The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

ok ya sorry, thought i would even it out and make it 3 rounds. Lets start with the T on increase. He says that he still increases something preexisting thing (federal poverty line) and that makes him within the boundaries of the T. This is untrue, the FEDERAL POVERTY LINE in NOT a Social Service. so by increasing something that isn't topical my opponent explodes the topic way out of proportion so i can find specific links to DA/CP so i HAVE to run conditional arguments. This argument should flow neg because simply he is doing a "Fx plan" this means he does "X" so that the resolution should happen instead prefer my interpretation that the aff should directly increase a Social Service. This violates both of my standards which you can extend and outweigh all aff advantages. ASPEC, concede Missle DA conditionality - prefer the framework and theory used on the T above, i HAVE to run conditional arguements against a non-topical plan Uniqueness - drop concedes that DA can happen Link - he will link no matter what b/c even if he is nontopical more people must be funded to have the Social Services, also he misunderstands the internal link so Internal Link - Even if there is 2 separate funds that must be funded by the same source of money, tax -payers/stimulus bills. So because there is an INCREASE in money needed for S.S then defense spending HAS and WILL, and HAS been cut. Ext this warrent he has dropped Finally the impact - concedes, he admits his plan causes nuclear extinction which is horrible. He still links and this should flow neg because only the neg solves the aff's case 100% and doesnt cause the DA (yay :) ) so this argument should 1000% flow neg Finally States - He says two things. 1. states can do this and 2. it condo so 1. States can allocate the poverty line in which they provide S.S. ( ext Browning 08' which he dropped) and he concedes that states can solve and do a better job at it. 2. condo- extend through the debate that i have to run these arguments b/c he is running a non topical aff, also condo provides more clash and is inevitable. 3. He DROPPED net benefit, biggest part of this flow or argument, so he agrees that the CP can solve and avoids the DA and the extinction impacts. So voters He is untopical, prefer my argument, because i am the only one with an interp, violation, and standards along with voters so extend that he does "X" to EVENTUALLy do the resoultion which exploades the topic because technically anything can be done to increase S.S. so a DIRECT increase on a PRE-EXISTINg Social Service is needed. this should flow neg because it is an A-prioiti issue and must be voted on before all else Da- concedes all of it but link so since he still links b/c no matter what when there is an increase in S.S. there is a decrease in Missile Defense spending so his plan cause nuclear war/extinction, which he concedes. This argument should also flow neg States - easily flows neg, CP can 100% solve case, does it better ( this is browning 08') and COMPLETELY avoids the DA so this is the only policy objective that saves lives and doesnt cause extinction so it outwieghs the affirmative and wins the round. Finally an unimpacted condo argument, doesnt say why condo is "bad" or why it should be voted on so dont vote on it. Also extend the standards on the T that i HAVE to run condo arguements since he is untopical. Vote NEG :D i easily outwiegh and provide the best policy making option