A2 TOOL AND TOOL BOX FW While they may be right that military force is a tool not to be used in all

scenarios, the affirmative should not be allowed to cherry pick one example and call the tool a success. Foreign policies should be evaluated in the reasonable scenarios in which they would actually be used, not just in singular instance. This allows both teams equal ground and offers the closest thing to the real way foreign policies are evaluated. A2 JUSTICE IS A SPECTRUM AKA ARGUMENT WHERE THEY SAY THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVE IT IS GOOD NOT THE BEST It is logically inconstant to suggest that the reason something is justified in the first place would not be invalidated when that thing could be maximized. If the purpose of donating money to a homeless man is to stop poverty and that is just, and there is an option to give that man more without it costing you anything, then it would be unjust to not maximize what you give. DONT READ IN ROUND JUST READ TO UNDERSTAND The answer to the homeless man thing is that there is no tradeoff or loss, but for example with foreign policies i can only implement one, and if i choose the one that kills an extra 100 people and it would have cost me nothing extra to achieve it than it only makes sense that choosing the option that kills a 100 people extra is unjust. A2 EXISTENTIAL TREAT(this needs to be cleaned up) If this framework is true, we could literally kill everyone under the age of twenty for the sake of trying to stop nuclear proliferation. This is obviously ridiculous, for the policy actually needs to solve the problem, and my opponents are just claiming they have to attempt to do that, but you could claim your doing anything in attempt to solve the problem.