1. on the cp, we talk about how the "rules" we set in this round wont affect the the "rules" set in other rounds. on the k, we argue that the representations that you use while setting up arguments, the way YOU see the world is flawed.
2. the only way that we can understand your ethics/beliefs is through the way that you articulate things. we cant see into your brain, so we have to go off of what you first bring up and how it is represented to the viewer (the 1ac). even if you personally agree with what we are kritiking, the only way that we can know that is if you tell us. we believe that you would not have represented things in certain ways if they did not back up what you believed. (and there shouldnt be a re-explantion of your ethics, etc., in the 1ar- that could have been done in the 2ac.)
3. we believe the main idea of what introna is saying to be true, but we are defining a "being" as a living creature. we added the katz and oeschsli 93 card to better represent the alt (and we hear that you don't like the vague alts.. )
4. you don't do the plan, there are probably no pets or zoos, basically anything that would hurt something living would not be done.
5. education- its either uneducational for you because you don't truly learn and understand all of the aspects of your plan because you will just perm any advocacy that touches on parts of the plan you haven't thought through, or is uneducational for us because you just perm stuff instead of working through it and debating out its benefits, links, diasvantages, etc.
also, if you switch your advocacy now, there is no development of argumentation. everything that we've argued thus far goes away and never gets truly explained and debated and if we bring up anything else to negate your new advocacy, that only gets 5 minutes of development (and is probably insanely unfair)
fairness- if we let you shift your advocacy like this, we allow you to switch what you are advocating at any time in the debate to whatever you want it to be. this allows for things like new 2ar advocacies and permutations that sever out of everything but (for example) one dollar being invested in the plan which avoids links and it would be too late for us to bring up new t violations.
other rounds could check back on education, but not on fairness, if we lose this round because it is unfair, our next round isnt somehow going to make up for it..
6. there are more living things that arent humans than there are that are humans and with the alt we get to fiat no "alt rollback"
1. we would not represent them like that, no
2. our links are off of the plans prediction of terrorism happening at the port
3. and as you said, we are no longer in the bush era, when the government issues a plan to avoid terrorist attacks, it re-affirms the legitamacy of terrorist attacks and attacks back at those terrorists like we did see under the bush administration
4. they don't
5. it's about predicted wars, while it cites one specific example, we argue that the concept can be applied to this indo-pak "water war"
6. im not sure if i understand this question, but i feel like most people want cooperation rather than war..
7. aren't you arguing a war scenario between india and pakistan? and if you're talking about the add-on, that was answered on kappeler because i asked where you wanted it flowed and you said the k
8. yes, considering only this flow. "win" is also a word that we each may understand differently though, so..
9. it doesn't really matter how you go about stopping these "water wars", its about taking action to stop them at all that links
1. i don't really know what "any version" entails, but an affirmative that invests in what the 1ac describes- no, it still dredges/harms animals, an affirmative that solves for the advantages- possibly, but it would have to be a completely different plan than what you proposed