First , they’ve dropped a voter on the counterplan flow. The link will be explained there, but I’ll do my impact work up here. 100% dropped in the 2nr, means you grant us 100% risk of a voter here. This comes as a reason to both not vote on t and to throw the rest of the debate away (we’ll win it regardless, but look here for a way out). He never says its new, don’t do work for him.
He gives zero analysis as to why t outweighs theory, means any analysis I give you you prefer.
Vagueness outweighs T-
1. Even if we’re untopical, he can just make up some random shit cp to solve our entire aff without giving us a predictable mechanism or any opportunity to garner offense- means debates become meaningless regardless of topicality
2. Theory has the clearest in-round abuse story- xap from the t flow that things like the wiki check extremely unpredictable affs, at least to some extent- vague cps are more unpredictable, ruin debate more, and have prevented clear education in this round. Vote here to right the clearest wrong.
3. He doesn’t do analysis why severance outweighs, and it doesn’t- any and all abuse on the counterplan is totally justified by the fact that its bullshit
4. Even if you don’t pull the trigger here, use it as an excuse to ignore the t flow
5. Xap his args on severance- we access them better for the reasons above
And, I’ll answer all he says about 1ar new blah blah blah here-
1. 1AR can’t group? Blow me. New link extrapolations and solvency explanations in the block justify new spins on arguments fundamentally in the 2ac (such as perm: do cp, where the underlying thesis is that the counterplan would either link to the disad or not solve the mp advantage) Making link arguments based on terrorism in the block totally justifies an explanation of the link t/o in terms of GA vs Commercial aviation- thereby justifying an explanation of our no link.
2. I’ll answer specific claims on those flows
Nice job conceding the only major offense we had against the interpretation
1. Pull across that THERE IS NO USFG AS AN ACTOR. He doesn’t breathe a word on this in the 2nr- don’t do work for him. This argument has been in the debate since the 2ac, and been cold stone conceded (the tastiest kind) throughout the entire debate. This acts as independent offense against the interpretation that he has no respite from- means you prefer any counter-interp that makes sense (which would be ours). Turns all of his standards if there cannot be a functional affirmative in the world of voting neg- literally makes it impossible for the aff to win. This destroys any coherent education or predictability. Even if he wins every other standard, debate becomes impossible for the aff if he wins- means you default to any alternative interpretation.
2. Concedes that we prevent stale debate- means that even if it is initially harder for negative, we allow for better long term education, which outweighs fairness since debate is a stepping stone to political activism. Learning about agent implementation is important to actually doing anything politically- compounded by the fact that THERE IS NO USFG.
3. We meet- normal means is legit. Saying the USfg in the plan text implies individual senators, the president, etc., people never say everything they do in their plan text, would force the entire 1ac to be a plan text. No reason us normal means-ing the rest of the USfg is abusive- if we had said USfg instead of FAA in the plan text, it wouldn’t have made us more predictable. His analysis about a “topical version of the plan” just proves that we either a. are topical or b. untopical but that there is no actual impact. Substituting “USfg” for whichever actor doesn’t prevent the squirley notion of the affirmative.
4. Even if he wins you vote on potential abuse, you vote on in-round abuse first since it’s the most relevant and effective- this means you vote on vagueness. He doesn’t even attempt to give a reason he has been abused in-round.
5. The we meet isn’t FX- its that normals means would have the entire USfg participate, not effectually but directly. Still, all his reasons FX is uniquely bad are new- means I get new answers. FX is good because it allows more ground for the negative, which is the key internal to education since a plan can be predictable but thereby severely limit the scope of a debate, hurting the educational capacity by making debates stale. Additionally, FX is inevitable as long as we keep our plan texts under 5 minutes- there’s no way we could possibly specify EVERYTHING.
Now that that bullshits over, let’s talk about space.
I’m really happy they went for the counterplan, because it makes my job ahelluva lot easier.
We’ll concede that the counterplan would mandate compliance with the montreal protocol. This would mean that there would have to be a shift to a new fuel source in general aviation- he has provided no evidence that any other fuel source besides avgas or ethanol could be used. Since avgas violates the protocol, the counterplan would have to shift to ethanol, making it plan plus and linking to the net benefit. Don’t buy that there’s some magical fuel source that doesn’t link to the da, they won’t tell it what it is, that’s why this is so god damn vague. Either they can’t solve montreal- extinction da impacted later, or are abusive and vague, or link to the DA and therefore noncompetitive.
Extend perm: do the counterplan
Perm isn’t severance, that’s above. They have to win there is some non-conventional fuel that is not ethanol that could be used, and they haven’t provided anything of the sort, means you default that they are the affirmative. We are the ONLY ones that actually have evidence on this, that’s Shauck and Zanin, and they concede you default to that. And even if it IS severance, they concede from the NATO flow that severance is key to check neg biases, as in this instance of random ass fuels. That’s a conceded external impact to debate and a reason to vote aff.
And, if they win there is some fuel besides ethanol, they still link to the net benefit, and perm: do both is totally legit.
Big mistake conceding China- has a couple of major implications
a. THEY JUST CONCEDED AN EXTINCTION SCENARIO ZOMGWTF. There has been ZERO impact defense pre-2nr; all their reasons why we can’t access nuclear war are bullshit and unwarranted- nowhere do they read evidence supporting claims about china not going nuclear, or nuclear not killing everyone. Default to 100% probability before timeframe, that’ll be below.
b. Makes offense on the disad impossible- they’re conceding out of the 1AR that china instability pulls in Russia- even if it’s a weak arg, “its conceded and therefore true.” Means they can never have a unique impact because a negative ballot still causes Russia war inevitably. Even if their ev is specific to NMD, doesn’t mean that a different war involving the same powers wouldn’t have the same effect- no analysis or warrants why it would.
c. Klintworth is huge- draws in all the worlds major powers, inevitably goes nuclear. This is the tie breaker between ozone and Russia. The impact is not JUST Russia and US, but every other nation.
Aff ballot now, 3 reasons-
1. No unique link means severely reduced risk of an impact- default to montreal and china, he’s given us a 100% risk of both
2. Lee Quinn is sexy
3. Zero impact defense on montreal, only extinction scenario. I call shenanigans, on the caldicott card, it says "the total loss of human agricultural and societal support systems would result in the loss of almost all humans on Earth." As opposed to "Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist... the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth." At this point it becomes clear that we control the only existential threat to humanity, means you auto-vote aff- its try or die. A negative ballot is literally a ballot for extinction- becomes impossible to garner any offense since saving lives by voting neg is incoherent when we win we’re all dead. Additionally, we have at least some defense on the disad, means the ozone impact is infinitely more probable at 100%- means that even if he wins an equal magnitude, you still vote aff. Lastly, don’t vote on timeframe, its bullshit- surviving an extra year or two makes literally no difference in the course of humanity- he doesn’t give any logical reason it would. Default to the more probable, more existential threat.
4. One last thing (not really a reason to vote aff, but eh)- can’t turn montreal, its not effing warming alright, its ozone. No evidence on how a nuclear explosion would interfere with the production or destruction of ozone, don’t grant it to him and reward lazy debate. Assume that we still access 100% solvency.
Line By Line
1. Prefer our no link- even if Czechs want alt energy, zero analysis as to why they care about General Aviation. This isn’t the ‘fun’ aviation that involves terrorists, this is the boring aviation that gets you your dinner. In the context of aviation, the Czechs just don’t care. This evidence becomes more devasting when you take into account the terrible link threshold they have- that’s next. Even if the card isn’t great, acts as a reason why their link makes no fucking sense. They have no evidence that Czech is watching our governments acts, which means they rely off US news reports, that’s common sense. And hey, news reports don’t get made about our aff.
2. Blow me, I don’t see why ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS thrown at biofuels development WOULDN’T make the Czechs happy but switching less than 1% of our oil usage to ethanol would. Additionally, to the center postdates their link evidence, means they can’t access any claims that it assumes this shift. The only warrants in their evidence is the following: “Energy security: diversification of energy resources, renewable and alternative energy” Nowhere does this make any distinction between the plan and what’s already been done (AKA this bs analysis in the 2nr that their evidence makes some magical comparison between research and mandate). They effectually makes it impossible for them to get a unique link to the plan- either the Czechs have already signed on, or they never will. The plan just won’t change this. This perception argument is a joke when literally our card says “The federal government announced that help will be given to refinance existing ethanol and biodiesel factories whose owners face credit trouble, guaranteeing loans for the construction of new bio-refineries, and speeding funding to help producers of cellulosic crops (portions of crops that are not used for food, such as corn stalks).” If the fucking USFG on a news report comes out and says that it is increasing alternative energy, and the disad hasn’t happened, no way our plan even comes close to linking, especially when its not perceived, as per our Flight Times evidence.
Even if this does’’t take out 100% of the disad, means you look at it with extreme caution, and default to our impacts on all questions of probability. If you default to the offense paradigm standard because you are an MSU hack, weigh the DROPPED china advantage against this is a entire impact turn.