2AC 1NR added stuffs

Violation – reduction must be permanen

w/m that’s bad its not permant
1 yr reduction = permanent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> read dictionary card
they only stop for 1 yr.
all of our arguments are predic
c/i
long time 1 year isn't a long time DiB is a DA that needs
some DA's like DiB and >>>>>>>>>>>> to take a few years because
limit ground 2020 might not link for example the trade war has
been happening for years
1yr avoids core and DiB is only damaged becau
neg ground, they one law to hurt US buissness co
can say it doesn’t link >>>>>>>>>>>>> take years to pass by china.
all policy =
temporary not temporary
1 year is short Congress laws
congress renews stuff every year >>>>>> get renewed hundreds of times
but they continue the same policy but when they say one year.
not end in one year. it says that its 100% gonna be r

no ev Reynolds 59' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MOST CREDIBE

reasonability 1 year isn't reasonable. Its not reasonable

they suspend, which takes >>>>>>>> and acually takes out really
out core negative DA's important negative ground.

They can just link out some of

our arguments and this hurts the
negs ability to debate the topic.
>>>>>>>> permanent isnt in the context
of what it means
meanwhile im givingyou
a card from dictionary.com
that means that permanent sh
mean forever.

standards;
its not key to aff gound
they could read hundreds of aff
and its all temporary
 added stuffs
– reduction must be permanent
its not permant
read dictionary card

all of our arguments are predicated off permananacy

DiB is a DA that needs

to take a few years because
for example the trade war has
been happening for years
and DiB is only damaged because
one law to hurt US buissness could
take years to pass by china.

Congress laws
get renewed hundreds of times
but when they say one year.
it says that its 100% gonna be rejected

Its not reasonable

and acually takes out really
important negative ground.

permanent isnt in the context

of what it means
meanwhile im givingyou
a card from dictionary.com
that means that permanent should
mean forever.

standards; they could say its hard

its not key to aff gound and u have to suck it
they could read hundreds of affs
and its all temporary build out more: say
1 year isnt enough

put that w/ the standards

debate.
its impossibel for the neg
not just hard.

the reason why is that its hard

to predicit the thousands of variations
that the aff can pick from the temporary policies.

all of these policys are unpredictable.

standards -- have closer to where im making

it to the counter interpretation part.

flow is up on the counter interpretation

if u go for T in 2NR you are presenting 2 different

worlds: aff (loose definition) vs neg (more strict and reasonable)

because of x y and z

we have evidence from renolds and topic

specific evidence from predictable
ground for both the aff and then negative

core negative ground is taken out..

better clash and more comparing

purpose of T is for judge to decide

which way of the topicality is more important

solves the reasonability agruement too.

the aff can just say make a exeption for us.