CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

1. I stress to you that the benefits of the status quo outweigh the affirmatives plan, I'm defending the status quo that's my implementation if you think this has been a good debate then, there is no abuse, and this is not a voters issue and also he doesn't even tell you exactly how in his opinion me not having an implementation actually harmed him, there is no abuse. FEM ADV: 1. There is no impact to his feminism advantage, sure its bad but still it's logic that invading Iran will not solve Iran. He says that as far as this debate goes he is solving for feminism but, that's not true he doesn't solve for feminism all over the world which his harms evidence apply's too. And, he gives no evidence that says literally that the U.S. Military invading Iran will solve for feminism. The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the proof simply is not there. And he gives no threshold, what is the tipping point, when will we see the major impacts of feminism. THE NEXT ARGUMENT IS THE BIGGEST VOTING ISSUE ON THE FLOW: Moving troops into Iran will only increase feminism. He says, "Sanctity of the body. Women's rights to the sanctity of their bodies are freely violated in Iran. Women are, on a large scale, victims of rape, coerced sexual relations with their husbands, domestic violence, and all manner of insults and sexual violations in the public domain..." Well US troops rape women Japan proves, this means he will only add to the conflict this alone is a voters issue he loses the round. If I even win 1 advantage I will win the round vote neg. US TROOPS RAPE WOMEN - JAPAN PROVES Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, on 3-17 [Dan, "Let's draw down our forces in Japan", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, http://www.postgazette.... com/pg/10076/1043306-374.stm#ixzz0ppZKrUC6] U.S.-Japanese relations now are bedeviled by a number of problems. It is ironic that this is the case just as HBO launches what will be a widely watched 10-week serial on World War II in the Pacific. The first episode on Sunday tried to tread a fine line between demonizing the Japanese for their approach to the war and presenting them as a fully human enemy, with wives and children at home. The proximate cause of the disruption in U.S.-Japanese relations was the replacement last year of the Liberal Democratic Party, which had ruled Japan almost continuously since 1955, by the Japanese Democratic Party. It isn't that the JDP is anti-American. It is rather that, as a new party in power, it is quite normal for it to look sharply at some of the basic principles that governed Japanese policy during the 53 years of LDP rule. One of these was Japan's relationship with the United States. An integral part of that -- perhaps the central pole of it -- is the presence of the U.S. troops in Japan. That presence is the cornerstone of a sense on the part of the Japanese that the United States remains fundamentally responsible for their national security. There is friction on an interpersonal basis. When I was stationed at the American Embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland, one of the issues between the United States and Iceland was the presence of some 5,000 U.S. troops at an airbase on the island. To avoid problems, the American service members were discouraged from traveling around the country. In Japan, most of the U.S. troops are on the island of Okinawa, where, from time to time they are involved in accidents; murders; rapes; air, water and noise pollution; and other sources of misunderstanding. HEG ADV: 1. It's logic we are overstretched in many other nations, we have been tapping into are our Army reserves, were spending a lot of money and the economy is crucial to hegemony which he doesn't solve for, Extend my Anderson '10 evidence So the hegemony impacts are going to happen with a vote in affirmative, and he gives no threshold as to what is the tipping point of the impacts, he gives no time frame these are all burden of proof for the affirmative he doesn't do that vote him down. CBA: He doesn't give you a clear implementation of when his plan will take action, how much it'll cost or who will carry it out. He says, " ...did not follow the rules by posting an implementation method. This is a voting issue." Vote negative because, he doesn't follow his own rules because, he doesn't specify when the plan will take place we can contend that the impacts will never happen. And even if they do happen tomorrow he doesn't solve for them because he gives no time in which he will carry out his plan these are all reasons to vote in negation. If I win the Fem, advantage or the Heg adv, or even if any argument go uncontested or there's is a risk his plan doesn't solve I win the round vote negative. *And don't vote for yourself that's douchey and the only reason why your winning our last debate*