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

ASPEC GROUP ALL OF IT: I specified Congress as my agent as I legitimately reserved the right to do in my 1AC. He never addressed this claim. Therefore, regardless of how much you may agree with his claim, he failed to address how I link to non of the debate harms he claims. A/T COUNTER INTERP Group 1 and 2--> a. For judges who accept ASPEC I did provide analysis that congress shall pass the plan (point 4 in 2AC) b. New Argument: Cross-apply my 1AR analysis that was cold-dropped that demanded only 1NC argumentation. (from here on out, I'll cross-apply it as CANAA) c. His only analysis specifies immigration policy which has nothing to do with the topic. Group 3 and 4--> a. He over-exaggerates the claim of ground lost. In fact, most agent CP's have nothing to do with the specific branch of government and all DA's still have legitimate ground to my plan text. For example, even if Congress passed the plan, Obama's image would still be hurt making legitimate ground for DA's (and vice versa) b. CANAA c. Even if you don't buy any of these arguments, I did specify Congress as the agent. He could have reacted to this but instead forfeited the Negative Block. Don't punish me for his mistake. A/T OSPEC Group 1 and 2--> a. CANAA b. He still has legitimate ground. There is legitimate PIC's that can be run (consult NATO PIC for example)... I may have taken one or two PIC's but over-specification (such as specifying Congress) would have taken away the NATO PIC because congress can't consult people (like Obama might be able to do). c. He has hundreds of negative positions he could have taken (with each of the off-case positions having legitimate ground)... Rather than taking them as an option, he decides to scream abuse over the couple of arguments that I may take. EVEN though specification would have taken just as many. 3--> a. Spec arguments only can link to the plan text or clarification of the plan text. Evidence before and after that is irrelevant due to the fact that it only discusses the effects of the plan. Sure the evidence specifies information, but it does not specify what the plan is doing which is the point of SPEC's in the first place. ASPEC EDUCATION--> a. CANAA (seriously, this is completely new in the 2nd rebuttal) b. This piece of evidence doesn't address my claim that education is derived from the TNW's being removed from Turkey, NOT of who is doing it. This shows that I am educational and therefore the standard falls. Even if you buy the violation and the voter, you still vote for me because I am indeed educational. c. The most educationally detrimental side in this debate is the negative who has educated the judges about irrelevant claims of unhelpful claims as to why certain specification is or isn't necessary. Whereas, the legitimate ground to the TNW removal debate was completely ignored. "ABUSE" GROUP ALL: CANAA 1--> You had legitimate strategies. 2--> Already addressed 3--> He says I kill policy debate. However, he is the one who isn't addressing policy-related debate. Sorry you can't run every DA ever written, but make no mistake, policy debate was weakened from your use of abusive SPEC arguments. F-SPEC 1--> a. I specify in the 1AC that I can clarify intent. That was never argued. I specified that any money necessary would be taken from the defense budget. b. He drops the fact that a defense related issue would CERTAINLY come from the defense budget. Specifying this would therefore link to OSPEC and be a big waste of time. 2--> The two things that can happen from not specifying the fund the plan comes from don't even come close to outweighing my case advantages. GROUP: He drops my articulation of meeting the standard education. He also drops my additional standard of predictability. That means that even if you agree with the rest, you vote AFF because I am fair (he needs all of them to win the SPEC argument) VOTING ISSUES 1) He grants my advantages. Meaning the best policy option is clear. 2) "I reserve the right to clarify" being dropped means that I don't link to any of the SPEC arguments. 3) Flow through my reverse voting issue ---Quote from my 1NC "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." -Regardless of your ideological feelings toward such a theory argument, it was only addressed as not being legitimate because he followed the rules. However the argument was not that he didn't follow the rules but that it was: 1. Bad for debate and 2. Extremely abusive. He therefore did not address the core of the argument meaning it stands. 4) CANAA: Almost every single argument of his was new. Don't allow his mistake to go unpunished. Voting for him would be more abusive than SPEC arguments could ever articulate. Thanks!