This years policy topic

1. Cross-ex checks. The neg could have asked clarifying questions in cross-x. The right of the 2AC to clarify should be maintained—it's still a constructive. 2. Normal means checks. Any plan using normal means that specifies the USFG would use Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. 3. We increase ground. By not specifying our agent, we give the negative better DA ground, meaning they can run disads to Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. Their interpretation costs them ground to any predictable agent indicts. 4. Most predictable. The res specifies the USFG, meaning the neg should be prepared as a minimum to argue against that agent. 5. We turn limits. Forcing the aff to specify explodes the neg research burden, since there are literally tens of thousands of government operations. 6. ASpec is not a voter. We increase their ground, decrease their research burden, and have the most predictable interpretation. There's no in round or out of round abuse. Make them show you how they've been abused. 7. Infinitely regressive. If we specified our agent they'd just read OSpec on us. These arguments are just time sucks. The first kritik claims that the our plan falls under a certain mindset that leads to the "molding" of the environment, as he puts it. However, if we analyze his reasoning, we see the underlying flaws in he theory. 1. What plan would not fall pray to this Kritik? There is absolutely no uniqueness to our case, and thus, he could run it year after year, on case after case. This limits the educational value of our round, and destroys learning about other arguments. 2. He does not provide a possible alternative, as it would be impossible to run any case that does not fall under his kritik. 3. Though he claims an impact.. look at the actual kritik, where is the impact? where is the harm? 4. Our plan already solves for the supposed impacts... so their alternative does not stand. Kritik 2 WTF?!??!?! The Kritik proposes that we adopt the 13 Moon Peace calendar.. though does not specify how the status quo is bad, or how the Peace Calendar would be better in anyway.... 1. You must through out the Kritik on framework alone, let alone the fact that there is no uniqueness (which leads to the same harms as the first kritik) 2. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU CAN VOTE NEGATIVE ON THIS ISSUE! 3. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY CONVERT OURSELVES TO THE 13 MOON PEACE CALENDAR..... LOOK AT WHAT ALMOST HAPPENED AT Y2K.... This would be CATASTROPHIC!!! Disad 1 A. Coal May or may not be in high demand now... ill give that. B. The Austrailian economy is NOT TIED to the united states, as the united states relies on Gas power plants, not coal. The majority of their exports go to China. C. it will not trade off with coal production, as they do not really export to the US, and their economy IS NOT BASED ON COAL EXPORTS. D. Submarines are NOT KEY TO HEGEMONY..... the world is controlled by air superiority, not a navy. E. US Heg is good, but will be unconnected to an increase in nuclear power. Disad 2 Again, absolutely no uniqueness..... any case would fall under this..... END IS NEAR DisAd... therefore, no link to this case... therefore not a voting issue under frameworks violations. A. There is nothing wrong with reducing mortality rates... nature finds a way of natural checks... no overshoot. Since we "break" or disprove one of the links, all the subsequent harms and effects are broken, and therefore the affirmative wins on this issue. Disad 3 I farted too... so there. Counterplan- That is not a counterplan....? and it does not escape the disads of the rest of the negative case... or the kritik. SO... once again, the negative team's argument fails to hold up. Case- that is the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard. END CIVILIZATION!?!?!? Wow....