 First off, I want to start off by thanking my opponent and then I also want to thank the judge for judging it as well as the audience members for viewing this and making this possible. So first I want to begin with harms number one. Synthetrophorylizer leads to global warming. Anthropogenic warming is a consensus of the scientific community hence in 2012. The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community. Science as described in numerous authoritative reports has revealed that humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth's atmospheric composition and thus future climate. The climate systems inertia causes climate to respond slowly but in a very long-lasting way to this human-made forcing. Failure to phase out emissions rapidly will leave young people and future generations with an enormous cleanup job and synthetic fertilizer increases nitrous oxide which is directly linked to global warming, Sanders 2012. Samples show a long-term trend in isotopic composition that confirms that nitrogen-based fertilizer is largely responsible for the 20% increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide since the industrial revolution. Now our study shows empirically that the nitrogen-isotope ratio is a fingerprint of fertilizer use. Nitrous oxide destroys stratospheric ozone which is a steep ramp up in atmospheric nitrous oxide coincided with inexpensive synthetic fertilizer and other developments boosted food production. And synthetic fertilizer leads to global warming, multiple internal links, shall 2011. Synthetic or inorganic fertilizers have drastic side effects in the long run. Using too much of these fertilizers in the soil leads to eutrophication. These substances prove to become toxic for their aquatic life thereby increasing the excessive growth of algae in the water bodies and decreasing the levels of oxygen. 50% of the lakes in the United States are eutrophic. Now, fertilizer consists of carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrogen, the emission of which has contributed to a great extent in the quantity of greenhouse gases present in the environment. Nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas and warming causes extinction, tickle 2008. Global warming on this scale would mean the end of living and the beginning of survival. All the world's coastal plains would be lost complete with port cities, transport, and industrial infrastructure and much of the world's most productive farmland. Billions would die. Warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a hot house earth. Now, observation two, inherency. U.S. farmers use more fertilizer rather than swishing to being sustainable, Gris 2010. In 1960, farmers in developed and developing countries applied 10 million metric tons of nitrogen fertilizer. In 2005, they applied 100 million metric tons. Modern agriculture depends on cheap nitrogen fertilizer. There's not much incentive currently to cut back. Farmers get paid by the ton. Many farmers use fertilizer as a form of insurance, better to apply a little too much and get high yields than apply too little and risk yield and profit declines. Now, our plan for today, our plan is that farms will be issued EPA environmental protection agency grants, given that the farm under the United States federal government definition of being sustainable, namely the elimination of synthetic fertilizer use in favor of more sustainable farming techniques, including but not limited to legion cover crops and biochar. Our funding is 10 million dollars through normal means. Our agency is through Congress. Our timeline is immediately and our enforcement is through the environmental protection agency. Now I want to move on to our solvency. Solvency number one, the EPA. EPA grants apparently reduce the use of hazardous farming chemicals. Grants will create change, EPA. Commission growers reduce total acres treated with high risk pesticides by 55% and 72%. Nearly eliminated, diazon and cloverias. The Sonoma County Grape Grows Association cut use of nine high risk pesticides by 32%. Now, California almond growers use 77% less organic phosphate pesticides. The dairy manure collaborative has goals, including dairy feeding operations use of manure as a resource, improve soil quality, provide nutrients for crops, generate renewable energy, create jobs and reduce contamination of air and water. And transition from synthetic will be easy. Cornell University 2005. Organic farming offers real advantages. Organic farming not only use an average of 30% less fossil fossil energy but also conserve more water, induce less erosion, maintains soil quality and conserve more resources than conventional farming does. This study compared a conventional farm with an organic animal based farm and an organically zoom based farm. Now, in this results over time, the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. Erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm, while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved. Organic agricultural systems has implications for global warming. Soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28%. Now corn yields in the legion based farms were 22% higher than yields in the conventional systems. Now, and sustainable farming techniques massively reduces greenhouse gas emissions while utilizing carbon sequestration, Cruz 2004. Compared to the combined greenhouse gas output associated with fertilizer based and legion based cropping systems, and they studied the conventionally agro ecosystem had a net output of 114 for greenhouse gas. The legion based tilled cropping system, 41 and no till fertilized agricultural ecosystem as 14. In the long run, the legion based system will have the lowest global warming potential out of all the potentials. Thank you. All right, so let's go to your second card saying that synthetic fertilizer leads to global warming. Okay. What in particular does ozone depletion have to do with global warming? Well, ozone, as you know, maintains our CO2 and the ozone itself. So with the depletion over ozone, it lets it out. Doesn't the ozone layer mainly have to do with the protection from ultraviolet rays from the sun? That is a significant part. Okay, thank you. Now, let's go on to your Shaloo 11 card also there in your farms. Okay. Can you actually go ahead and read a lot of the warrants you had in there? Why synthetic fertilizer leaves a global warming? Yes, it's because of the eutrophication. What is eutrophication? Eutrophication is with the runoffs and other uptoxics and toxicities in soil that will lead into water supplies as well as other things. And just like in our lakes, as I described. I understand why toxicity is bad, but how does that specifically lead to an increase in global warming? Well, what it leads to is it leads to increase in algae. And then when there's an increase in algae, there's not enough oxygen for the fish for which there's too much of it because it absorbs too much oxygen underneath the water so the fish die and it ruins the whole cycle. Okay. Also, let's go on to your plan. You're saying that you're going to be having $10 million in funding for your plan, correct? That is correct. Do you know how much funding currently exists in the school for agricultural? Yes, it's less than $500,000. $500,000 in total for the entire agricultural sector? To be exact, it's about $200,000. Not just the EPA, but the entire US federal government funding? No, for this specific... Just from the EPA? No, for the specific farms what they have currently right now. It's only $200,000 that they have currently. Okay. So we want to increase it to $10 million. Also, so out of this funding of $10 million, how many farms do you think you're actually going to be able to affect? A lot. Do you have a specific number for me? Actually, you know what? Time's up. Thank you. All right. I'd like to go ahead and thank my judge for being here, the audience for watching, and my opponent for giving me a good debate. I've got three off-case and then I'll be going on-case. First off, state counterplan. The 50 states in all relevant US territories should issue grants given that they farm under the USFG definition of being sustainable, namely the elimination of synthetic fertilizer use in favor of more sustainable farming techniques, including but not limited to legume cover crops and biochar. State action gets modeled due to local innovation, Lash-07. America has a long tradition of policy innovation that is incubated at the state level. The states often take the front lines of cutting-edge policy development. The states have provided that both problem-solving acumen as well as the pressure to induce a federal government act, and states solve agricultural policies. Bottom-up approach works best. Pennsylvania approves this with a fresh food financing initiative. Lynn 2011. The support of the three states represented first led to the $30 million allocation from the state government to establish and run FFFI. As of June 2010, FFFI approved more than $73.2 million rounds and $12.1 million of grants. The original $30 million of state seed money has generated projects totaling $190 million. FFFI has been widely recognized as a model and further facilitated a policy creation at the federal level, and now onto the federalism disadvantage. Federalism is high now, cats 12. States have broad powers over such market-shaping policy. States take on larger roles. States are building on their attributes and advantages. State innovation offers a practical counterpoint to a Washington, and environmental policy is delegated now. The plan kills this federalist model. Sovacol, 08. Other countries continue to model American-style federalism. Germany, the Republic of Austria, Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have all based parts of their government structure on the American federalism, choosing to decentralize power by developing constitutions that are more federalist. The phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire global community, and federalism is key to hegemony. Rivlin 92. If the US is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the states. International concerns will continue threatening to cry out domestic policy on the federal agenda. Effective domestic policy is essential to US leadership and world affairs. And hegemony prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear war, Kagan 07. Where the US diminishes its influence, other nations would settle disputes through wars. Most of these powers possess nuclear weapons. That would make wars more catastrophic. Wars could erupt between China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia, between India and Pakistan, or other Middle Eastern states. These draw in other powers. Now onto my third off, Cap K. Capitalism has almost reached its end. Short-lived recoveries will go on until the final collapse, raviour 10. We have been witnessing not merely a bad recovery, but the symptoms of a permanent loss of vitality. No inference as to the future can be drawn from the functioning of a capitalist engine. The capitalist order consists in the claim that before collapse, as capitalism enters the stage of permanent crisis, only temporarily interrupted by short-lived chimerical recoveries. And capitalism's preoccupation with endless accumulation will result in a total ecological destruction at extinction foster 11. The continued pursuit of Kagan's convenient lie led to unintended consequences of accumulation without limits, namely global economic stagnation, financial crisis, and planetary ecological destruction. These parallels are impossible to overlook. It is necessary then ever to espouse the truth that capitalism is a system that falls both the human social conditions and the wider natural environment on which it depends. The accumulation of capital is a catastrophe for living species. Capitalism is unsustainable and reforms only ensure the crash is worse, mad off in foster 10. The ecological crisis cannot be solved within the logic of the present system. The system of a world's capitalism is clearly unsustainable. Its quest for never ending accumulation of capital leading to the production that must continually expand its agriculture and food system, includes the environment, does not allow universal access to a sufficient quantity and quality of food. It searched for technological magic bullets as a way of avoiding the growing social ecological problems, rising from its own operations. And the basis for the creation of a sustainable human development must arise from the system from within the system dominated by capital. These initiatives can become powerful enough to constitute the basis of a revolutionary new movement in society. It means making economic decisions through democratic processes occurring at a local, regional, and multi-regional level. New forms of democracy will be needed. And the alternative is to vote negative. The only way to open up space for a new kind of activity beyond nearly global capitalism with a human face is to renounce facile calls to direct action. Doing nothing is the only starting point away from capital, CISEC 4. If today's post-politics is opportunistic pragmatism with no principles, then the predominant leftist reaction to it can be characterized as principled opportunism. One simply sticks to the old formula and then calls them principles. The enhanced stupidity of the principled left is discernible from its standard criticism of any analysis, which proposes a more complex picture of the situation, renouncing any simple prescriptions on how to act. One should affirm that the only way really to remain open to revolutionary opportunity is to renounce facile calls to direct action, which necessarily involves in an activity where things change so that the totality remains the same. If we succumb to the urge of direct doing something engaging in the anti-global struggle helping the poor, we will undoubtedly contribute to the reproduction of the existing order. The only way to lay the foundations up for a true radical change is to withdraw from the compulsion to act to do nothing, thus opening up the space for a different kind of activity. The task is thoroughly to rethink the leftist project beyond the alternative of accommodation to the new circumstances and sticking with the old slogans. Now going on case. First let's go to their harms here. The tagline on the shillu 11 card states that fertilizers lead to global warming, however the card didn't have any actual warrants to support their claims here. The only relevant warrants states that the fact that nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas, which then if we look at their Sanders 12 card, which is the second card there on the harm, all it says that this destroys the ozone layer, when all the ozone layer really does is hold back the ultraviolet light from the sun, which has nothing to do with global warming and the temperature of the of the earth. Now also the largest contributors to global warming are the millions of cars that are currently driving on the road and the burning of fossil fuels that that we as a society are already doing in this capitalist regime. Also there will be no extinction the reject this environmental alarms alarmism collided in Forbes 07. Apocalyptic stories about the irreparable catastrophic damage are blown up to a logical and ridiculous proportions. The alarmists identify a legitimate issue, take the possible consequences to an extreme and advocate action on the basis of these extreme projections. Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves as policy makers attempt to appease their constituency in the media. Environmental alarmism should be taken for what it is a natural tendency for the public to latch on to the worst. Also go then go ahead and extend this argument over to their solvency of their weak link to global warming because synthetic fertilizers are such small contributors to global warming they can't actually solve they can't access their solvency because once they eliminate so synthetic fertilizers they're not going to actually be able to solve for global warming because synthetic fertilizers never had anything to do with global warming in the first place. For all of these reasons I urge a strong vote for the negative. Thank you. All right first I want to talk about your cap K capitalism critique saying capitalism is bad but do you currently have a laptop? I do you do okay and did you type your whole case off on that on the laptop? I did or your choice okay so I'm curious to know because isn't it that capitalism really caused these for laptops to be affordable for individuals instead of having it so one person in particular could have it at the set price? The benefits of a capitalist regime actually producing a laptop is insignificant to the fact of how it is slowly destroying the human the human social condition on which it was built. Okay well but it's benefited at all. It is not. In a net benefit sort of way capitalism has has done far more harms than the benefits it has produced. Okay next I want to talk about your 50 states on how you're planning how you want to do the 50 states. Now does your plan also include Puerto Rico and Guam? No it is not it's only 50 contingent United States. Okay so it excludes the other territories in which is considered the United property of the United States and if you're born there you consider American citizens so it's not covering those citizens exactly correct? That is true. Okay now you also argued that federalism is good correct? That is true. Okay and you're saying that how is that my plan is taken away from this? What you're doing is you're taking state powers away and by taking away you then you're giving it to the federal government and slowly leaching away what the states can actually do. Okay now how are the states going to be able to pay for all this? They're going to be being able to pay through this through the normal means. They're going to be able to raise taxes and be able to reduce spending in other areas. So they're going to be able to raise taxes on individuals who have already had their taxes raised and are already suffering? This is the way the world works. Okay okay now how are you going to do this when states are already going bankrupt as well? Like I said through normal means we are already raising tax if I could just take a little more time to answer the question. States can add normally they just raise the taxes we do this we're doing this in California right now this does not affect any of its the state's constituents and we can just reduce spending in other areas. Thank you. Alright first I want to start if I think my opponent no one thinks a judge I think all the audience members here are making this all possible today. First I'm going to my roadmap starts today I'm going to go on case and then I'm going to move on to count their counterplan then they're dissad and then their capitalism critique. So let's begin the overview for global warming first extend hands in 2012 human operations are the driving force behind the shifting climate and our synthetic fertilizers have played a significant role in the ship extend centers 2012 the synthetic fertilizer is linked to a 20 increase in nitrous oxide alone which doesn't take into account the emissions that are produced during the production of these fertilizers as Shao 2011 explains fertilizers are linked to global warming through the contamination of our biosphere and water eutrophication and as my tickle 2008 evidence shows global warming will lead to our extinction. Now I want to talk about my solvency I access solvency for two reasons first extend the EPA empirically reduces chemicals card the plan will greatly reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers then extend the cruise dos and four card conventional farms produce almost 300 more greenhouse gases than the type of farms created through this bill this and sustainable farming reverses global warming trends pulls back from the brink lynched 2011 organic farming generally has lower energy use than greenhouse gas and greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gas emissions are consistently lower and the main reasons for our for better organic performance are the lack of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Now I want to go off case and talk about their counterplan federal under federal the federalism in that transition to multi polarity is now for zinc ski 2012 we now we live we now live in a world in which in fact hegemony hegemony by single power is not attainable the world is no longer congenial into domination by single power the basic structural structural weakness of America actually threatened our ability to play a preeminent role a prolonged trend and front prolonged transition risks global stability Farley 2012 as the gap between the United States and other great powers declines the margin for arrow arrow arrows the shift from us hegemony to multi polarity will change the nature of those institutions the great danger is that the United States will in an effort to prolong and maintain its hegemony hegemony undertake policies that undermine the foundations of america's americans place in the world turns the da make war inevitable lane 2006 if the if the us fails to adopt a strategy on multi polarity it will have to fight to uphold his primacy which is potentially dangerous strategy attempting to sustain us primacy will hasten its end thus causing the united states to become empirically overstretched involving it in unnecessary wars that reduce its power now i want to move on to the cap game to win the debate the negative should have to prove the status quo or an alternative is a superior and competitive option to the plan both are necessary only proving and one is not sufficient for a negative bout this is key to a debate for a few reasons for fairness first off we should get to leverage our 1ac advocacy against the possible harms we cause our advantages serve as justifications why the federal government should act not that they will our grounds that the criticism should be linked to our proposal not the status quo making the affirmative responsible for defending the entirety of the status quo instead of just their policy proposal while allowing the negative to reject the status quo divides ground unfairly now this is a voter if we win that their interpretation decreases fairness and the ground we have a warranted reason to win the debate if we do not win the voter this is at least a reason to reject and any argument that does not prove the status quo or an alternative is superior and and at a competitive uh competitive with the case number two is permutation endorse that plan and all non-competitive parts of the alternative this guarantees solvency for the 1ac harms that swamps their generic link because it removes a huge amount of flawed system and ideology now number three permutation solves and and the k alone leads to narcissism and co-option uh destroying any possibility of the alternative all right i'm just going to be going off case going with my state's counter plan going on federalism then capitalism and then i will be going on case all right so first off onto the state's counter plan there's uh this throughout this entire debate he just went ahead and dropped this entire my entire flow here on state so i just want to go ahead and extend all of this we can actually see the fact that i've net benefits and this is why i should be winning the debate first i want to extend my last seven card the fact that state action is uh it gets modeled due to the local innovation the fact of this bottom up approach then also extend the the lin 11 card when we have a bottom's up approach through policy innovation specifically with a policy of this nature it is going to solve for the problem much better mainly because the state in fact can solve for the problems much better than the federal government can they know the problems there at the state level and they can they can tweak all the the the program to actually solve for the individual problems that each individual state in a much better way than the federal government actually can the federal government would put on a blanket program that wouldn't actually solve for the problem that is why the state's counter plan should be passed not only that but i also go ahead so that's why immediately why you're going to vote for me here on the state's counter plan because he dropped this entire argument so i have this there's absolutely nothing on the flow here even furthermore i have i have net benefits here with the federal on my federalism advantage my unique the uniqueness of the fact that federalism is high now and then also the link which again is all conceded the fact that his plan is going to lead to a decrease in federalism where we actually start to get some uh some arguments on the flow here is that he says the fact that uh that a decrease of hegemony is actually good however this is terrible i want to read this card here that a delegation of power with the states prevents war calabres in 95 small state federalism is a big part of what keeps the peace in the united states american-style federalism is a thriving and vital institutional arrangement and it prevents violence and war it prevents religious warfare it prevents sectionalist warfare and it prevents racial warfare when he's trying this entire argument here is saying the fact that currently we're on a shift of multi polarity and that by decreasing hegemony we're going to be able to prevent world war however this is completely untrue as is as this as this shows right here we our federalism is in fact is what actually prevents this federal war hegemony has classically been what prevents war we can see this the other way as the america war as the americas came into power we were able to suppress many different world conflicts that's what we're continuing to do here what his plan does is he destroys his federalist model and go then extending my impact he just he this immediately leaves back into regional blocks trade conflicts and uh and sectionalist uh programs that is what we cannot pass this plan in fact if we stay past the states counterpoint we can avoid this the this federalism disadvantage and instead still encompass his his solvency of actually solving for for global warming that is why we cannot pass this plan instead we need to vote for my state's counter plan now going on to the capitalism okay there's a whole lot of once again a really empty flow here because of the fact that he he'd see what a lot of my arguments here i just want to go ahead and first extend my link of the is that capitalism is almost reaches and and uh uh then then extend my impacts part of the fact that capitalism is is leading to total ecological destruction what all it does is it continually just keeps trying to get more and more and more and total and and ignore the environment his this and furthermore his plan does not actually solve for any of the any of these harms all he does is that he's just going to keep prolonging the problem he just keeps to be just keep putting it for a little further down the road capitalism is going to continuously lead to these problems the problems of global warming if we do not solve for the problem of capitalism we will never solve for the problem of global warming and that is why we you cannot that is an immediate vote for the negative if you vote for the affirmative you're voting for ecological destruction he does not not only does he not solve for global warming but he is not solving for capitalism which is a much larger problem now let's go ahead and go on on on case he never actually solves for global warming let's i just want to go straight here onto solvency the fact that that synthetic fertilizers is not is not linked to global warming that's from my arguments of my and my first constructive he can't solve for global warming the fact that there is no inherent link between synthetic fertilizers and global warming that means that he can't actually ever solve for his harms that is why you i urge a strong vote for the negative thank you one last time i just want to briefly thank everyone in this room judge my opponent the audience uh first i'm going to i'm going to talk about the counterplan uh they're 50 states and then i'm going to move on to the disadvantage of federalism and then i'll lastly uh we'll talk about the cap and then show how our small magnitude let's begin uh with their whole 50 states counterplan the federal government does a more efficient job and that's why i really didn't need to address it really at all because of how the federal government does more efficient job in the states you can see this with the military with anything with anything the federal government does more efficient job because we could breach out on a halt and i also mentioned the cross-examination and how it does affect other territories in the united states such as guam and portorico while the 50 states plan does not so instead we want to target every american citizen and help every single individual to solve this global crisis next i want to talk about their uh federalism disadvantage on how that they say that federalism that we're hurting federalism or not and i've i've articulated already throughout this whole entire debate that we are not hurting federalism at all whatsoever but even if for some reason you do believe that we are then i'm saying that we will we outweigh those and i'll go into more detail on how we'll outweigh those in a little bit in a few but also i want to talk about their cap k their capitalism critique i want to articulate that i say that capitalism is terrible and that's bad but you know what i i completely disagree with this and that's how the foundation of our country and that's how the foundation of every innovation that starts through capitalism or so through a form of it but i'm saying even if you do for some reason believe that capitalism is bad i'm saying that ours outweighs our whole individual thing on the whole entire world in global greenhouse and global warming outweighs this anti-capitalism critique and that capitalism is bad just like with the whole federalism if for some reason that you do believe that this that federal that we are hurting federalism which we are not that ours outweighs theirs because we won't have an we won't have earth we won't have human beings on this earth to talk about this to argue that federalism is good and that we're hurting it or someone else is hurting it when i'm clearly not we won't have individuals who argue that capitalism is bad when it's not we won't have all these opportunities because we won't exist if we don't pass my plan therefore i'm telling you right now to vote for my plan thank you