Your "answers" misunderstand the value of the CP. The CP isn't meant to win against policy affs. Its meant to be a strong language K + CP against a non-fiated critical affirmative. While this shouldn't be anyone's A strategy, it shouldn't be brushed off so easily either. That's how losses happen.
TS - Impact Inevitable
(1) so is the affs K impact.
(2) this argument is equivalent to "people will still be racists, so why should i bother"
(3) this is linear defense at best, not independently winnable.
(4) CP creates uniqueness, much like how the K alt "vote here to start something" works
TS - Solvency Deficit - which USFG?
(1) 99.9999% same functional one, there's one in DC (and also others) and this one affects same area. The difference is "the" is totalizing while "a" or "one" still signifies that there are others too.
(2) Words do matter - That .9999% may have zero effect relating to the mechanics of your advantages BUT it does have a huge functional effect on how the plan gets implemented. The best example is you have two presidential candidates arguing for ban nuclear testing, one "as a step for disarm" and one to "prevent those dirty arabs from getting them too". While both plans are functionally the same, the words and motivations behind the plan matter a lot to what actually happens.
(3) even if theres no functional comp, big deal text comp is fine and way better than condition, consult, and delay cps.
(4) its a critical affs, does fiat, grammar, or even a solvency deficit matter? Same message, one less word. Still solves.