USGF should substantially reduce its military presence in Kuwait, Afghanistan, South Korea, Turkey

Thank you for posting. Good Luck! ASPEC 1. We meet - I specified the U.S. Federal Government as the agent. It works as a singular body especially when dealing with international issues. 2. If a specific arm of the government was specified, NEG would scream abuse with an OSPEC. This gives AFF no ground in the plan text. Cross apply this against his voting issues. 3. I meet the education standard. The quantity of education lies within the withdraw of TNW's... Not of who is doing the action. 4. Immediately after my plan text, I reserved the right to clarify. I now shall use that right in clarifying that fiat will remove these troops by Congress. Prefer my first arguments first. F-SPEC 1. We meet - The U.S. Federal Government is the one doing the action and therefore pays for it.2. The USFG has a specific fund for military actions. Once again, specifying the defense budget for payment would call for NEG to run an OSPEC. This takes my ground completely away and destroys his standard. 3. Once again education has to do with the TNW's, not who's funding the plan. 4. STANDARD: Predictability... It is obvious who funds the plan. 5. Right to clarify: Any money needed to do the plan will come from the defense budget. Prefer my other arguments first. MILITARY PRESENCE T 1. Voters and Standards are independent requirements for T. NEG groups them together and calls it good. 2. A name is not a dictionary. 3. A full definition is required. Interpretation off of that definition should be fair ground to both teams. 4. I meet fairness due to the fact that he has a legitimate DA. 5. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION: Military Presence means the posturing of military capability. http://www.dtic.mil... "Power projections... has two components: warfighting and presence. Warfighting is the direct application of military force to compel an adversary. Presence is the posturing of military capability, including nonbelligerent applications, and/or the leveraging of information to deter or compel an actor or affect a situation." ---Therefore, even if you accept his definition of military presence, I still meet a legitimate interpretation of his T. REDUCE T 1. There is still military presence in Turkey. My plan only eliminates TNW's, it does not eliminate military presence. http://news.xinhuanet.com... 2. Against the violation, there are still U.S. owned weapons in Turkey. 3. You have legitimate ground. In fact, if I did eliminate U.S. presence in Turkey, there are probably even more DA/K/CP possibilities. Also, you ran a legitimate DA. 4. Voters/Standards are two separate T requirements. Grouping them together is bad for debate. REVERSE VOTING ISSUE: The 2 SPEC's and the 2 T's were clearly for time skew abuse. Covering them always requires more characters than running them. Allowing this to go unpunished is bad for debate and should not be allowed. A ballot for AFF for this reason alone is therefore justified. FOR CLARIFICATION, I AM GOING TO CALL THE FIRST FOUR CARDS A DISADVANTAGE AND THE FIFTH ON CASE. DISADVANTAGE 1. The 2nd card cites 2 reasons why US/Turkey relations are currently standing. The first is continued military presence. The second is common enemy threats. As clarified before, there is still military presence in Turkey. Passing the affirmative plan doesn't trigger any sort of international conflict that wasn't already there. We still have military presence in Turkey and we still have common enemy threats. Therefore, our relations still stand. 2. Due to the plan not causing any worsening relations, the link falls. Particularly the link the the 3rd piece of evidence that says that US/Turkey relations are key to middle east stability. Therefore there is no link to the impact 3. Even if there was a link to the impact, it would not pass the brink. If pulling out TNW's weakened relations (which there is no evidence suggesting such), it would only be when relations were completely non-existant until the impact actually took serious effect. The evidence specifically says "The end of America's ability to safeguard the Gulf"... However, America can still safeguard the gulf without Turkey AND this doesn't specifically result from US/Turkey relations. Essentially he says US/Turkey relations fall, therefore the impact. But the impact specifies that in order for this to happen, it is up to the US to be unable to protect the gulf. 4. The 1AC Advantage outweighs the Disadvantage. Nuclear proliferation causing nuclear extinction is the greatest problem that we need to avoid. The only one avoiding it is the affirmative case. 5. The impact evidence is cited from the "opinion journal"... Meaning that this is someone's opinion and is not factual. Judges: Prefer factual evidence. 6. US/Turkey relations will surivive ---Turkey Analyst at Chatham House think tank; 2010; Dr. Katerina, Fadi, CNN, 3/5, LexisNexis, SLE "Turkey is militarily important to the U.S... It has a military base at Incirlik... US/Turkey relations have been going through a relative low in the last few years... there is less warmth in the relationship, but the relationship has been strong for a decade and is very strong on a variety of issues." -This shows that even if there is low relations, that the relationship as a whole will survive. -It also shows that there will be military presence even after passing the plan... Further destroying the reduce T. -Not to mention that one of his pieces of evidence demanded that US presence was key to relations. This proves that presence will still exist meaning the link is further dead. -It also shows how NEG will actually have to prove that relations need to be directly impacted in order to trigger the DA. As of now, he doesn't have a single piece of evidence that even mentions TNW's... Meaning he has no evidence showing how adopting the plan would harm any relations. ON CASE His only card is that "US TNW'S aren't key to Turkey prolif." 1. The card only specifies that Turkey is "more or less" not interested in proliferating but it doesn't ONCE cite that removing TNW's has anything to do with that. The tag is completely wrong in summarizing the evidence. All the evidence does is list some countries not interesting in nuclear weapons. It doesn't even mention TNW's 2. My evidence, on the other hand, specifies that it isn't Turkey proliferation that reducing TNW's solves. Rather, it is countries like "North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan." He has totally missed the point of my case. -This leaves the only option at the end of this round to adopt the affirmative plan. I look forward to your next post.