This years policy topic

I would like to establish the overview of this round as we move on to the final rebuttals. When looking to evaluate this round, that MEANS CASTING YOUR VOTE, you should consider these 4 noble truths of POLICY DEBATE: 1. Buddha is an all-knowing "ENLIGHTENED" being, and should represent the affirmative case by similarly bring light to a world otherwise enshrouded by darkness, corruption, and deception. The Negative team represents the agents of chaos, by trying to convince the populous that the darkness is either to be preferred over enlightenment, or that the light does not exist. Any way you look at it, the negative team is here to provide entertainment, and if truly evaluated for their honest sentiments on issues, they would not argue that there is an "underlying mindset" that needs to be changed. 2. No one has the ability to change the minds of other people except by continuing to construe those same principles of corruption, darkness, deception, and exploitation. The negative team can only be judged to be as good as their actions, so we can clearly see that we need to continue on the path of enlightenment, otherwise known as the status quo mindset established by the affirmative team 3. All arguments arguing against preservation of human life... in the long term in or short term are SADIST. They say that we are doomed in any plan we run, and indeed all plans will fail in the long run is highly preposterous. Let us consider the framer of the topic's intent... if there was absolutely no succeed... why would they take the pain of establishing two sides of an issue? Obviously, we are not more enlightened then the framers. 4. The united states was not founded on SADIST PRICIPLES, and was indeed founded to protect the inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF PROPERTY. In the end, any attempt to stop the venerable United States from fulfilling these duties will be shot down anyway, so why bother arguing to the contrary? I will briefly cover the arguments presented by the oppressed agents of darkness and despair (the negative team) so they dont scream abuse The First Kritik 1. The alternative does not hold up because it is in violation of the 4th noble truth of policy debate. This leads to the forfeit of this argument to the affirmative camp under frameworks. 2. Furthermore (as if more was needed.. lol) we ARE HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT BY PRESERVING IT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. IF THERE ARE NO GENERATIONS AROUND TO ENJOY IT, WHAT IS THE POINT? 3. The environment is firmly honored by the principles of 4 truths... we allow for the preservation of the united states, which can be considered part of the environment. If we reserve the right to preserve some, why not extend that right to do all that we can? 4. By saying you link to all cases, and therefore that is the link... you inherently prove the abuse against our value of education and enlightenment, once again forfeiting the argument to the affirmative team. (its these little things that keep picking your argument appart...) Kritik Two Just logistically IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. The US would reject any policy dictating change to the fundamentals of our country.... we could more easily change our principles of free speech then our calendar. YOU MUST THROUGH THIS ARGUMENT OUT SOLEY ON THE BASIS THAT IT POSTULATES A WORLD RUN BY IDIOTS, WHICH OURS IS NOT. DA concerning Coal and whatnot 1. As stated before, a CHAIN (a metaphor for the DA) is only as good as its weakest link, and if we break one of the links, we break the CHAIN. Its the end of the road for this DA. The negative team as good as forfeits this argument as well... unfortunately. Second DA concerning the end of the world.... 1. IN VIOLATION OF ALL 4 OF THE NOBLE TRUTHS... and is a perfect representation of the negatives agenda to keep us in darkness, and prove that the darkness is good. This is absolutely SADIST, and should not be allowed to pass. 2. The united states would never let its self endowed principles to be defiled while they have the ability to solve it. Third DA concerning flatulence 1. The hardest part about farting first in a debate round is telling your parents your gay. Case 1. IN VIOLATION OF ALL NOBLE TRUTHS 2. How can you possibly propose that we end civilization? Again, the US would never do something self-destructive 3. YOU HAVE PROVEN NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION IS GOOD? This again proves the insanity of the negative team. Impact Calculus: A note to flow judges: We have successfully addressed every part of the negative onslaught, and dropped no argument the negative team did not also drop. This leads me to my IMPACT CALCULUS: 3/4 ISSUES UPHELD UNCONTESTED BY THE NEGATIVE TEAM, (Inh, Sig, Solvo) = 75% chance of our case happening, so our plan is guaranteed to pass. 5/5 ISSUSES UPHELD OVERALL: (INH, Sig Harms, Solvo, Advs., Off) = 100% chance of the ballot going to the affirmative team. Now, let me explain why you cannot argue with these numbers; Because our case is more likely to pass, the impacts of our advantages are more likely to happen faster as there is no timeframe for the impacts of the DA's, we must assume they happen after the advantages. Therefore, the aff gains the offcase and advantages, bringing the total to a round 100% in favor of the affirmative. The affirmative team has had to put up with PROVEN abuse throughout the entire debate, especially concerning the proposed VIOLATION OF HUMAN LIFE, END OF CIVILIZATION, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. instead of accepting that there are problems that need to and can be solved, they play the pessimist sadist, and try to drag the whole world down into their emo interpretation. last time i checked, no one WANTS to see any of those things happen, no one wants to be left unenlightened... with obvious exceptions... Happy Debating!