Impact Turn file 7 week Juniors CCLP lab
1/3 Michigan Debate Institutes 2010
Turnz to da MPX
***Biodiversity 4
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse 5
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse Ext 6
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse (Boulter) 7
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse (Rivers/Freshwater) 8
AT: Biodiversity Key to Stability 9
AT: Biodiversity Key to Stability-Food Chains 11
***China De-Development 11
China DeDev Key to Environment 12
China DeDev Key to Hegemony 13
China DeDev --> Nationalism 14
China DeDev Key to Warming 15
***China War 15
China War Good 1NC Shell 16
2NC Defense Ext 19
China War – War Inevitable 20
China War – Missile Tests Module 22
China War – Nanotech Module 23
China War – Prolif Module 24
China War – Space Leadership Module 25
China War – Space War Module 26
China War – Space War Module Timeframe 27
China War – AT: Cooperation Possible 28
***Democracy 29
Democracy Unsustainable (Pakistan) 30
Democracy --> Authoritarianism/Prolif 31
Democracy --> Civil War 32
Democracy --> Econ Collapse 33
Democracy --> Ethnic Conflict 34
Democracy --> Nuke Proliferation 35
Democracy --> Terrorism 36
Democracy --> War 38
Authoritarianism Solves War 41
AT: Democracy Solves War 42
***Democratization 42
Democratization --> No Credibility 43
Democratization --> Heg Collapse 45
Democratization --> Heg Collapse Ext 46
Democratization --> Heg Collapse Ext-Intl Backlash 47
Democratization --> ME Terror 49
Democratization --> ME Terror Ext 50
Democratization --> ME Terror Ext-Al Qaeda Hates 51
Democratization --> Kills Russian Relations 52
Democratization --> Terrorism 53
Democratization --> Transition War 54
Democratization --> War 55
Demo Peace Theory --> Military Intervention 56
AT: Democracy Solves Terrorism 59
AT: Democracy Solves War 60
AT: Demo Peace Theory 61
***Environment 61
Environment Collapse --> Biological Cooperation 62
Environment Collapse --> Ecosystem Stability 63
Environment Collapse --> Ecosystem Stability (Human Induced Good) 64
Species Loss Prevents Complete Extinction 65
Species Loss --> Ecosystem Stability 66
***European Union-US Relations 66
European Union-US Relations --> Heg Collapse 67
European Union-US Relations --> NATO Collapse 68
European Union-US Relations --> NATO Collapse Ext 69
European Union-US Relationship --> Precautionary Principle 70
European Union-US Relations Trade Off with Russian-EU Relations 72
European Union-US Relations – No Impact 74
***Free Trade 74
Free Trade --> Cultural Destruction 75
Free Trade --> Democracy Collapse 76
Free Trade --> Environment Collapse 77
Free Trade --> Environmental Collapse 78
Free Trade --> Econ Collapse 79
Free Trade --> Food shortages 80
Free Trade --> Monocultures 81
Free Trade --> North/South Split 82
Free Trade --> Prolif 83
Free Trade --> Terrorism 84
Free Trade --> Tobacco Spread 85
Free Trade --> War 86
Free Trade --> War Ext 88
***Growth 89
Growth --> Environmental Collapse 90
Growth --> Environmental Collapse Ext 91
Growth --> Famine 92
Growth --> Lack of Resources 93
Growth --> Overpopulation 94
Growth --> Structural Violence 95
AT: Solves Overpopulation 96
***Human Rights Promotion 96
HR Promo --> Collapses China Relations 97
HR Promo --> Conflict 98
HR Promo --> Military Intervention/War 99
HR Promo --> Patriarchy 100
HR Promo --> Totalitarianism 101
***Iran Strikes 101
Iran Strikes --> Gov Shift 102
Iran Strikes Key to Hegemony 103
Iran Strikes Key to Solve Iran Prolif 104
Iran Strikes Key to Solve Iran Prolif Ext 105
Iran Strikes Key to Solve Iran Prolif Ext Impact 107
Iran Strikes – Israel Strikes Module 108
Iran Strikes – Now Key** 109
Iran Strikes – Now Key 110
Iran Strikes – Iran = Threat 112
Iran Strikes – Will Work/AT: Can’t Reach Underground Sites 113
Iran Strikes – No Escalation 114
Iran Strikes – AT: Iran Will Retaliate 115
Iran Strikes – AT: No Support/Intl Support 116
Iran Strikes – AT: Deterrence Solves 117
Iran Strikes – AT: Diplomacy Solves 118
Iran Strikes – AT: Missile Defense Solves 119
***NATO Collapse 119
NATO --> Heg Collapse 120
NATO --> Military Overstretch 122
NATO Collapse Inevitable 123
***Russia War 123
Russia War Key to Hegemony 124
Russia War – US Would Win 126
Russia War – US Would Win-Nuclear Primacy 127
Russia War – Now Key 129
Russia War – Now Key (Modernization) 130
Russia War – War Inevitable 134
Russia War – War Inevitable-Modernization 136
Russia War – War Inevitable-Russia Attack 137
Russia War – War Inevitable (Ruddy Article) 138
Russia War – Winning Key to Prevent Russia Retaliation 141
Russia War – No Extinction 142
Russia War – Russia = Irrational 143
***Sino-US Relations 143
Sino-US Relations Collapse US Hegemony/--> BW Attack 144
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Sino-Indo Relations 146
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Sino-Indo Relations Ext 147
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Sino-Indo Relations-Indo Econ Impact 148
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Sino-Indo Relations Impact Ext 149
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Russia-US Relations 150
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Russia-US Relations Ext 151
Sino-US Relations Trade Off With Russia-US Relations Impact Ext 152
***Taiwan War 152
Taiwan War – Now Key 153
Taiwan War --> Asian Alliances 154
Taiwan War --> CCP Collapse (Good) 155
Taiwan War --> CCP Collapse Ext-Democracy Impact 156
Taiwan War --> Hegemony 157
Taiwan War --> Collapse in US-Sino Relations (Bad) 158
Taiwan War --> Collapse in US-Sino Relations Ext-Japan Alliance 160
***Terrorism 160
Terrorism --> Central Asia Presence 161
Terrorism --> China Bashing 162
Terrorism --> China Bashing Ext 163
China Bashing – Econ Impact 164
China Bashing – Relations Impact 165
China Bashing – Relations Impact Ext 166
China Bashing – Hegemony Impact 167
Terrorism --> China-US Relations 168
Terorrism --> Econ Stability 169
Terrorism --> Free Trade 170
Terrorism --> Hegemony 171
Terrorism --> Hegemony Ext 172
Terrorism --> Iran Strikes (that rock!) 173
Terrorism --> NMD 174
Terrorism --> Decrease in PTSD 175
Terrorism --> Republican Win 177
Terrorism --> Russian Relations 178
Terrorism --> Russian Relations Ext 179
Terrorism --> Ends Urban Sprawl 180
Terrorism --> Ends Urban Sprawl Poverty Impact 181
Terrorism --> Ends Urban Sprawl Environment Impact 182
Terrorism --> Ends Urban Sprawl Economy Impact 183
***Warming 183
Warming – Environment 184
Warming – European Food Insecurity 186
Warming – Greenland Independence 187
Greenland Independence Good – Colonialism 188
Warming – Ice Age 189
Warming – Ice Age Ext 190
Warming – Ice Age Now Key 192
Warming – Systemic 193
Warming Rhetoric Bad – Policy Failure/Warming Not Anthropogenic 194
Warming = Natural 195
Warming = Inevitable 196
Warming – Prefer Our Evidence 198
***WTO 198
WTO destroys Big Businesses 199
WTO leads to Revolution 200
***Biodiversity
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse
Biodiversity is bad – it makes ecosystems less stable and more prone to collapse – simple systems are more stable
Heath, 99 (Jim Heath - Australian Orchid Council Inc., 1999, Orchids Australia, “WHY SAVE ORCHIDS UNDER THREAT?,” http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm, CM)
Some people say we can’t afford to lose any species, no matter what species they are. Everything needs everything else, they say, to make nature balance. If that were right, it might explain why the six orchid species should be saved. Alas, no. We could pour weedkiller on all the orchids in Australia and do no ecological damage to the rest of the continent’s biology. But wouldn’t the natural ecological systems then become less stable, if we start plucking out species - even those orchids? Not necessarily. Natural biological systems are hardly ever stable and balanced anyway. Everything goes along steadily for a time, then boom - the system falls apart and simplifies for no visible reason. Diverse systems are usually more unstable than the less diverse ones. Biologists agree that in some places less diversity is more stable (in the Arctic, for example). Also, monocultures - farms - can be very stable. Not to mention the timeless grass of a salt marsh. In other words, there’s no biological law that says we have to save the orchids because they add diversity, and that added diversity makes the biological world more stable.
Biodiversity makes ecosystems less stable and more susceptible to collapse – increased biodiversity prevents resiliency and collapses the system
Naeem, 02 (Shahid Naeem - Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, 07 March 2002, Nature Magazine, “Biodiversity: Biodiversity equals instability?,” pg. 23, CM)
Pfisterer and Schmid [3] studied biomass production in a combinatorial plant-diversity experiment, which consisted of an array of replicate grassland plots that varied both in their number of plant species (from 1 to 32) and in their combination of species. The authors used their results to test the venerable 'insurance' hypothesis of ecosystem stability. This hypothesis is one of several that have featured in the long-standing ecological debate over the relationship between complexity (diversity) and stability [4]. Over the course of this debate, the prevailing view has see-sawed between the thesis that diversity begets stability, and the antithesis that diversity either leads to instability or is irrelevant. Chief among the 'begets-stability' theories is the insurance hypothesis -- the impeccably logical notion that having a variety of species insures an ecosystem against a range of environmental upsets. For example, suppose an ecosystem faces a drought, then a flood, which in turn is followed by a fire. According to the insurance hypothesis, if that ecosystem is diverse -- if it has some species that can tolerate drought, some that are flood-resistant and some that are fire-tolerant -- then two scenarios are likely. The ecosystem may show resistance, remaining broadly unchanged, because its many species buffer it against damage. Or it may show resilience: if it does get hammered, it may bounce back to its original state quickly because the tolerant species ultimately drive the recovery process and compensate for the temporary loss of their less hardy compatriots. But Pfisterer and Schmid [3] found that, when challenged with an experimentally induced drought, species-poor communities were both more resistant and more resilient (as reflected by their ability to sustain and recover pre-drought biomass production) than plots of higher diversity. The higher-diversity plots were originally more productive, but their resistance and resilience -- that is, their stability -- was low (Fig. 1). This is the opposite of what the insurance hypothesis predicts. It also contrasts with what combinatorial 'microcosm' experiments have found [5, 6] and what theoretical models of biodiversity have claimed [4]. Pfisterer and Schmid's findings [3] appear to support those who claim that diversity does not lead to stability. But there's a twist, and those on each side of the debate run the risk of having their own pet theories turned against them. Pfisterer and Schmid suggest that the observed inverse association between diversity and stability is due to a theoretical mechanism known as niche complementarity. This mechanism, however, is the very same as that touted as the chief cause of the positive biodiversity-productivity relationships found in other combinatorial biodiversity experiments, such as those at Cedar Creek [7] and those run by the BIODEPTH consortium [8]. The central idea of niche complementarity is that a community of species whose niches complement one another is more efficient in its use of resources than an equivalent set of monocultures. For example, a uniform mixture of early- and late-season plants and shallow- and deep-rooting plants that are spread over 4 m2 will yield more biomass than combined 1-m2 monocultures of each species [7, 9]. So niche complementarity can explain why higher diversity tends to lead to higher productivity, and has also been adopted by those in the 'diversity leads to stability' camp because one would expect that more efficient communities would fare better in the face of stress. Those on the other side, however, feel that existing data better support a mechanism known as sampling, where diverse communities produce more biomass simply because they are more likely to contain productive species [10, 11]. In other words, we can't read too much into experiments in which higher diversity leads to greater productivity. What Pfisterer and Schmid suggest is that complementarity among species in a diverse plot could be its downfall when faced with perturbation. Niche complementarity is disrupted and so the whole community suffers. But this is not a problem for less diverse plots. So those in the 'diversity begets stability' camp risk being hoist on the petard of their own theory of niche complementarity. Meanwhile, although Pfisterer and Schmid's findings support the idea that diversity does not lead to stability, the authors reject a large role for sampling -- the theory generally favoured by the camp that disagrees with the idea that biodiversity leads to stability.
Biodiversity --> Ecosystem Collapse Ext
Biodiversity begets instability rather than stability – scientific consensus
Naeem et al 02 (Shahid Naeem - Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, “Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives,” pg. 80, CM)
The early view that permeated ecology until the 1960s was that diversity (or complexity) begets stability. This view was formalized and theorized by people such as Odum (1953), MacArthur (1955) and Elton (1958) in the 1950s. Odum (1953) and Elton (1958) observed that simple communities are more easily upset than rich ones, i.e. they are more subject to destructive population oscillations and invasions. MacArthur (1955) proposed, using a heuristic model that the more pathways there are for energy to reach a consumer, the less severe is the failure of any one pathway. These conclusions were based on either intuitive arguments or loose observations, but lacked a strong theoretical and experimental foundation. Probably because they represented the conventional wisdom (‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket’) and the prevailing philosophical view of the ‘balance of nature’, they became almost universally accepted. This ‘conventional wisdom’ was seriously challenged in the early 1970s by theorists such as Levins (1970), Gardner and Ashby (1970), and May (1972, 1974), who borrowed the formalism of deterministic autonomous dynamical systems from Newtonian physics and showed that, in these model systems, the more complex the system, the less likely it is to be stable. Stability here was defined qualitatively by the fact that system returns to its equilibrium or steady state after a perturbation. This intuitive explanation for this destabilizing influence of complexity is that the more diversified and the more connected a system, the more numerous and the longer the pathways along which a perturbation can propagate within the system, leading to either its collapse or its explosion. This conclusion was further supported by analyses of one quantitative measure of stability, resilience (Table 7.1), in model food webs (Pimm and Lawton 1977; Pimm 1982). This theoretical work had a number of limitations. In particular, it was based on randomly constructed model communities. More realistic food webs incorporating thermodynamic constraints and observed patters of interaction strengths do not necessarily have the same properties (DeAngelis 1975; de Ruiter et al. 1990). Also, there have been few direct experimental tests of the theory, and many of the natural patterns that agree with theoretical predictions can be explained by more parsimonious hypotheses such as the trophic cascade model (Cohen and Newman 1985). Despite these limitations, the view that diversity and complexity beget instability, not stability, quickly became the new paradigm in the 1970s and 1980s because of the mathematical rigour of the theory.