 First off I want to start off by thanking my opponent and then I also want to thank the judge for judging it and as well as the audience members for viewing this and making this possible. So first I want to begin with harms 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. Now our study shows empirically that the nitrogen-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 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-covered 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 empirically 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, Diozonic 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 legume-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 legume-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, cruise 2004. Compared to the combined greenhouse gas output associated with fertilizer-based and legume-based cropping systems, in their study the conventionally agro ecosystem had a net output of 114 for greenhouse gas. The legume-based tilled cropping system 41 and no till fertilized agricultural ecosystem as 14. In the long run, the legume-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. 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 arms. Okay. Can you actually go ahead and read a lot of the warrants you had in there? Why synthetic fertilizer leaves 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 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. 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. Alright, so first case on 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 defined 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 and 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'll 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 Earth 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 him from moving forward. We're going to put a bill on the floor. While some differences between the White House and Senate Plans 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. Loops door January 22nd. The most crucial portion of President Barack Obama's inaugural address may have been his 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, push at all, oh, nine. 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. 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 hedronomic decline causes great power wars in 1930s-proofs, Zheng Ji 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 hedronomy 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 in 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-hedronomic 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 hedronomy 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 onto their harms. The tagline of their Shulul 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 warrant states that nitrous oxide is the third most significant greenhouse gas, which as their senders 12, or 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. This has nothing to do with global warming. The largest contributors to global warming includes the millions of cars driving on the road right now on 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 collided in 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 extreme projections. Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves. As policymakers 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. 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. All right, 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 of 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, 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 and immigration, correct? Correct. Okay, so how much political capital will the president need to pass my plan and immigration? 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 need it to pass my plan? It exists. The fact that 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 this ad. So let's begin. Topicality is significant. We meet their definition. According to the EPA, a region nine generally awards two to three 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 percent, which my opponent has argued that we did not make it because it didn't meet the 30 percent increase with harm. But we do. We deserve leeway on quantities. Legal definition in words and phrases goes from less than 1 percent to 90 percent. The term substantial is designed to give flexibility and contextual interpretations, not to serve as specifying competing interpretations. We deserve leeway and reasonableness because topicality is an all or nothing issue for us. Melkoff 92, a law professor at UCLA. Substantial 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. Their stops it by focusing only on big numbers. They have no bright line. Their specification of a percentage threshold is arbitrary. 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 lit or 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 we provide for better education awareness than their interpretation. So, therefore, I believe that we should vote that ours is topical. Now, I want to move on case and do an overview of global warming real quick. Our first extend, first extend Hanson 2012 that human operations are the driving force behind the shifting climate and our synthetic fertilizers have played a significant role in this ship. Extend 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 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 move on to our 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 that the comprehensive immigration reform won't pass. Congress cannot agree on paths to citizenship. So their argument saying that we don't have 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 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, unquantifiable, but meaningful concept says Norman Ornston of the American Enterprise Institute is what the political capital is. Now the winners 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. All right, 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 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're providing billions of dollars in funding. And so with their $10 million increase is only a thousandth of a percent increase. They are not topical in any way to substantial. And the standards here is, once again, it's going to be better preparation of limits. My interpretation provides for better clashing grounds 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 grounds, all education that we currently have right now. If you take his interpretation, there is no fairness in the round. And the affirmative can run any plan that they want, giving me absolutely no way to provide any ground so that I can actually get an argument that will link 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 than the uniqueness 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. The card that he decided to read 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. It's not empirical. President Obama has had a lot of win-patterns. He's also had a lot of losses throughout his first term and already into his 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 Loopsdorf card saying the fact that any increased spending on Obama's part that he is supporting is going to upset the rest of his plan. What that would do is that would upset and cause comprehensive immigration reform to fail. The internal link story, the passing of the plan, leads to no passage of the comprehensive immigration reform. This is all conceded here. You never even touched on this. In fact, once there's no immigration reform, that decreases our competitiveness through lower amounts of immigrants. This leads to the destruction of our economy and the hygenomy. Also, once our hygenomy declines, this is going to lead to nuclear war. As I showed 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 this 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 effects. We can have an increase in hygenomy and also an increased economy. That is why we cannot pass this plan. Going on case, his harms are absolutely ridiculous throughout this entire debate. He has absolutely no link to global warming. He has tried to wiggle out of this by saying that there's some new trophification. There's some destruction of the ozone layer. 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. 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. The massive amount of cars on the road and the use that we're always doing, he never responded to this. Also going on to the solvency, I want to 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 last time. I'm going to go to just top county, then I'll move on to the disadvantage of politics disadvantage. Then I'm going to show you how mine outweighs theirs. Let's begin. Their definition was substantial for top counties. They say that increases at least 30 percent. We meet their definition. We absolutely do. 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 thousand. 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, they're 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 cars and cut the same cars that we do. So this is not giving us any type of advantage at all. 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 it's reasonable. It's within our terms. There are bright lines. 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 in that we won't pass their comprehensive immigration reform. Yes, that's bad but even if that is true, I believe that we will, we can pass both. But even 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 passed if we don't have 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.