CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

1>>> But you specifically did not follow the rules by posting an implementation method. This is a voting issue. FEM ADV: 1>>> My opponents argument is that I must be the only way to solve feminism. As far as this debate goes, I am... He has given no evidence as to other methods that may solve it, nor has he attacked my claims that feminism rights are null in Iran currently and my implication that it won't be getting better. 2>>> Accepting the status quo would mean continuing to destroy feminism. 3>>> Even if you accept this argument (that women's rights will eventually improve), you must accept that passing my implementation method would at least solve better by time-frame. Passing my plan immediately will be able to solve for feminism NOW... Versus perhaps solving for feminism sometime in this century. 4>>> First of all, my evidence specifies that EVERY human (including ALL soldiers) will die if we don't pass the the PRO's position. This goes unrefuted, so even if I lose feminism I win the debate. Second of all, my C point of the implementation method specifies that we will leave when there is a stabilized country, meaning that we will solve for feminism before we leave due to the fact it is a major stability problem. Half the population is discriminated against. Finally, the U.S. has a history of invading countries for one reason, and helping them in other areas. Feminism will be a main area. HEG ADV: 1. Extinction is will not happen because we don't invade Iran. Logic.>>> Two things to note here: a) Our hegemony will exist in the status quo. Meaning, voting con will not link to preventing impacts. b) He presents no specific evidence that says that not invading will prevent Iranian proliferation and eventual detonation. If I happen to be missing evidence he posted somewhere in this round, my evidence is for sure more specific and better (since I can't even find it) "Trying to maintain hegemony destroys the economy—controlled descent from primacy is a preferable strategy.">>> 1. Even if this is true, it does not outweigh my benefits nor his costs. 2. It cites one example and is not specific to the U.S. position OR the Iran conflict. 3. The evidence itself agrees... "The wider lessons to be drawn from the British experience are complex and difficult to identify clearly, as each declining hegemon (of which there have been —and will be— many) faces a potentially different set of international and domestic conditions. However, there is a clear and universal warning to be taken from the illustration presented here." ---Therefore, we don't know if we are in the same boat anyway. "The pursuit of primacy causes global savage wars for peace – it makes conflict inevitable.">>> 1. This evidence only links us into a conflict with Iran. Which my evidence says is a GOOD thing. 2. The biggest impact besides that is 'savage wars' like 9/11. Cross apply my Nuke War evidence as well as all of my proliferation evidence. 3. Finally, it would seem that this evidence is actually an example of the status quo. Which means that prefer my position since we can invade Iran on our terms and for the greater good of society. "He concede the Turns on the Fed Adv, and Heg Adv.">>> This is laughable. I had 3 points on the 'turn' which go dropped in his last speech. Furthermore, even the turn doesn't outweigh the biggest impact in this round which is nuke war and extinction. The Heg turn is even more laughable. He tags a piece of evidence and puts a last name and a date on it and calls it a turn. Go back to my last speech where I said: "5) He has evidence but quotes nothing. Giving a name and a date doesn't allow you to say whatever you want." Finally, I had evidence that stated that this imperialism is actually a good thing in certain situations. One of which being prevention of nuclear extinction. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPACT CALC: In the end, don't let his games make you turn away from the real issue here. FLOW THROUGH my entire costs speech. That alone wins me the round. Go back and read it. My tags alone will show that it is the real issue in the round, and I am the only one who shows a way to solve it. CON leads to nuke war and extinction, not to mention internationally destructive proliferation (which was cold dropped and alone outweighs his position)... Pro does not. The choice is clear. Thanks for the debate!