Asking me to pile up the cards does not help you it you do not explain which evidence is important and why. Reading new evidence in the last two speeches is rarely persuasive. Resolve the conflicts between the evidence already in the record. Second, I have a high threshhold for conditional arguments. Generally, the negative has the responsibility of disproving the affirmative.
Conditional arguments seem an acceptable method.
I have voted against them on rare occasions when de6aters can demonstrate that they create an unfair advantage. I have rarely found this argument persuasive. Permutations seem to be a test. The multiplicity of actors does not seem to be an excessive extension of fiat. I have voted for and against plan-inclusive counterplans.