2NR – Roadmap is 1)Tyranny, 2)Disads, 3)CP, 4)Voters/Weighing

1) Tyranny and the constitution

First off, he concedes the entire justification of tyranny. There is no tyranny in the status
quo, and there are no constitutional violations. However, I would like to discuss Lopez
and Morrison. Peter apparently misunderstands my argument here.

Lopez and Morrison change nothing!

As he clarified in the 1ar, what he is trying to do here is to change the way SCOTUS
interprets commerce clause cases by having them look at environmental cases in light of
Lopez and Morrison. The argument that I’ve been making through this round that he
doesn’t address is that because Lopez and Morrison are not environmental cases, they
cannot be easily applied to environmental issues. Sure, they apply. I fully agree here.
The point I have been pressing and the impact of this argument is that they still give
SCOTUS plenty of room to interpret the issues. SCOTUS has consistently upheld federal
authority over environmental issues. Simply telling them to remember Lopez and
Morrison will not make them change their minds; especially when they have upheld
federal laws under the commerce clause for so long.
2) Disads
I’m going to condense the ash DA into environmental degradation.

A) The Link
I think Peter misunderstood this disad right from the start. States are not required to do
anything under his plan! THAT’S THE POINT OF THE DISAD! Any environmental
protection that occurs post-fiat is uncertain! There is no guarantee that states will
protect the environment under a federalist system. In fact, we have more of a guarantee
that they WON’T protect the environment.

B) Budgets/Will states act?

Peter dropped the point that environment is a low priority for states. Furthermore, he
concedes the card which says states will continue to have budget shortfalls for the next
few years. We are left with a simple issue: Will states act even with massive budget
shortfalls. His basic response is to go back to his 2AC cards (which I debunked due to
their dates) and then reference that California is now regulating GHGs. This argument
does not matter, in light of Scope.

C) Scope
Peter doesn’t really make a response to this. He basically concedes the point by saying:
“Of course their scope is smaller. States are smaller.” This is not a response. Pull through
my card from the 1nc which said that even when states DO take action on things like
waste cleanup, they are never able to muster much of an effort. In fact, that card (which
was again, unaddressed,) shows that only 33 states have any type of waste cleanup
program, and most of those have tiny budgets of around 1 million. Even if Peter wins the
point that states act, it DOES NOT MATTER, because the actions that states do take are
too limited, and to poorly funded.

D) Ash
This was my example of state regulation failure. His responses were weak. First he said
that the EPA won’t actually do anything about it; which is ridiculous when you look at the
2NC card which says the EPA has already released their plan of action. Secondly, he said
that states can solve. The card he gave here is just terrible. It’s a one liner that says “we
prolly don’t need federal action.” Most states don’t regulate ash. Pull through my 2NC
card and check this one from USA Today in January:

“Regulations of the ash ponds vary by state. Most lack liners and have no monitors to ensure that ash
and its contents don't seep into underground aquifers.”

E) Bottom line
This disad should be the primary voter. He conceded the tyranny justification, which
means the only possible reason to vote affirmative is environmental protection.
Unfortunately for the aff, he hasn’t come anywhere close to proving that the states will
protect the environment to the degree that federal regulation can. Vote him down for
this.

3) Counterplan
There are three points here.

1) The Perm. Woah woah woah. Can you say, CASE SHIFT???? His response to try to
carry the perm completely skews the nature of his case. Look back at his mandates. It
says that intra-state issues will be EXCLUSIVELY under the jurisdiction of the states. The
CP has no such word. By having that word EXCLUSIVELY in the mandate, he leaves no
room for the federal government to fill in the gaps left by state laws. I’d like to know how
Superfund is supposed to stay around and clean up toxic waste when they are legally
prohibited from doing so under the affirmative plan. The CP is the affirmative plan, but
without that word. The CP is thus preferable because it allows the federal government to
fill in the gaps. The CP provides more complete and comprehensive environmental
protection. Vote neg on this.

2) Advantages? LOLWUT? There was no affirmative refutation to the CP advantages in

the first place. Pull ‘em through.

3) Conditionality: This is not a voter. In the 2ac his position was that I should not be
allowed to kick the CP for any reason. Great. I’m fine with that. Now he wants you to vote
me down for even suggesting that I might kick it. Let’s look back at what he said in the
2ac:

Peter Voell (NCFCA debater, Vector Debate) December 2009

“THIS. IS. A. VOTER. mark it down on your flow. if Wolkie tries to kick the CP, vote him down
instantly to preserve clash, fairness, ground, education and all the other stuff debaters hold so
dear.”

I am not kicking the CP. Don’t vote me down. Vote me up, because the CP solves and
avoids the DA.
4) Weighing
The affirmative has no tyranny, incomplete environmental coverage, and ash in the
water. They also have a theoretical complaint on the CP, because I could have dropped
it, but I said that I wouldn’t, and now I won’t drop it, but I could have.

The negative has disproven tyranny, we have complete environmental protection via the
CP, and we solve ash.
Thus, the voters:

1) The constitution
The constitution is on the side of the negative. The supreme court has upheld the
constitutionality of federal regulation, and will continue to do so post-fiat.

2) The environment
Even IF you accept Peter’s arguments that states will regulate regardless of budget
shortfalls (which you shouldn’t), he still deserves to lose on this issue in light of the un-
refuted cards showing that state environmental protections just cannot be as
comprehensive as federal protections. Since the environment is his only remaining
justification, this should be an instant loss for the aff.

3) The counterplan
It’s the affirmative plan; only with better environmental protections. The perm is bogus,
and you shouldn’t reject the counterplan just because he didn’t run many arguments
against it.

Vote Neg, have a merry Christmas, and drink lots of eggnog.