on the CP for you put yourself at a disadvantage and all I did was take advantage of it.

You wholly concede that the CP would solve for both of our offense and the only argument you have against it is abuse.

Whether the CP is abusive or not the judges should still vote for it, because it is better than the plan. Abuse should not be taken into account, because the Pro was allowed to write the resolution. This means he could have shaped it to be about the Makah and not about the MMPA, therefore any disadvantage my CP gives is entirely Pro's fault and responsibility. We should not give him any break or any lenience on abuse for something that is entirely his fault.

You defined the resolution as we should repeal and remove the MMPA, and you need to prove that we should do that and that the MMPA is bad itself. I am only going by your definitions.

You still have plenty of ground to argue because you can still talk about why the MMPA is bad.

"Perm do both" You can not do both because the resolution and the counter plan are competitive and would not work together.

" This CP exemplifies the rotten, corrupt legal system that erases history by still attempting to whitewash the Treaty of Neah Bay" This is not true, because the CP is actually helping to restore the agreements with the treaty and does nothing to erase it's history.

"The CP marginalizes other native groups by assuming that only the Makah want whaling rights" You only talked about Makah rights, so I did exactly the same. Saying my only talking about Makah rights is wrong is outright hypocritical and should not be taken into consideration.

Now onto the Whales DA
1. "especially the grey whale, are naturally resilient" False, as I proved before whales are not resilient and at risk by my Mulvaney 13 evidence, because they reproduce slowly.
2. "Only Natives are really into hunting whales" This is not true. There are many other hunters and people from other countries who hunt whales such as the Japanese. Also If you look at this article here: http://www.livescience.com... you will see that the MMPA has worked in protecting marine life.
3." Grey whales aren't a keystone species that means a domino effect is impossible" As proved by my Zelko 13 evidence whales are critically important to ocean ecosystems. Also whales keep ocean ecosystems running (Zimmer and Ferrer 07).
Because of this a domino effect is not every very possible but almost inevitable if whale populations were to collapse.

"They say that the MMPA has not caused any genocide and violence and genocide can not occur because we are in a post colonial setting, however the MMPA is used to exclude natives from an economic opportunity, whaling, which causes them to starve and be exploited by other means, not only that but we commit genocides still to this day against native populations and it is the fact that their voice is no heard that we don't recognize this. We literally dump nuclear waste on native reservations which gives the cancer and countless other complications. A slow genocide is the worst genocide." There really is no proof or evidence to any of this actually happening. Considering it is allowing the Makah to whale won't change any of this.
Debate Round No. 2
pr0nk

Pro

Thank you for giving me a great first debate, let's get into the weighing mechanism debate.
Let's break this down, we aren't saying it is bad to speak for everyone, but when it comes to the MMPA the Indigenous voice is particularly useful, because they are the group that is marginalized most by the decision. Not only that but my opponent drops the fact that if we speak for everyone we drown out the voices of minorities. Obviously a black minority wouldn't be represented very well in a white majority. Considering that settler-colonialism is still a widely accepted mind set the marginalized group in this circumstance would never get their voice out in the framing of the con.
Let's move onto the CP.
1. They argue the CP is not abusive, because I wrote the resolution, however this is fundamentally wrong. If I had framed this debate as only the Makah Tribe I would have been abusive; the way the topic is framed allows healthy middle ground for both the pro and con such as whaling disads and cultural kritks. Arguing that I should have made the topic narrow would have just forced a ground shift in the opposite direction. You are still rejecting the CP on abuse, because it simply cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, positing my opponent between pro and con. Because they aren't actually assuming the role of con I can not have a fair debate on the CP.
2. We aren't going for the perm or the Native marginalization DA you can drop these.
3. Wholly extend across the flow the Historical Erasure DA. Even if you don't buy the abuse theory this is going to be the CP's fatal flaw. The say that the CP helps to restore the treaty of Neah Bay, but it obviously doesn't; read the CP text it is just to allow exceptions for the Makah in the instance of the MMPA. This is bad because it completely disregards the fact that the MMPA shouldn't even be necessary for the Natives to whale; you can consult our legalism observation here. Also BIG DEAL here they drop the impact story, so that means you buy that the CP further promotes colonial violence that is used to silence the Native; consult out sovereign violence impact. This is a solvency takeout to the CP and a DA to the con.
Let's move onto the Whales DA.
1. While the debater seems to think they have proved whales are not resilient, resiliency isn't just about reproduction speed and is actually more about adaptability. At the point in which the con hasn't proven that grey whales are bad at adapting you err pro. If you really want good evidence on this check out D'Costa 5' here http://www.animallaw.info...
2. They make the mistake of bringing up an article to show that the MMPA is working. This article actually talks about how whales are actually still endangered in U.S. water by numerous things such as disease, ship noise, and depleted food. This is going to wind up favoring pro, because it shows that the impact to the DA will occur regardless of the pro side winning.
3. We will concede more than just Natives hunt whales.
4. The problem with their domino effect argument is that it assumes grey whales are keystone species when in fact they aren't. Many other species of whale such as hump back, and sperm whales are considered keystone, but never grey whales, because they aren't a big enough power player in the marine world. This means the impact of the DA is impossible and there is no way you are considering it at this point, because it is just more Eco-apocalyptism.
Let's move onto case.
They only respond to one point of defense which is going to prove a tragedy for the con here.
They say:
1. There is no proof any violence is actually happening, but we isolate economic exploitation in which natives are forced to endure jobs outside of their culture to sustain living poverty, and nuclear wast being literally dumped on Native ground--If you really need proof look to Yucca Mountain, the biggest waste depository in the U.S. which also happens to be Native Land.
2. They say pro can't solve, but refer to out solvency contention that by rejecting the colonial violence of the MMPA on a rhetorical level we gain solvency for all imperialistic violence against Native. They concede that so that is going to be a pretty big deal. That being said even if you don't buy that We still solve at least economic exploitation through our first contention so you err pro on case.
Because they drop the entirety of case it shows the cons attempt to omit the Native voice which proves detrimental under both framings because it shows that they don't care for the Native voice or everyone.
Conceding case is also going to be game over for the con, because it means you HAVE to give pro access to all in round offense, such as economic exploitation, genocide, and poverty. Ultimately we remain holding the only standing internal links to offense, which means you vote pro on presumption if not anything else.
Thank you for this wonderful opportunity. I really enjoy it.
Greg4586

Con

You're welcome.

"Not only that but my opponent drops the fact that if we speak for everyone we drown out the voices of minorities" You seem to be ignoring the fact that I have spoken for the Natives just as much as you have with the CP. Also by speaking for everyone we are not just speaking for the majority. By everyone I mean everyone. By speaking for everyone I speak for minorities as well as majorities. This is a better framing model than your framing model because 1. My framing INCLUDES the indigenous people, and not just the Makah. 2. You leave out countless other minorities while I speak for all of them.

Now onto the CP
1. Idk why you use the word they, I'm only one person... I think. Now onto seriousness. "They argue the CP is not abusive, because I wrote the resolution, however this is fundamentally wrong. If I had framed this debate as only the Makah Tribe I would have been abusive". Well no, you wouldn't be abusive. You wouldn't be abusive because anyone who would accept the debate would be 100% aware of what they would be debating, therefore the debate would be completely fair.

In other words calling abuse on CPs is rather ridiculous in this model for debating because you can write the resolution however you want. If you leave a loophole that's your fault. If your opponent takes advantage of that loophole that's no one's fault but your own.

You also claim I am abusive because " it simply cherry picks which parts of the MMPA are good and bad, positing my opponent between pro and con.". Well that's true. I do pick the good parts of the MMPA and say we should keep that and say we get rid of the bad parts. However you are wrong that I am in-between pro and con, and here's why.

Resolved: The intentional ban on hunting whales shoud be lifted.

You defined this as The MPAA should be removed.

I am fulling on the con side to that. I am working within con ground in a way that fixes the problems you have as your advantages. That is not abusive. You gave me this amount of ground and I am simply working with it.

Next

Onto that Historical Erasure DA.

Well with all due respect this DA is a little ridiculous. You are suggesting that by keeping the MMPA in place we are erasing history of a past treaty. 1. Even if this were true there is no impact. One treaty being forgotten will not cause any serious issues, therefore it's not a very valid DA. 2. My CP is not going to be erasing any history. 3. If anything my CP is actually restoring history rather than erasing it. This is because by allowing the Makah to whale I am restoring the action done during the Treaty.

Most importantly 4. Your argument here is outright hypocritical. You say that my CP hurts the natives because the CP shouldn't even need to be done. Well the same exact thing can be said about your plan. By your logic your plan should not need to be done so you promote colonial violence.

Now onto the Whales DA.
1a. While reproductive capability may not be the only important thing it is still critically important especially for species being hunted. You say that they are resilient because they can adapt. Well guess what no species has ever, throughout the entirety of history, adapted to advanced human hunting. If humans hunt the animal faster than they can reproduce, the species will become extinct no matter how well it can adapt.
1b. The evidence you give doesn't really support what you're saying. It just talks about the Makah and their whaling rights.
2. This doesn't actually show that, what it shows instead is that the species is endangered and at risk, and is only kept alive because of the MMPA. The article also talks about how the MMPA is causing previously endangered species to rebound and recover.
3. The thing is you have brought up no evidence that says Grey whales are not keystone species. But if you look at this source here you will see that they are: http://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk.... So because of this a domino effect is very possible.
4. More species than just Grey whales will be hurt.

Onto case

It is important to note that Pro admits and concede that the CP solves for all of this while avoiding my DAs

1. You still have failed to give any proof that this is both 1. Real, a reliable source would do this. 2. Maliciously intended due to racism.
2. You say this gives you solvency on a rhetorical level. The thing is having something on a rhetorical level does nothing. It does not solve any real issues. While you may help some of the economy you make it worse due to the whaling DA.
3. You say that I "don't care for the native voice" This is proven to be false because of my CP. If I didn't care about natives I would not have made the CP.

You should reject their offense because it is either 1. Overblown. or 2. Will have a very small impact 3. My CP solves for it all. 4. The impact to my DAs outweigh Pro's offense by miles.

Thank you for this debate. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
pr0nk

Pro

Thanks for the convincing responses lets jump into the weighing mechanism.
First off my opponent seems to have completely misinterpreted my argument here;
1. If we speak for everyone minorities will not have the overwhelming voice they need; the indigenous minority is important in this instance because it is the minority that is marginalized. Empirically when we give everyone the chance to speak the people with the bigger voice drown out the people with the softest voice that is why you prioritize the indigenous voice. ANy other weighing mechanism forces them into the position of the subaltern.
2. Also the move by my opponent to finally bring up a bright line and define why their weighing mechanism is better is totally abusive, because it means I can not answer the weighing mech debate until to late in the debate. I said you can't accept this argumentation in my last speeches, so you are going to default pro on this flow.
3. They also say the CP speaks for the Natives best, but it really doesn't with the Historical Erasure DA on the flow, but more on that in a bit.
Onto the CP.
1. I use the word they to preserve word count and avoid gendered pronouns, which I disagree strongly with.
2. Just because we are writing a resolution, doesn't mean that all abuse is avoided. The main claim for abuse we are going to extend here is that the con is cherry picking only the good parts of the MMPA that means if anything they are assuming a role nearest to the pro side, that kills all of my ground. They define in the first round that they will defend that repealing the MMPA is bad, however there CP repeals the bad parts of it. That sounds like a pro argument to me...
3.The biggest reason you aren't voting for the CP though is on the historical erasure DA.
a. They say no impact, but this MMPA is just another act of whitewashing our history; Andrew Jackson's Indian Giving is the exact same thing. The con basically says "We can take away certain things if we give them back in other ways, right?" This is the logic of settler colonialism that leads to economic exploitation in poverty. You must reject that on moral grounds if anything.
b. They the CP isn't erasing history without giving warrants. That is the same thing as dropping the link entirely that means you believe this DA one way or another. And obviously MMPA is just another way of erasing the history of the Treaty of Neah Bay. The MMPA is passed and the Indians get reduced rights to whaling rather the government just honoring a treaty that was never overruled. Extend legality across the flow-- I win hands down on this flow.
c.They say they are restoring history, but they aren't. The trail of tears "restored the Natives land", but just led to reduced Native voice. I am not buying it and neither should you.
d. They say my arguments are hypocritical, but this is really non-responsive. Just cross apply the entire aff here. I obviously want the best for the Native voice and the fact that they erase history with the da means that they lose theri helping natives.
e. Also they drop that this is a huge solvency defecit to the CP and a disad to the con that means they can't win the CP regardless.
Now onto the Whales DA
1. They assume animals can't adapt fast enough, but algae which was nearly eradicated by humans in some forms learned to generate energy near volcanic vents, and species who have had low dips go of the radar and reappear decades later with new traits. That proves adaptability we win the DA had no uniqueness.
2. What the article actually says is that not even the MMPA can stop certain forms of environmental degradation that means the impact of the DA can't be stopped. The con doesn't solve a slew of things mentioned in the last round.
3. All that evidence says is that this keystone species practically dissipated 400 years ago that just further proves that there is no domino effect. That is literally the first thing the article say. 400 years.
Onto Case
1. We don't concede CP solves for case, that has been explained on the CP flow.
2. They say rhetoric doesn't solve anything, but that is a middle finger to all natives. That essentially is saying racism doesn't matter because you can't solve all instances. We do err pro.
3. The CP only further proves the negate Native voice
4. They say reject our offense because it is overblown and ridiculous, but this is insanely oppressive to Natives. Native oppression is never overblown and racism is never a small impact. Reject them based on blatant racism.
5. They say the DA outweighs, but give no impact calc once again we need a brightline for why. Obviously sovereign violence of tens of thousands of Natives outweighs the death of a few whales which can't be prevented.
6. Also I don't speak just for the Makah that is coming out of round 2.
That means hands down I win the round because I am the only one extending any offense from the first round. You have to side with the indigenous voice.
Greg4586

Con

Thank you for your arguments as well, you've proved yourself a good debater and has made this challenging.

1. My argument for the weighing mechanism is we consider and address all groups' problems equally. You seem to think I come at this from a utilitarian standpoint, but I am not necessarily saying we view all the people as people with equal problems, but rather the groups as equal. This is a better weighing mechanism than yours, because we take into account the voices off all minorities while you do that with just one minority.
2. Me explaining this is completely fair. You have 5000 characters to explain why yours is better and instead of doing that you wasted them on explaining why you can't explain why yours is better. This argument should be disregarded off.

Now the CP

2. Yes it does. There is no abuse with resolution, because your opponent has the full choice to accept it or to not accept it. If you made a resolution only about the Makah that's no abusive, because no one HAS to accept the debate and if they do they fully accept what they will be debating. It's a similar instance. You gave me an advantage with the resolution and all I'm doing is taking advantage of it. That's not abuse, and if it's anyone's fault it's yours so you should be given no lenience.
3. a. The biggest logical fallacy here is the MMPA does no harm to the Makah if we give the Makah the right to whale. By doing this we are not erasing any history and are in fact helping preserve it.
b. You have given no warrants either so this argument should be disregarded off. Again, if we restore the Makah's right to whale which my CP is suggesting the MMPA is restoring the Treaty of Neah Bay and is not erasing any history.
c. By restoring the Makah's right to whale we are restoring the history of the Treaty of Neah bay. You have not proven or given any logical argument as to why restoring their right to whale is erasing history and not restoring it.
d. This DA is hypocritical because you say that the CP erasing history because we are restoring the Makah's right to whale. That is what your entire argument is trying to do, therefore the entire DA really doesn't make any sense and should be disregarded of.
e. I did not drop that this is a huge solvency deficit. I did not drop it because I stated and proved that we are not erasing history.

Whales DA
1. The example of Algae should be disregarded of because algae and whales are so incredibly different. You're partially right, some species do come close to extinction and then rebound. But even more species go straight to extinction and never rebound. The species that go extinct are often species that are hunted to extinction. If Gray whales continue to be hunted they will likely end up extinct.
2. That's really not true. While it is true the article mentions there are other issues like disease and food shortage it does not say that they will certianly drive the gray whale into extinction so Pro's argument here is pure speculation.

If you read this quote here: "More than 40 years later, a new report shows that the law has been effective: It not only prevented extinctions that seemed imminent, but also helped some species bounce back in strong numbers, researchers say." You will see that the article clearly supports my claims that the MMPA has helped prevent species from going extinct. Pro has done nothing to combat this so you can conclude that the MMPA has, in fact, helped marine mammals.
3. The date of disappearance refers to in the area. The evidence has not disappeared. The vast majority of your claims with the DA are pure speculation and you have no evidence for any of them.

Onto case

1. This argument is based on the History Erasure DA, but I have given plenty of reasoning as to why that DA is irrelevant.
The CP solves for all of Pro's offense, because all of it is based around the Makah's right to whale. My CP gives them exactly that, therefore Pro has no offense because I solve for all of it.
2. That's not what I said at all. I said you don't come close to solving what you claim to solve for. You claimed that by giving the Makah the right to whale you rhetorically solve for all instances of colonial violence. My argument is that doesn't mean anything, because you aren't actually solving for anything.
3. By making a plan to restore the native's right to whale this isn't true at all. I am completely taking the native voice into account.
4. The reason I say your offense is overblown and ridiculous, is well, because it's overblown and ridiculous. I am not saying racism is not relevant, but claiming that giving the Makah the right to whale solves for all racism against the natives is ridiculous.
5. The DA outweighs because if it's impact happens everyone will be tremendously effected. Your impact effects a small amount of people while my impact effects everyone.

Pro does not win the round, and I should because of the CP solving all of his offense and the whales DA.

Truly great debate.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Working on this, #2 on my list. Hopefully, I will have an RFD up by the end of this weekend.
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Greg4586
Care to vote on it though?
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Greg4586
Lol someone recognized it
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Lol you ran Makah waling aff XD
Posted by Greg4586 2 years ago
Greg4586
I hope you enjoy the rest of the debate.

May I ask who you feel is winning at this point?
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Fun read so far. I'm going to be voting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.