Topic is the first sentence in the debate.

OFF CLARIFICATION: Just because you have clarified plan text does not mean that you automatically get whatever you want. HOW you do something doesn't mean that you actually can. Links to solvency is still of massive importance. So the T's still stand as I will now prove: ================================================= T: Armed Forces 1.--> A. Fiat is not some Magical Jeanie that grants wishes. HOW do you plan on increasing the Armed Forces? Money Incentives? Cloning? Drafting a bunch of people that do not want to do it? Just saying we are fiating an increase in the Armed Forces does not mean that there will be an increase B. KRITIK: It is impossible for me to know what kind of disadvantages will come from an affirmation of the resolution without knowing how a substantial increase in Armed Forces will come or HOW the squirrel crisis will be ended or HOW education and pecuniary benefits will be increased. Therefore, this unfairness must be voted on (in favor of negative) if my opponent fails to give me this information. 2.--> Fiat is simply making the judge Congress (or perhaps the Supreme Court). Now the question is, what piece of legislation could you possibly past to increase the amount of Armed Forces. And what sort of legislation could you possible past to eliminate every squirrel. And how could this amount of money and work possibly outweigh the advantages? These questions aren't solved by simply saying the word fiat. And until you give more clarification, I can not possibly argue something that is so vague. "I'm going to do this"… well HOW?!? 3--> If the plan text is the topic, then there is no evidence that all squirrels can be killed. Therefore, you must vote Negative NOW! ================================================= T: Substantial 1.--> A. I am the only one to give a definition. Therefore, my definition of "of real worth, value, or effect" MUST be accepted and flowed through to the end of the round. B. I am the only one to give interpretation of the definition. If 100k armed forces isn't substantial what is? 80K? 50k? Either way, there isn't ANY evidence of a valuable increase. If you look to the EVIDENCE, not a single increase of armed forces will be achieved. He claims fiat, well, what will fiat (Congress) pass to increase these troops. 2.--> Ok, you get fiat. BUT… if Congress were to pass a bill that said we are going to increase troop size by 50,000, does that mean that it magically is increased that much? NO! This is why just simply passing the resolution as the plan text gets virtually NO solvency and certainly no solvency that is topical. 3.--> HOW?!? I guess I don't get why killing a bunch of squirrels gets you money AND educational benefits. If fiat got this, then they could simply pass a bill that said all students not have an I.Q. of 200. But unfortunately, this can not happen and therefore their still must be METHODS of doing this. Something that Affirmative has yet to show. ================================================= I never pushed the extra Topical of who is doing this so I really don't care about the National Guard doing this. Although I do have a problem with what job they are going to cut of the national guards to make this possible. His answer seems to be increase more people, but I don't see where these magical soldiers are coming from. ================================================= Observation 3: Please Flow through my Solvency arguments. He just cross-applies his T argumentation but you have to see that there is no way to do the plan. There are not enough people to kill every squirrel. Also cross-apply my argument that says that there is no way to kill every squirrel. There are so many and so small that elimination of this entire species is an uphill battle. ================================================= Observation 4 (Disadvantage): This is simply a question of what makes a group more apt to go to war? Doing nothing to them, or trying to kill them all? If you look to the status quo, there are only a few squirrels misbehaving. However, when you punish a group, they will rally together to take down ‘the establishment'. Flow through the two pieces of evidence that say that squirrels are smart and squirrels will adapt. These are essential to see what squirrels are capable of. And therefore, by passing the resolution, we will all be at risk of squirrel anarchy. ================================================= Observation 5 (counter-plan): 1. You can not adopt them into the Armed Forces and then kill them. That would go against Congress by committing tyranny. And would be known as betrayal. Which by the way is known as one of the most provoking actions on this Earth therefore fueling the disadvantage. Thus losing net-benefits and making it once again mutually exclusive. (Unperm) 2. Affirmative is abusive by wanting to do the entire plan and only some of the CP. The whole point of the CP is to get solvency without causing any of the harms including squirrel genocide. 3.-->A) I am the only one to provide evidence of squirrels brain function and that is that they adapt. They can therefore adapt to our requests. B) If we release them at an Iraqi base (that is an enemy), the same harms will happen there that USED TO happen in America. Thus we are shifting the harms to our enemy and also avoiding monetary harms that it would take to increase the Armed Forces. ================================================= Observation 6: Kritik (new) My opponent offers a lot of arguments with no analysis or evidence. Thus creating a time suck for me and giving him a huge character advantage. Please do not accept tagging arguments as acceptable or else the debate will become who can tag their arguments better. ================================================= In the end, all of my arguments stand. Affirmative is non-topical in several ways, offers no link to solvency, basically drops and accepts squirrel war as a future thing we must accept, and the Counter-Plan is superior with all of the solvency and none of the harms, and finally he is being abusive by arguing with only tags AND holding off on HOW he is going to do this. I urge you to look at ANY of these things and therefore vote Negative.