1. Two reasons: First, changing the mission isn't a reduction. Second, we'll win that a reduction to zero is the best interpretation for debate.
Do we not remove about 100,000 troops?
2. You ran 5 other offcase positions. Please for the love of god prove how your standards are quantifiable.
I don't understand the question. What is "quantifiable"?
How do your standards hold any weight or credibility when you prove most of them false with your other 5 offcase
3. Why does potential abuse matter? Should you lose because of potential conditionality?
I don't know what "potential conditionality" means. Potential abuse should matter because even if I'm really prepared and good enough to win on the flow, that doesn't justify you running a non-topical Aff.
If you could potentially spike out of some arguments should the judges drop you for it?
4. Explain your "substantial is without material quals" stuff
It means that to be substantial, you can't place "material qualifications" on your plan. That means you can't make any limitations or restrictions on your reduction.
1. Provide a def that says that
2. How does this not absolutely slaughter aff ground
3. Why is this good for debate in any way
7. Your ev outlines 2 things - spills and burn pits - as environmental problems. Why cant we do the plan and fix the spill and stop burning things?
First, that's just two examples. There is more damage than that, if you want to make that argument.
Second, the Watson 10 card describes the massive amount of work it takes to clean up damage. You can't substantially reduce troops and leave enough behind to clean up the mess.
Where is the ev that lists these other "problems"? And also, yeah alot of work, i have a job and do alot of work by myself. I'll ask once again, and please answer directly this time. Where in the ev does it say a substantial number of troops needs to remain to clean up.
8. Where does your watson 10 ev say even one thing about needing substantial presence to cleanup? I'm not seeing the warrants...
It talks about the massive amount of work, time and money needed to clean up the damage. If you want to read a card saying that we can clean up the damage with six guys and a broom, feel free...
I'll ask once again. Please answer my question. Where does your ev say we need lots of troops
9. In Lee 10, once again where are the warrants of "cant rapid withdraw and solve burn pits"
There is an overuse of the "emergency" provision now. It is logical to assume that a sudden and rapid withdraw will, at the very least, continue the emergency authorization - it certainly won't end its use.
I assume the 1AC solves the CP and heg and diplomacy. I win? I assume i'm topical. I win? No. Screw assuptions. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me. (get it? ass-u-me?) Where are the warrants buddy.
10. Lindsay-Polland & Morgan 98 is talking about a generalized "overseas" cleanup. How does just afghan solve the internal link to I-law if this ev says it has to be all of overseas?
You have to read the Lindsey Pollard & Morgan ev and the IEER ev together. Even if there is environmental damage around other bases, we're not rapidly withdrawing now. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the damage is essentially permanent. We need comply with I-Law in this instance to maintain the integrity of the system.
Did these authors write their articles saying "i wont put this in here because IEER will do it for me"? Where dos Pollard and Morgan ever say that doing one base solves for their arguments
11. Does the plan result in abandonment of US participation from I-law? Why dont other US violations trigger the impacts already?
To answer the first part of your question, Yes. Once we withdraw and don't clean up our mess, that violates I-Law. The IEER card talks about how every instance is key, especially in the context of our Lindsey-Pollard & Morgan ev. We're not leaving behind poisoned bases anywhere else.
Except in *gasp* iraq? Which your ev says is a big deal. So Iraq withdrawals make your I-law violations non-unique?
12. How are the ilaw disad impacts unique in any way.
I don't know what the question "How are the "impacts" unique?" means. The disad is unique for the reasons stated above. The impact is that we need I-Law to solve the impacts. Otherwise, we'll all be extinct. If you make a non-unique, I'll read some cards that say I-Law strong now.
Sweet, please read those i-law strong now cards so i can read the list of US I-law violations and you'll have proved my point that its non-unique.
13. Where does Ferencz 2 indidcate it turns diplomacy? Warrants?
By doing the plan, you violate I-Law. Ferencz says that I-Law is key to global cooperation. Your Dyer 04 card talks about the importance of international "trust". Your Zakaria 08 card talks about "coordinated approach". Both of those are inconsistent with violating international law, especially in the context of our IEER ev.
No. Screw IEER here. Your claim Ferencz says "diplomacy is killed by this" - where
14. On the env. damage disad your lee 10 ev - how does reducing presence by like 100,000 and drastically scaling back operations not solve for a majority of US military pollution?
The pollution already exists. It won't be solved in the world of the SQUO or the Aff. That's Nasuti 10.
IF THE POLLUTION EXISTS HOW DO YOU SOLVE FOR IT??
15. Your lang of 7 says "first steps are key". Why wouldnt shutting down some coal plants be better?
Cause coal plants in the US aren't damaging the water supply in Afghanistan.
Your ev says pollution globally is bad....right?
16. Do you seriously defend solving afghan solves your de shalit of 4?
I'm arguing that Environmental Justice is a moral obligation. That means that we are morally obligated to clean up our mess. I don't know how to answer your question beyond that...
Why does solving for afghanistan solve our "moral obligation" to the world to stop polution
17. Where does hooker 4 on the consult say they'd say yes to the specific 1AC?
Hooker gives an example where the military said Yes, even though they didn't want to, because they were consulted. I've got another 30 pages of ev. if you want to make that argument in the 2AC.
When have they said yes to withdrawing COIN troops from afghanistan? Was The Korean War different that AFghan?
18. Are you defending multiple realms?
I don't know what that means. Can you explain it?
No. We'll get to it in the 2AC
19. Status of the CP's?
Both are dispositional.
Explain your interp of dispo
20. Status of the DA's?
DA's usually don't have a "status".
And people dont usually read non-unique DA's. Please answer the status of the DA's
21. Status of T?
See my answer to #20.
See my answer to #20. Please answer.