 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 arms number one. Synthetrophilizer 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. 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, Shell 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. US farmers use more fertilizer rather than switching 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 in 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 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, diazonic 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 energy, but also conserve more water. Induced 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 organic legion-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 their study of 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. I forgot. Alright, so let's go to your second card, saying that synthetic fertilizer leads to global warming. What in particular does ozone depletion have to do with global warming? Well, ozone, as you know, maintains our CO2 in 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 leads to 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 then the fish die, and it ruins the whole cycle. Okay. Also, let's go on to your plan. So 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? Yeah, to be exact, it's about $200,000. Not just the EPA, but the entire US federal government funding? No, for this specific... Just for the EPA? No, for this 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. First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for being here, giving me a good debate today. I'd like to thank the judge for being here and thank the audience as well. I'll be going off case. I have two off cases and they'll be going on case. That's a first case on a topicality of substantial. My interpretation is that the affirmative must be a quantitative increase. The definition is that a substantial increase is at least 30% by Bryce in 2001 circuit judge US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. The specification defines substantially increased as at least about 30%, more preferably an increase of about 50%. The violation is that the plan is only a minor increase in financial incentives for agriculture. The billions of dollars of funding that is already provided for farms through various programs such as the 2012 Farm Bill far outweighs their plan. Now onto the standards. My definition provides for better preparations and limits. Their interpretation destroys limits by allowing hundreds of cases that spend no money. Negatives will not be prepared with relevant positions and evidence against every possible increase in support. Also better clash in ground. Minute increases justify the app to no linking out of dissents because they're too small to trigger out of anything. Also a bright line standard. Compare what the plan spends to existing financial incentives for agriculture. If it is greater than 30%, it meets the violation. By defining substantial as noticeable or important, they make it impossible for the judge to make an objective determination of jurisdiction which is unfair. Now the topicality is a voter for fairness and education. Fairness. Equal preparation for debaters provides for a more fair debate. Fairness is key to debate because without fairness there is no reason to actually come here and debate because one side will always have an advantage over the other. Also the education. Education is key to debate also because we are here as a collegiate program. We are not here creating actual policy. Our purpose is to actually learn about a particular topic. And if we can provide for better education, we will actually have a better program for our colleges. Now onto my second off case. Politics. Comprehensive immigration reform will pass despite setbacks long February 21st. Congress will pass an immigration reform bill that Republicans won't jeopardize the effort. The president phoned GOP senators to reiterate that he supports the negotiations. Negotiations are moving forward, information floats out all the time. That shouldn't prevent them from moving forward. We're going to put a bill on the floor. While some differences between the White House and Senate plan exist on the whole, they are very similar. And the AFP plan spends and failure to show spending restraint derails the rest of Obama's agenda. Lube store January 22nd. The most crucial portion of President Barack Obama's inaugural address may have a brief appeal for making the hard choices to reduce the size of our deficit. That's because the outcome of his forthcoming battle with Congressional Republicans on curbing federal spending looms as the necessary precursor to Obama's hopes of achieving the rest of his ambitious second term agenda. And Obama will have to push the plan and the GOP will have to get on board. They can't afford to alienate the House through controversial plans so do January 4th. The president seems to be on board and ready for rolling up his sleeves to get into getting immigration reform, but that won't cut it. The president's support is a necessary condition for any major policy overhaul, but it is not a sufficient condition. Assumes the president can arm wrestle the Senate Democrats and a few Senate Republicans into supporting. Two out of three will not cut it. The Republican-controlled House is what stands in the way of immigration reform. Immigration reform during this year will not be easy, but it's not impossible. And first, reform is key to relations up in Heimer 2012. Immigration reform would have a big economic impact on Mexico and Central America, among other things because the legalization of 11 million undocumented immigrants would prompt many of them to get legal jobs, earn more, but it may also translate into other U.S. initiatives, including closer trade ties with Mexico, Peru, Chile, and other Pacific Rim countries that are part of Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Economic Plan. And reform is key to U.S. competitiveness. Bush had all 09. Our immigration system has been broken and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting immigration policy right is fundamental to our national interests. Our economic vitality, our diplomacy, and our national security. Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities. Immigration has long been America's secret weapon. The U.S. has attracted an inordinate share of talented and hardworking immigrants. The contributions of immigrants have helped maintain the scientific and technological leadership that is the foundation of our national security. And the U.S. has been making life much tougher for many immigrants. Other countries are taking advantage of these mistakes competing for immigrants. And competitiveness is key to the economy and hygieny. Siegel 04. The United States global primacy depends on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. The U.S. scientific innovation and technological leadership have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. This technological edge may be slipping. Although the United States technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. It can only remain dominant by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. The United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. And at a heteronomic decline causes great power wars in the 1930s proves Geng Xi 2011. No other state has the ability to seriously challenge the U.S. military. Many actors have joined the U.S., creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts. As the hegemonomy withers, the result will be an international order where the power is more diffuse. American interests and influences can be more readily challenged and conflicts of war may be harder to avoid. Power decline and redistribution results in military confrontation. In the late 19th century, America's emergence as a regional power saw its launch in its first overseas war of conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase of U.S. power and waning of British power, the American Navy has begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves. What will happen to these advances as America's influence declines? Given that America's authority, although solely at times, has benefited people, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. A post-hegemonomic world would return to its problems of the 1930s. Regional blocks, trade conflicts, and strategic rivalry. Major powers would compete for privacy. A world without American hegemonomy is one where great powers wars re-emerge, and the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive anti-globalism barriers. Now onto my on-case arguments. First out of their harms, the tagline of their Shulu 11's card states that the fertilizers lead to global warming. However, the card itself barely contains any warrants to support their claim. The only relevant warrants states that nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas, which as their sender's 12 card, the second card there in their harms, shows this only destroys the ozone layer, but this does not significantly contribute to warming. All this does is increase the amount of ultraviolet rays, which, yes, will increase the risk of skin cancer, but this has nothing to do with global warming. The largest contributors to global warming include the millions of cars driving on the road right now, and the constant burning of fossil fuels that we have in our society. There is no link between synthetic fertilizer and global warming. Also, there will be no extinction. Reject this environmental alarmism, Collider and Forbes 2007. Apocalyptic stories about their reputable catastrophic damage are blown up to illogical and ridiculous proportions. The alarmists identify a legitimate issue, take the possible consequences to an extreme, and advocate action on the basis of these actions. Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves, as policy makers attempt to appease their contenturacy in the media. Environmental alarmism should be taken for what it is. A natural tendency of the public to latch onto the worst. Now let's go on to their solvency. I extend that argument of the weak link to global warming over to their solvency, because synthetic fertilizers are such a small contribution to global warming, they can't access their solvency. Eliminating synthetic fertilizers will do nothing to solve for their harm of global warming, therefore their plant does not actually do anything. Thank you for your time, and I vote a strong vote for the negative. Alright, first I want to start off by I got a question about the substantial problem that you have right now, with my term substantial. How is it that going from $200,000 all the way up to $10 million is not a substantial increase? It's not substantial in the way that $10 million compared to what we actually already have in the squo in terms of financial subsidies for agriculture. Okay, and but isn't what I've stated the $200,000 status quo? If you look at it with blinders on it does look like it's a substantial increase, however when you look at it in the grand scale of what the USFG actually does it's very small. Okay, okay. Now I want to move on and talk about political capital. You mentioned this in your politics dissad. You said that the president if I'm correct please ask if I'm correct that the president does not have a political capital to pass my plan in immigration, correct? Correct. Okay, so how much political capital will the president need to pass my plan in immigration? There's political capital isn't a substantial isn't a tangible substance you can't measure it however what we can know is this is that if we do pass your plan it is going to immediately derail what the president will be doing. It can't be both. Okay, so it's not tangible when you cannot actually count it then how is it that you needed to pass my plan? It exists. The fact of we know the fact that the president has willpower and has influence over congress that is a known fact. There's no way to measure influence. Well you can measure everything in the universe so how is it that it exists but yet you can't measure it and tell me exactly how much it is. That's like trying to measure charisma and intelligence there's no way to do that. Okay. First off I want to start by thanking my opponent again for providing this great debate here today. I want to thank the judge himself as well as the audience members. So first I want to begin off case on topicality then I'll move on case and then I'll move off case on the politics dissat. So let's begin. Topicality is significant. We meet the definition according to the EPA a region 9 generally awards 2 to 3 grants a year varying from between $50,000 and $100,000 and we're increasing that from over to $10 million so that's a huge that's more than 30% which my opponent has argued that we did not make it because it didn't meet the 30% increase with harm but we do. We deserve leeway on quantities legal definition and words and phrases goes from less than 1% to 90% the term substantial is designed to give flexibility and contextual interpretations not to serve as a specific specifying competing interpretations we deserve leeway and reasonable reasonableness because topicality is an all or nothing issue for us. Melkoff 92 a law professor at UCLA substantial is flexible is as flexible in the law as ordinary English and it's a place for discretion now our standards is that we encourage creativity and a depth of analysis we don't agree with their standards and that affirmative we should be encouraged to look into details of different forms of support this leads into in depth and creative discussions our interpretation allows that there stops it by focusing only on big numbers they have but the first thing we need to do to make sure that our potential threshold is arbitra we deal with considerable and important issues as our case evidence illustrates and that's enough for a good debate. Our literature checks abuse we read cards founded in the literature this is enough notice for the negative they can Google the words in advance and find the same cards we read this is not a voting issue judge and do an overview of global warming our first extend first enhance in 2012 but human operations are the driving force behind the shifting climate and our synthetic fertilizers have played a significant role in this ship extends standards 2012 synthetic fertilizer is linked to a 20% increase in nitrous oxide alone which doesn't take into account emissions that are produced during the production of these fertilizers as Shao 2011 explains fertilizers are linked to global warming and 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 move on to our 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 2004 card and that conventional farms produce almost 300% more greenhouse gases than the type of farms created through this bill and that sustainable farming versus global warming trends pulls back from the brink Lynch 2011 organic farming generally has lower energy than greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gas emissions are constantly lower and the main reasons for better organic performance are the lack of synthetic fertilizers now I want to move off case onto the politics dissat the comprehensive immigration reform won't pass Congress cannot agree on path to citizenship so there are arguments saying that we don't want the rest political capital means nothing that's going to fully 2007 the biggest fight on immigration reform will be a pathway to citizenship Republicans might support undocumented but not to become citizens only 10% of American voters support such a plan winners win and winners win is empirically more true than the link to the dissat number one the political capital is not finite as as we discussed in the cross examination wins on tough issues create a bandwagon effect and number two prefer our evidence it's about Obama's second term and sites at the best academic data including Norman Ornston and this is according to her 2009 now in unquantifiable but meaningful concept says Norman Ornston Norman Ornston of the American Enterprise Institute is what the political capital is now the winners win and winners win green 2010 there's continuous and reciprocal relations between presidential boldness and achievement nothing sets the president up for achieving his next goal better than succeed dramatically on the last go around therefore I believe you should vote for my plan thank you alright so I'm going to be just be going off topicality then politics I'll be going on case so first off on the topicality I'm just going to go right down by the line by line why this debate has been completely unfair this entire time first off on my interpretation I provided the card saying that our definition must be at least 30% this provides a great bright line why it's 30% if you look at what the current threshold is of the billions currently provided for example through the 2012 farm bill we have to provide at least a 30% increase or more than this let's look at his plan here on this violation all he's doing is providing a 10 million dollar increase through the EPA well he's trying to skew you look this look over here saying that oh look the EPA is only providing $200,000 right now a year that is not that's just ridiculous we have to look at what the USFG is doing in total because that is what the resolution demands that the USFG should act and if we look at what the USFG is doing they are providing billions of dollars in funding and so with their 10 million dollar increase is only a thousandth of a percent increase they are not topical in any way to substantial and the standards here once again it's going to be better preparation of limits my interpretation provides for better clashing ground and provides a bright line standard which theirs does not his definition all he's saying is that we can provide any number that we want that is not a good enough bright line this destroys all fairness all grants all education that we currently have right now if you take his interpretation there is no fairness in the round and the and the affirmative can run any plan that they want giving me absolutely no way to provide any any ground so that I can actually get an argument that will link to their to their case that is why you must vote for my interpretation now going on to politics my evidence that I provided is much more reasons that the because arguments that he provided that's why I want to go ahead and extend the fact that comprehensive immigration reform is going to pass right now this is the car that he decided to read what is much older and has no actual frame of reference to the squo also on to the link I'm going to turn back the winners win argument the presidential term is played with many wins and losses there's no way to actually prove winners win is not empirical president Obama has had a lot of win but he's also had a lot of losses throughout his first term the second term the winners win is not a good argument that's why I want to go ahead and turn that back and that's why I'm winning on the link argument I also want to go ahead and extend my loops door card saying the fact that we have to cut that any increased spending on obama spark that he that he is supporting is that is going to upset the rest of his plan and what that would do is that would upset and cause comprehensive immigration reform to fail that going now the internal link story the passenger the plan leads to the no passage of the comprehensive immigration reform and this is all conceded here you never even touched on this once there's no immigration reform that decreases our competitiveness through the lower amounts of immigrants this leads to the destruction of our economy and the hegenomy and also once our hegenomy declines this is going to lead to nuclear war as I show this in my first speech he never touched on this he concedes the fact that once he passes the plan it is going to go down this link story in the fact that we are all going to die that is why we cannot pass his plan if we pass this plan there is absolutely no world in which we live however if we do pass it we can get the immigration reform and we can avoid all these terrible terrible effects and we can have an increase in hegenomy and also an increased economy that is why we cannot pass his plan how going on case his his harms are just are absolutely ridiculous throughout this entire debate he has absolutely no link to global war he's tried try to wiggle out of this by saying that there's some new trofication and you know there's some destruction of the this doesn't have actually anything to do with global warming there are no increase in temperatures he has not linked himself to global warming in any way shape or form and he does not know that but he doesn't respond to the argument that I put out there that most of the CO2 in our atmosphere right now is actually coming from other human operations so the massive amount of cars on the road and the use that we're always doing he never responded to this now also going on to the solvency I want to go extend that argument I just made over the solvency he has absolutely no solvency because he can't solve for global warming because there's no link from synthetic fertilizer to global warming thank you first I just want to thank you all one more glass time I'm going to go to just top county then move on to the disadvantage of politics disadvantage and then I'm going to show you how mine outweighs there's let's begin definition their definition was substantial for top counties that they say that increases at least 30% we meet their definition we absolutely do and I've shown this because of the 50 to 100 thousand dollars in the actual definition on average for the actual amount that they give to these farmers so increasing that to 10 million is an increase that's over 30,000 he said that violation is that our plan is only a minor increase that's not true I just proved to you that it's not as well as top county really holds no validity here and their standards that are better preparation and limits they have the same opportunities that we do to look up on the internet or through any kind of dictionaries or anything else to find the same cards and cut the same cards that we do so this is not giving us any type of advantage at all it's causing better it's not causing better clashing ground they have absolutely the same amount of clashing ground that they do at any other time because again they can look it up on their own and they know that it's reasonable it's within our terms there are bright line there is no bright line I've already addressed this numerous amount of times now when we wanted this as a politics again all their politics and that we won't pass their comprehensive immigration reform yes that that's bad but even if that is true I believe that we will we can pass both but even if it is if it is true ours outweighs theirs significantly because this will have no effect the politics disadvantage of theirs will have no effect whatsoever if the world doesn't exist because of global greenhouse gases increasing so much and that global warming effects occur we won't need to have this pass if we don't have an earth or any people to survive on it so ours clearly outweighs theirs because theirs doesn't have a thing that impacts every single human being on the space of the earth instead theirs has one minority of individuals that we can I believe we can pass both and I really can't see any kind of arguments that would make it so that they win so therefore I urge you to vote for my plan and that we will help save the earth