Jump to content
AlisonPotter

Passive Ocean Clean Up Negative Strat

Recommended Posts

My partner and I hit this case at almost every tournament despite how bad (in my opinion) the case is. It is run by everyone at one school and we've won on it most of the times from t violations and solvency analytics based on plastic consumption and also on sinking trash. But the problem is that we are usually redundant in speeches because we are unable to find good case specific evidence against it due to the small area it is carried out, the North Pacific Gyre, and the extremely new process itself destroying all inherency and most solvency ground we could have on the case (hence our reliance t arguments). Do any of you have any advice or strategy for oncase or even a disad that's not too generic? If you have any questions about the case, I should be able to answer them from my experience hitting it. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I hit this case at almost every tournament despite how bad (in my opinion) the case is. It is run by everyone at one school and we've won on it most of the times from t violations and solvency analytics based on plastic consumption and also on sinking trash. But the problem is that we are usually redundant in speeches because we are unable to find good case specific evidence against it due to the small area it is carried out, the North Pacific Gyre, and the extremely new process itself destroying all inherency and most solvency ground we could have on the case (hence our reliance t arguments). Do any of you have any advice or strategy for oncase or even a disad that's not too generic? If you have any questions about the case, I should be able to answer them from my experience hitting it. Thanks. 

I've never heard of this aff.  Can you give me some specifics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of this aff.  Can you give me some specifics?

Yeah sure, it was created by this 19 year old kid named Slat and what it does is uses the ocean currents to push the trash into these v shaped barriers that float and catch trash three meters down allowing for sea life to live and it also has the ability to keep all phytoplankton out (throwing out that whole argument on phytoplankton and sea life getting in the machines). It is supposed to catch 1/3 of the north pacific gyre's trash in 10 years and 79% of the microplastics and they only had the cost of .001 of a sales tax or something like that. If you have any specific follow up questions you can ask those 

Edited by apot7372
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I just did some cursory research and here's a couple thoughts:

T- possibly T oceans, because it is just one ocean.  T substantial if it is true that they don't require much money.  T-development; there's a myriad definitions that would exclude this aff.

 

Land CP- It seems to me that one of the big issues of this Ocean Cleanup plan is that it doesn't actually resolve the way in which the trash ever actually gets to the ocean.  I saw an interesting idea for storm water debris nets that would catch trash before it even gets to the ocean.  I'm not sure how competition would work out though, but I'm sure you can figure something out, or just work along that line of thought.

 

Solvency/Case- It seems to me that there are two people, Dr. Kim Martini and Dr. Miriam Goldstein, who have critiqued the idea extensively.  You can find those here http://www.alwaysresearching.com/2014/07/14/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/ and here http://deepseanews.com/2013/09/revisiting-the-ocean-cleanup-a-plan-to-remove-plastic-from-the-oceans/

Also, the plan only works for floating trash, but just find out what sinks to the bottom of the ocean and that is a pretty good solvency deficit.

 

DA- Really all I can find is the Environment DA type stuff about phytoplankton and other marine animals.  I know that they have evidence to the contrary, but I'm pretty sure that just because it is a wall of sorts instead of a net, it can almost certainly cause environmental degradation.  Specifically, these walls are attached to the bottom of the ocean, so I'm sure you can garner some offense from that.

 

K- the usual.  Go for some root cause environmental K, some sort of anthro/OOO K about why we have the relationship to trash that we do, etc.

 

Again, I didn't look to deeply into this, but if you need more help just ask.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I just did some cursory research and here's a couple thoughts:

T- possibly T oceans, because it is just one ocean.  T substantial if it is true that they don't require much money.  T-development; there's a myriad definitions that would exclude this aff.

 

Land CP- It seems to me that one of the big issues of this Ocean Cleanup plan is that it doesn't actually resolve the way in which the trash ever actually gets to the ocean.  I saw an interesting idea for storm water debris nets that would catch trash before it even gets to the ocean.  I'm not sure how competition would work out though, but I'm sure you can figure something out, or just work along that line of thought.

 

Solvency/Case- It seems to me that there are two people, Dr. Kim Martini and Dr. Miriam Goldstein, who have critiqued the idea extensively.  You can find those here http://www.alwaysresearching.com/2014/07/14/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/ and here http://deepseanews.com/2013/09/revisiting-the-ocean-cleanup-a-plan-to-remove-plastic-from-the-oceans/

Also, the plan only works for floating trash, but just find out what sinks to the bottom of the ocean and that is a pretty good solvency deficit.

 

DA- Really all I can find is the Environment DA type stuff about phytoplankton and other marine animals.  I know that they have evidence to the contrary, but I'm pretty sure that just because it is a wall of sorts instead of a net, it can almost certainly cause environmental degradation.  Specifically, these walls are attached to the bottom of the ocean, so I'm sure you can garner some offense from that.

 

K- the usual.  Go for some root cause environmental K, some sort of anthro/OOO K about why we have the relationship to trash that we do, etc.

 

Again, I didn't look to deeply into this, but if you need more help just ask.

Yeah, we do run the argument on sinking trash, but I'm probably going to need to develop it a little more. Thank you soooo much for all that and I'm going to look extensively into everything you mentioned. Again, thank you very much!

Edited by apot7372
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sure, it was created by this 19 year old kid named Slat and what it does is uses the ocean currents to push the trash into these v shaped barriers that float and catch trash three meters down allowing for sea life to live and it also has the ability to keep all phytoplankton out (throwing out that whole argument on phytoplankton and sea life getting in the machines). It is supposed to catch 1/3 of the north pacific gyre's trash in 10 years and 79% of the microplastics and they only had the cost of .001 of a sales tax or something like that. If you have any specific follow up questions you can ask those 

Slat concedes that the only way to sufficiently solve is to eliminate all new trash from entering the ocean. Its somewhere in his <200 page article about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slat concedes that the only way to sufficiently solve is to eliminate all new trash from entering the ocean. Its somewhere in his <200 page article about it.

I'll definitely be on the look out for this evidence. Thanks

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this aff. I was going to read it at a local lay tournament but my partner got sick so I never ran it apart from some practice rounds.

 

But it links to every k, cp, and DA you can think of. Regarding on case, there's questionable solvency, especially on the whole solvency deficit with the efficiency of the whole system. Other than that the timeframe is pretty long.

 

The version on open ev has really weird non extinction impacts, anyone running it probably will have a different Il chain but the solvency is the same

Edited by Pacifist
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll definitely be on the look out for this evidence. Thanks

Also; look through the feasibility study for DA links. Seriously, you can find a ton from Slat himself. He makes statements along the lines of "Eh. Doesn't matter that this may have international law impacts, it's still feasible"

 

The more you read his feasibility study the less feasible the whole case looks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a neg file for this AFF. I just don't know how to upload an attachment. Message me if you want it. 

Edited by PcsJoslinJJ
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I just did some cursory research and here's a couple thoughts:

T- possibly T oceans, because it is just one ocean. T substantial if it is true that they don't require much money. T-development; there's a myriad definitions that would exclude this aff.

 

Land CP- It seems to me that one of the big issues of this Ocean Cleanup plan is that it doesn't actually resolve the way in which the trash ever actually gets to the ocean. I saw an interesting idea for storm water debris nets that would catch trash before it even gets to the ocean. I'm not sure how competition would work out though, but I'm sure you can figure something out, or just work along that line of thought.

 

Solvency/Case- It seems to me that there are two people, Dr. Kim Martini and Dr. Miriam Goldstein, who have critiqued the idea extensively. You can find those here http://www.alwaysresearching.com/2014/07/14/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/ and here http://deepseanews.com/2013/09/revisiting-the-ocean-cleanup-a-plan-to-remove-plastic-from-the-oceans/

Also, the plan only works for floating trash, but just find out what sinks to the bottom of the ocean and that is a pretty good solvency deficit.

 

DA- Really all I can find is the Environment DA type stuff about phytoplankton and other marine animals. I know that they have evidence to the contrary, but I'm pretty sure that just because it is a wall of sorts instead of a net, it can almost certainly cause environmental degradation. Specifically, these walls are attached to the bottom of the ocean, so I'm sure you can garner some offense from that.

 

K- the usual. Go for some root cause environmental K, some sort of anthro/OOO K about why we have the relationship to trash that we do, etc.

 

Again, I didn't look to deeply into this, but if you need more help just ask.

I'm actually running this, and any other team running it should have sufficient answers to all of these.

 

T- Oceans, there are five gyres across all oceans

T- Substantial, it actually costs 240$ dollars

T- Development, just explain how "resource extraction" is extremely over limiting.

 

Sinking trash? Slat says 80 percent floats.

 

And on the K's, call me a novice, but isn't removing plastic-that's killing thousands of animals- a good thing?

 

Land based CP- do both, there's no competitiveness nor Net Benefit, plus, if you merely stop the flow, there's still the plastic that's already there and needs to be picked up.

 

Don't even bother with Wilson or Goldstein and Martini evidence, Wilson has no credentials and Slat answers all three of the authors in his Feasibility Studies.

Edited by coolbob5413

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't even bother with Wilson or Goldstein and Martini evidence, Wilson has no credentials and Slat answers all three of the authors in his Feasibility Studies.

I'm really interested how an article that specifically answers the feasibility study and is critiquing the feasibility study (http://deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/) Can be answered by the feasibility study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I get off my phone I'll answer coolbob better, but "T-Substantial=200 bucks" made me lol

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I get off my phone I'll answer coolbob better, but "T-Substantial=200 bucks" made me lol

I forgot the million. 240 million. Plus the 4.3 million in up keep yearly.

 

I'm really interested how an article that specifically answers the feasibility study and is critiquing the feasibility study (http://deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/) Can be answered by the feasibility study.

There was a second study released last month addressing all of M&Gs issues. Edited by coolbob5413

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually running this, and any other team running it should have sufficient answers to all of these.

 

T- Oceans, there are five gyres across all oceans

That's true, but the original case presented above specified the North Atlantic gyre.  If your case specifies more then ok, this wouldn't work.

T- Substantial, it actually costs 240$ dollars

Ok, I didn't know that, all I knew was that someone said it would cost very little.  Still debatable, but T-Substantial is never that good anyways.

T- Development, just explain how "resource extraction" is extremely over limiting.

I mean, go for it, but it's definitely debatable, and there are some subtle definitions which are very inclusive but would probably exclude your aff.

 

Sinking trash? Slat says 80 percent floats.

I'm sure that's true, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the stuff that doesn't float is the worst stuff for ecosystems.  Plastic sucks, but I've got a feeling that stuff like metal that sinks does a lot more damage.

 

And on the K's, call me a novice, but isn't removing plastic-that's killing thousands of animals- a good thing?

Nah.  Enviro-managerialism.  OOO.  They're all indicts of how your doing stuff, not necessarily why (but also why).

 

Land based CP- do both, there's no competitiveness nor Net Benefit, plus, if you merely stop the flow, there's still the plastic that's already there and needs to be picked up.

Umm, there's a net benefit if you read a DA about how your plan screws up the environment.  Perm doesn't solve that.  Doublebind- either the plastic in the ocean already won't cause extinction or it will and the plan fails.  As long as there's a chance the CP solves the judge votes neg.

 

Don't even bother with Wilson or Goldstein and Martini evidence, Wilson has no credentials and Slat answers all three of the authors in his Feasibility Studies.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that there were answers.  Well then, guess I'll just concede the round.  Just because there answers doesn't make them better, or the argument a bad one to make.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm actually running this, and any other team running it should have sufficient answers to all of these.

T- Oceans, there are five gyres across all oceans

That's true, but the original case presented above specified the North Atlantic gyre.  If your case specifies more then ok, this wouldn't work.

T- Substantial, it actually costs 240$ dollars

Ok, I didn't know that, all I knew was that someone said it would cost very little.  Still debatable, but T-Substantial is never that good anyways.

T- Development, just explain how "resource extraction" is extremely over limiting.

I mean, go for it, but it's definitely debatable, and there are some subtle definitions which are very inclusive but would probably exclude your aff.

Sinking trash? Slat says 80 percent floats.

I'm sure that's true, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the stuff that doesn't float is the worst stuff for ecosystems.  Plastic sucks, but I've got a feeling that stuff like metal that sinks does a lot more damage.

And on the K's, call me a novice, but isn't removing plastic-that's killing thousands of animals- a good thing?

Nah.  Enviro-managerialism.  OOO.  They're all indicts of how your doing stuff, not necessarily why (but also why).

Land based CP- do both, there's no competitiveness nor Net Benefit, plus, if you merely stop the flow, there's still the plastic that's already there and needs to be picked up.

Umm, there's a net benefit if you read a DA about how your plan screws up the environment.  Perm doesn't solve that.  Doublebind- either the plastic in the ocean already won't cause extinction or it will and the plan fails.  As long as there's a chance the CP solves the judge votes neg.

Don't even bother with Wilson or Goldstein and Martini evidence, Wilson has no credentials and Slat answers all three of the authors in his Feasibility Studies.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that there were answers.  Well then, guess I'll just concede the round.  Just because there answers doesn't make them better, or the argument a bad one to make.

 

All the plan wants to clean is plastic, not metals or things of the such.

 

In my version of the Aff, we don't make extinction claims. The CP doesn't solve for the plastic in the oceans that's already there.

 

And on the Wilson and Martini and Goldstein evidence, you can use it, but I'm just saying, you're probably not going to win in THOSE CARDS because Slat directly answered their issues.

 

When it comes to K's, I legitimately am a novice. I'm not even sure how to answer those yet lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot the million. 240 million. Plus the 4.3 million in up keep yearly.

 

There was a second study released last month addressing all of M&Gs issues.

There's a second article by Martini that answers Slat's answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody running this aff have a good counter definition/interp for T--Development?

 

Also, wouldn't a generic states or mil cp solve? If you have any specific solvency deficit for states or DOD cp could you post them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...