2AR

Firstly all 1AR arguments should be given full weight , because of how new arguments in the block call for new arguments in the adjoining speech Lets outline the largest voters A.Perm Do both on the Kritik B.Cuba Econ Collaspse causing then Global Warfare and then how we all die from that . C.You vote Aff if you see 1% probability

1.Firstly on Perm Do Both the Neg says, how we are misinterpreting this ,firstly we are not by saying Multidemsionalism , we are saying how their approach is quite onesided as well ,which then is trying to say how we should do both , which then are Martin evidence doesnt flow neg for those reasons. 2.Are Onuf 2K ,acts as a disad to the K/Linear DA for two reasons , firstly solely the critical analysis fails because of how then firstly they are increasing the suffering , and then also :manifestations of global disorder complex emergencies because doing so unduly simplifies their vexed political character and masks the degree to which global liberal governance is implicated in making them so vexed. Their alternative descriptionemerging political complexesimplies that . This acts as a DA to any world of PIK solvency You weigh the 1AR- new arguments if you weigh the K as a Floating PIK thats abusisve in itself , but not revaling this until the 2NR allows just more reasoning of how new arguments are bad , allow this to be reciprocal

3.FW in block was never dropped now answering As well to this they Adress the ROB of the AFF as a joke but nope were serious now here is some warrants Firstly who shapes policies , the intectulalls and the policy maker , so then basic governing kinda keeps their FW in check , secondly their Analysis is too 1D ,Cross Apply the work on the PERM as a linear DA to the FW , anyways we are also now going to us 4. The dichotomy turn is solely functioning on the basis off perm do both this acts as a vote in itself because of how then their usage is causing the war they claim to solve 5.World of the Alt allows things such as 9-11 to happen because we are not securitized enough so then they actually kill V2L because of things such as this , so we try to state PERM IS THE BEST WAY OF SOLVING 6.The evidence they are referring to , is are Liotta evidence , which is being misinterpreted because of how two things occur , firstly the solely critical analysis , or the sole policy analysis , which then does not allow two things to happen in the World of the Alt , the shattering that they themselves quote and cede is wanting us to go. The Cost Benefit Cycle that is suggested by the evidence and the ariticle itself says more towards how which impact simulation is more likely to cause more destruction . So this in itself is the biggest K turn in itself.

The Key analyitic of how the Cuban People suffer from this idealogical construct which was made in order for securization of the region , was dropped in the 2NR now lets warrant out this ingenious no-link argument firstly then that is trying to state how in order to de-securitize we need the Embargo to be lifited . And based off the impacts of the 2AC/1AC are impacts severly outweigh theirs . Then their attempts to Garner the AFF IS SO A VOTING ISSUE IN it self

Floating PIKs Bad im sorry but you just revealed this in the 2NR kinda justifies this
ADVOCATING OUR PLAN IS A VOTING ISSUE A. This is the worst possible negative argument if they can incorporate our plan into their advocacy then it ERASES the 1AC from the debate and fundamentally shreds our ground since every argument we have is dependent on our advocacy of the plan. B. Disproves the kritik if you can combine our plan and their alternative their link must be false our philosophical assumptions led us to conclude that our plan was a good idea since our plans not incompatible with their K the rest of their args are logically false. Impossible our 1AC articulates a criticism of the project of nuclear colonization a critique that you didnt perform and cant accept since your criticism and your DAs discursively eliminate the possibility of challenging federal support for and more reasons why

Floating PIKs Bad

1. The negative should only be able to pik actual words in plan text a. plan focus good plan is the only stable ground b. predictability its more reasonable for the affirmative to have to defend their plan not any random representation an author may make within the evidence 2. Moving target it allows the negative to shift their initial alternative to subsume the affirmative which skews 2ac answers and is unpredictable 3. Justifies no alternative text which is uniquely bad a. destroys perm ground no way to test the competition of the link b. justifies aff conditionality - c. forces functional competition which is bad because its unpredictable. There are an infinite number of alternative mechanisms to solve the impacts 4. Literature doesnt check abuse there is not reciprocal literature on all issues and the topic forces us to defend certain things to be topical which establishes a side bias. This solves their aff conditionality arguments. 5. Debateability floating pics essentially agree that the affirmative is a good idea, forcing the affirmative to debate against themselves 6. Including the plan within their advocacy justifies perm: do the affirmative because they agree that the plan is a good idea and that the plan can be done without linking to the criticism 7. Voting issue

Ok then because of how then they are making the Moving target based off only revealing this in the 2NR - that triggers the destruction of any perm ground which is a core argument which then also but the favor to much upon the Neg ground to o/w any thing the Affirmitive says Also they are a clash killer them selves they say the Aff is good thing but then their inclusion of the aff only justifies poorly done permuations which then puts Affs at a double-bind , either the Permutation solves , or that only solves for the Alt not the Aff . As well to that justifaction , to that is also how based upon the basis of Negation Theory : Need to prove how the Affirmitive is a bad idea . By using a Floating PIK , then firstly they are not doing their job , they usage of changing the assumption and a philsphoical standpoint of the Aff , does not show how the plan is a bad things . This also justifies things such as Intrsicnc Perms . So then You will vote Aff on the Abuse done by the Neg
Plan Inclusive Kritiks are illegitimate and a voting issue for fairness, competitive equity, and educationmore reasoning why FLOATING PIK/PIKS ARE BAD A. Destroys all debate- debate becomes a question of framework methodology and not a question of the implications of the options presented in the round. This destroys education- the 1AC policy option should be the focus of the debate B. Real Worldaccording to their interpretation, you can never discuss the way a policy is implemented, only the way its framed, which destroys real world/policymaking education C. Moots the entirety of the 1AC- the aff cant generate offense because they do our planthe best way for the aff to answer Ks is to weigh their 1AC against the alternative and prove why the alt cant solve for the case D. Destroys permutation ground- any perm would the world where the alternative is LITERALLY the plan within a different methodology or frameworkjustified the permutation: perm: do the alternative E. Our interpretation solves their offensethey can still read Ks that have alternatives about methodology or rethinking, they just cant include our plan F. Its a voting issue to ensure competitive equity and education

Floating PIKS/PIKS In general acts as a voting issue for the Aff for a couple reason firstly on how Mooting the 1AC kill the first 8 mins of the Debate , and as well to that the PIK never can solve because of how then under their interpation they are just destroyed and also then Potential Abuse can also be used to Vote Aff firstly Precendent espically in things such as Vdebates , where so many people might see this and then think as how then how they can do things such as this which kills Education . Killing Education kills some of the main points of the 1AC , and also just does not allow to learn anything if we does not allow use to ever see policy but only destroy real world implications . So then any destructive abusives you will vote Aff on theory.
1. Precedent- Vote against potential abuse now to set a precedent for future debates in which teams can finally begin at ground zero.

Case
Impact Calc/Compartive Impact Analysis firstly we evaluate Magnitude over Probability anyways Nuclear War o/w systemic impacts because of how firstly in the timeline of who dies first , it is more likely how we can die because of Nuclear War than a dichotomy .The ballot should be awarded to who was the fastest i/l to excition , which is the Affs ground , in the block they did conceed to this which then means , Magnitude falls on the Aff playground . As well to that then Timeframe , Cuba Collapse is coming now and once the Cuban Market Decline comes then that triggers a regional conflict , which drags us in , which then they do conceed are Bearden evidence which then states how then this all creates ww3 and a nuclear war. Then the implications of the threat of how then Magnitude o/w Probability and Timeframe :The bigger civilization is after the impact happens, the less seriously you evaluate the impact. Also so then the biggest civilization left after its all said and done is the world of the 1AC , the 1AC allows for society to still stand in place once all is said and done . In the World of this PIK/K/Linear DA , firstly this attempt of critical analysis :is only a fraction of a second. To calculate the loss associated with an existential catastrophe, we must consider how much value would come to exist in its absence. It turns out that the ultimate potential for Earth-originating intelligent life is literally astronomical , as on how then Nuclear Bomb create such as wasteland then that turns the K itself . Firstly what humans will be left after Certain hazards are simply unacceptable because they involve a relatively unacceptable threatits not worthwhile to run the risk, even in the face of probabilities. do not bother to weigh this balance of probabilities, but dismiss risks that are, , unacceptable. So then thats how Magnitude o/w Probability as well because its Try or Die .

Answer offense on Case- Solvency Dont be skeptical of any solvency for two reasons , Cuba will Say Yes , firstly was conceed , so then they will say yes . Now addressing Biotech We dropped this advantage previously but since they are countuning to insist we did not kick out of this right which we did , firstly cross-apply their Schimidller evidence no Impact To BioTerror , and also their evidence of Biotech in Cuba stop innovating so then is this how we kick out of it . So then cross-apply this to K as a major link killer . NO link analysis was done on are Econ Add-on so then they have no link onto the Econ so then you vote AFF .