I negate resolved: Placing political conditions on foreign humanitarian aid is unjust.

Burdens: The AFF must prove that placing political conditions on humanitarian aid is inherently unjust,
or that it is never just. The NEG must prove that these conditions can be just.
Definitions:
Political: organized in governmental terms
Foreign: coming from or belonging to a different place
Humanitarian: concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare
Aid: help given
Definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary

Read your case proper (Or dont, whatever)

When attacking AFF fwk:
I will concede my opponents entire case if they agree to loan me a pen.
(Proceed to attack their case if you want)

Ask for the pen during CX

1NR: (if they loaned you the pen)
S/he accepted my conditions, so I will concede her/his case. However, by accepting the condition of
loaning me the pen while under her/his framework, s/he contradicts her/himself. S/he has effectively
conceded that in some cases, conditions are good by accepting my condition.
My concession of their case is foreign (in that they come from or belongs to a different place i.e., a
different team), humanitarian (in that conceding my opponents case is in the interest of their welfare),
and aid (in that it is help given.). The condition was political in that we are organized in governmental
terms we are on two opposing sides, and we cant get anything done.
You have to accept my definitions because
(a) They didnt attack the definitions, or
(b) Their definitions suck, or
(c) They didnt offer definitions of their own.
This means that, under the AFF fwk, my opponent has accepted conditions as something good. Since my
opponent has accepted my condition, they are contradicting themselves by showing through their
actions that they do not always reject conditionality. If the condition were unjust, they would have
rejected it angrily. But they didnt. This means that under the AFF fwk, conditions are acceptable, which
means that the AFF is not fulfilling their burden. Regardless of the fact that their case flows through, you
have to vote negative because the AFF does not always reject conditionality as something unjust.