Topic is the first sentence in the debate.

I must negate: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of persons serving in the Armed Forces by substantially increasing the pecuniary and educational benefits as well as end strength for Pest Management (3E4X3) in order to enable the National Guard to apply its pest control operations procedure to the emerging squirrel crisis. ===================================== Observation 1: ‘Armed Forces' Topicality A. Definition -From Answers.com "The military forces of a country"… In this case, the United States Armed Forces B. Standard 1- The resolution calls for a ‘substantial increase in the number of people serving in the ARMED FORCES. C. Standard 2- There must be a change in the number of ‘Armed Forces' in order to be topical. D. Violation- The Affirmative doesn't so much as MENTION ‘Armed Forces' besides stating the resolution. -In fact, all he talks about is killing squirrels. In order to complete the demand in the resolution, you must do ‘A' (kill squirrels) to get ‘B' (substantially increase Armed Forces). He only calls for ‘A'. E. Violation- Affirmative has NO evidence with Armed Forces talked about or increased. ===================================== Observation 2: "Substantial" Topicality (both of them) A. Definition -Dictionary.com, Unabridged "of real worth, value, or effect" B. Standard 1A (First substantial): There must be a valuable and effective increase from about 480,000 troops. -From: http://www4.army.mil... - "There are about 480,000 soldiers on active duty." C. Standard 1B: There must be around (at least) 100,000 troop increase in order to be substantial. D. Standard 2A: Affirmative must link to pecuniary benefits. E. Standard 2B: Affirmative must link to educational benefits. F. Violation (1): There is NO change in "Armed Forces" let alone a substantial increase. G. Violation (2): Affirmative offers no evidence that links to pecuniary benefits OR educational benefits. ===================================== Observation 3: Solvency is not achieved A. No plan text. -My opponent offers NO way to kill every single squirrel. Essentially assuming that the United States can pick and choose who they want to kill. Well, if you look to how long it's taking us to find Osama Bin Laden, you will see that squirrels WILL survive no matter how hard we try. The only way to actually kill them, would be to nuke the earth off its orbit which would of course be non-topical. B. All advantages are not related to the ‘goal' of the debate of increasing the Armed Forces. C. Flow through opponent's statement: ""Whenever we think we've got them figured out, they try something else," Engelman said. -This shows that if we try to kill them, they will think of something else. Likely, this will be counter-mass producing and increasing desire for revenge. Survival is the basic instinct of ALL except the human. ===================================== Observation 4: War with the Squirrels DA. A. Uniqueness -We are currently NOT at war with the squirrels. However, trying to kill them will send the message that we don't want them around. Thus, the next major war for America will be upon us. Do you really think that we can handle another major war? B. Squirrels are smart (link) - http://jennifersaylor.wordpress.com... "(By the way), Eastern gray squirrels aren't even native to the BBC viewing area. They're an unprotected, invasive pest species in Britain, only introduced in the 19th century, and are slowly driving out the native red squirrel like living kudzu. What a shame for a living, breathing, decision-making creature to be forced into the role of unwelcome invader." -YOU SEE, even though there is open season on them, there is no way to catch all of them, so cross apply this evidence to observation 3. But besides that, Squirrels adapted to being not wanted and survived in Britain. If they can survive their onslaught, they can survive ours. C. Squirrels will attack (harm) -Opponents evidence "Austin Energy power company in Texas has revealed approximately 20 percent of all its power outages are the result of squirrels and could likely be responsible for nearly 700 area outages a year" -If we were to just carelessly attack them with this type of poison, imagine how much they could harm us. If anything, the squirrel war would lead to FEWER Armed Forces compared to more like the resolution suggests. I reserve the right to clarify, as well as add evidence to further support my position. ===================================== Therefore, I offer the following Counter-plan: Observation 5: Counter-plan A. Plan text: The USFG will adopt squirrels as a member of the Armed Forces. B. Mutually Exclusive -There is no way that you can pass a plan to kill all squirrels AND adopt them to the Armed Forces. C. Non-Topical -Although the goals of the two plans are the same, it is in the way we do it that is different. The resolution calls for 3E4X3 to kill squirrels while I offer the squirrels to be a member of our army. D. All unneeded squirrels can be shipped off to Iraq to invade the enemy's base. -Therefore, all "squirrel crisis" issues will be given to al-Qaeda. A million squirrels attacking them will A) piss them off! B) cause all harms they caused to us! and C) scare wanted terrorists out of their caves! This leads to a win-win situation. E. A war with the Squirrels would be non-existent if we befriended them. F. Our Armed Forces would be substantially increased. -With all of the Squirrels in the world JOINING us, we would be MUCH better off. Therefore, the counter-plan has better means, better ends. -Since I assume that the five round debate means that I have at least 2 constructive, I reserve the right to add arguments respectively. Thanks and good luck!