1NC – Off

The affirmative may not specify regions within the West Asia-North Africa region to
reduce military presence in.
“Region” excludes subsets.
Dictionary [Dictionary.com; No Date; https://www.dictionary.com/browse/region /] brett TDI
1. an extensive, continuous part of a surface, space, or body:a region of the earth.
2. Usually regions. the vast or indefinite entirety of a space or area, or something compared to
one:
In means throughout.
Words and Phrases, 08 [Volume 28, p. 204-215] TDI
—Reynolds v. Larkins, 14 P. 114, 10 Colo. 126 Colo. 1887. In the act of 1861 providing that justices of
the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints,
etc., the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties.

Violation---they spec Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia.

LIMITS and GROUND---removing singular bases, arms sales, and operations require
different case negs, making the topic functionally unlimited and eliminating scope of
link to core disadvantages.
Merelli ’15 [Annalisa; April 2; internally citing David Vine, associated professor of anthropology;
Quartz, “These are all the countries where the U.S. has a military presence,”
http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/; TDI]

In his forthcoming book Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, David Vine, associate professor
of anthropology at American University details the difficulties of assessing the US military presence abroad. He writes:
according to the most recent publicized count, the U.S. military currently still occupies 686 “base sites” outside the fifty states and
Washington, DC.

While 686 base sites is quite a figure in its own right, that tally strangely excludes many well-known U.S. bases, like those in Kosovo, Kuwait,
and Qatar. Less surprisingly, the
Pentagon’s count also excludes secret (or secretive) American bases, like those
reported in Israel and Saudi Arabia. There are so many bases, the Pentagon itself doesn’t even know the
true total.

That is not the only issue—even

a definitive count of bases would include a wide range of facilities. “Base” itself
is an umbrella term that includes locations referred to as “post,” “station,” “camp,” or “fort” by different military
bodies. Vine explains:

bases come in all sizes and shapes, from massive sites in Germany and Japan to small radar facilities in Peru and Puerto Rico. […] Even military
resorts and recreation areas in places like Tuscany and Seoul are bases of a kind; worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.

The map below represents US military bases abroad, according to the official BSR, and from independent research conducted by Vine (and
Quartz) using verified news reports as well as cross-referencing information with Google Maps. This map does not take into account NATO
bases, including a rumored base in Turkmenistan and a base in Algeria, reported by Wikileaks to be a suspected US base.

Image for article titled These are all the countries where the US has a military presence
Most of the countries appear to have a small concentration of US bases (below 10). That’s compared to Germany’s 179, Puerto Rico’s 37, or
Italy’s 58. The largest military footprint remains in countries that the US invaded in WWII, while its presence in areas of more recent contention,
such as the Middle East, is somewhat reduced, at least in terms of bases.

It has been noted by commentators before that not all the bases are of significant size. However, given the information available it’s hard to
truly gauge the size of the different installation. Vine writes:

The Pentagon says that it has just 64 “active major installations” overseas and that most of its base sites are “small installations or locations.”
But it defines “small” as having a reported value of up to $915 million. In other words, small can be not so small.

The information about troops abroad, too, isn’t completely clear, which makes it difficult to know the
true extent of the American military footprint. IHS Jane’s armed forces analyst Dylan Lehrke told Quartz that it’s hard to even
settle on the definition of military presence—for the government, that means bases or deployed troops, although it would seem acceptable to
include other forms of presence:

Surely one could say that the US has a military presence in Syria at the moment. They may not have bases and troops on the ground but we
should include the warplanes in the sky. The US military arguably has more presence in Syria than it does in Germany […]. To take this idea
further, it would also be rational to say the US has a military presence wherever it uses unmanned aerial vehicles to strike targets.

All the countries that have some sort of American military presence—from one military attaché to the
troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan—essentially results in highlighting pretty much the entire world
(Russia included, where the DoD reports having 24 military personnel).

TVA solves---read your aff as an advantage.

Topicality comes first because any 1NC abuse was premised on the fact that the 1AC
was abusive, AND 1NC is reactive making abuse self-inflicted.
Competing interpretations---it’s the only objective mechanism to resolve disputes,
causes a race to the top of the best interpretations, and reasonability invites judge
intervention.
No RVIs---it’s illogical to vote aff because they were fair, it means no one ever wants
to check real abuse, and incentivizes the 1AR to go all-in on a 1NC shell which skews
the 2NR.
DTD---topicality indicts the plan.
 1NC – Off
Permissibility and presumption negate
1] Obligations- the resolution indicates the affirmative has to prove an obligation, and
permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation
2] Falsity- Statements are more often false than true because proving one part of the
statement false disproves the entire statement. Presuming all statements are true
creates contradictions which justifies racism
3] Negating is harder – A] Aff gets first and last speech which control the direction of
the debate B] Affirmatives can strategically uplayer in the 1ar giving them a 7-6 time
skew advantage, splitting the 2nr C] They get infinite prep time
4] Affirmation theory- Affirming requires unconditionally maintaining an obligation
Affirm [is to]: maintain as true.
That’s Dictionary.com- “affirm” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm

The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of
the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false
Prefer:
[1] Constitutivism: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given
resolution a) Five dictionaries1 define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm2 as
to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity b) the purpose of
debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key
to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It’s a jurisdictional issue since it
questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game – that’s a meta
constraint on anything else since the judge voting aff if they affirm better and neg the
contrary proves that it’s an independent voter and otherwise they could just hack
against or for you which means it also controls the internal link to fairness since that’s
definitionally unfair and a practice can only make sense based on intrinsic rules.
[2] Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every
property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is
true that I am awake” which means they are also a question of truth claims because
it’s inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren’t mutually exclusive with mine.

1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negate, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negate,
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/negate

2
Dictionary.com – maintain as true, Merriam Webster – to say that something is true, Vocabulary.com – to affirm something is to confirm that
it is true, Oxford dictionaries – accept the validity of, Thefreedictionary – assert to be true
[3] Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into
decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where
some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it
proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all
offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people
without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.
[4] Isomorphism: ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for
interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate
that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth
testing solves since it’s solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn’t a
closest estimate.
Now negate:
1] Paradox of tolerance- to be completely open to the aff we must exclude
perspectives that wouldn’t be open to it which makes complete tolerance impossible.
2] Decision Making Paradox- We need a decision-making procedure to enact the aff,
but to choose a procedure requires another meta level decision-making procedure and
so forth leading to infinite regress.
3] The Place Paradox- if everything exists in a place, that place must have a place that
it exists in and so forth. Therefore, identifying ought statements is impossible since it
assumes the space-time continuum.
4] Grain Paradox- One grain falling makes no sound, but a thousand grains make a
sound. A thousand nothings cannot make something which means the physical world
is paradoxical.
5] Arrows Paradox- If time is divided into 0-duration slices, no motion is happening in
each of them, so taking them all as a whole, motion is impossible.
6] Bonini’s Paradox- As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it
becomes less understandable and vice versa; therefore, no model can be useful.
7] Merriam websters defines “to” as
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to

Definition of to (Entry 1 of 3) 1a—used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement
toward a place, person, or thing reached

But governments can’t move to an obligation so rez is incoherent

 1NC – Off
We’re hijacking utilitarianism - Consequentialism means determinism is true
1] Induction- if x action leads to y result then x action must be influenced by prior
action which means a causal chain of events structure my action rather than my will
2] Focus on end states necessitates determinism because scientific models assume x
will happen if y – anything else triggers permissibility
3] Psychology- Neuroscience has demonstrated that our internal cognition is
deterministic. Make them provide a counter study- you shouldn’t trust the word of a
high-schooler about neuroscience
Butkus [Matthew A. Butkus(Professor in the department of Philosophy at McNeese State University, PhD - Health Care Ethics Duquesne
University, MA – Philosophy Duquesne University). “Free Will and Autonomous Medical Decision-Making.” Journal of Cognition and
Neuroethics. Volume 3, Issue 1. Pg 113-114. March 2015. Accessed 4/4/20.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89a4/924e0111035dbda63d61631a169c654a04fa.pdf //Recut Houston Memorial DX from BHPE]

Psychology and neuroscience have demonstrated that consciousness, our day-today perception, our
sense of self and identity, judgment, emotions, and intuitions are all predicated upon a number of
causal cognitive elements that are outside our awareness— the bulk of our cognition is deterministic
and preconscious. This determinism opens up avenues of undue influence into processes we normally
assume to be under our control— it should be clear that this assumption is mistaken at best, inhuman
and pernicious at worst. We should not abandon ourselves to blind determinism, however—we possess the ability to reflect upon our
motivations, and to engage in dialogic interaction with others, who may bring aspects of ourselves to the fore which would remain otherwise
inaccessible. As a result, we can take back a measure of control, but only if we engage in honest dialectic and dialogue with others. In the
context of patient autonomy and decision-making, the necessity of this dialogical process is especially evident—patients are already physically
compromised, potentially in ways that can exert conscious and unconscious influence over their decision-making processes, above and beyond
the normal potential sources of error found in heuristics and biases. Clinicians should be alert for such influences, recognizing that a medical
illness can easily mask a deeper psychopathology. Affective disorders are very common, occur more in patients than in the general population,
and tend to go unrecognized or dismissed as a normal reaction to their illness. The effect of these disorders, however, is quite pernicious. They
fundamentally affect the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, morbidity and mortality, and rate of recovery—ignoring, dismissing, or failing to
identify a comorbidity compromises the treatment of the obvious illness. By only treating the surface pathology, we potentially ignore the
deeper wound. Many contemporary models of autonomy suffer from similar shortcomings—while ethics seeks to inform itself of philosophical,
legal, theological, and medical constructs, it all too easily ignores the psychological, an unfortunate irony in light of the fundamental connection
between cognitive and clinical psychology and ethical ideals of autonomous choice. Ethical theories that dismiss or fail to address psychological
constructs are groundless; models derived from inhuman absolutes are so much fancy and fiction. What good is it to describe models of
cognition that have little resemblance to how we actually think? The present autonomy model suggests that decision-making is a complex
construct necessarily containing rational and emotional elements, intuitive judgments, and, as a result, potential sources of error. This seems to
gel with day-to-day experience— many decisions are made by gut instinct and intuition, instead of a Cartesian rational process methodically
and algorithmically exploring all possible influences, outcomes, and variables. This deterministic model gels with the phenomenon of basing
day-to-day decisions upon distal causes—early education and environment, role models, learned behaviors, etc. This model suggests that as the
severity of the outcomes increases to terminal, increasing reflection upon the causes and motivations of the decision is required—that a
genuinely autonomous choice will explore the agent’s motivations, identifying and judging the appropriateness of each influence, determining
if it is congruent with the value system adopted by the agent as a whole.

4] Physics: molecular neurology proves free will is fictitious.

Coyne 12 [Jerry Coyne, Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of
Chicago], “Why You Don’t Really Have Free Will,” USAToday, January 1st, 2012
https://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2013/12/why-you-dont-really-have-free-will.html?m=1 //NSU SF

The first is simple: we

are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All
the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every
molecule in the universe. Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain — the organ that does the "choosing." And the
neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an
environment including the other people we deal with. Memories, for example, are nothing more than structural and chemical changes in your
brain cells. Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down to molecules and physics. True "free will,"
then, would require us to somehow step outside of our brain's structure and modify how it works. Science
hasn't shown any way we can do this because "we" are simply constructs of our brain. We can't impose a nebulous "will" on the
inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself
and change its program.

5] Moral responsibility necessitates free will, Van Inwagen 83:

van Inwagen [van Inwagen, Peter. “An Essay on Free Will.” Published 1983] //ReNSU SF

If we do not have free will, then there is no such thing as moral

The answer to this question is a philosophical commonplace.

responsibility. This proposition, one might think, certainly deserves to be a commonplace. If someone charges you with, say, lying, and if
you can convince him that it was simply not within your power not to lie, then it would seem that you
have done all that is necessary to absolve yourself of responsibility for lying . Your accuser cannot say, "I concede it was not
within your power not to lie; none the less you ought not to have lied". Ought, as the saying goes, implies can. (Of course, it is unlikely that anyone would believe you if you said that it was not
within your power not to lie, but that is not the point.) Similarly, if someone charges you with not having done something he maintains you ought to have done, he must withdraw his charge if
you can convince him that you couldn't have done it. If, for example, he charges you with not having spoken up when a word might have saved Jones's reputation, he must withdraw his charge
if you can convince him that you were bound and gagged while Jones was being maligned. (These simple facts are actually a bit too simple. An agent may have been unable to perform a
certain act at a certain time, but—owing to his abilities with respect to acts that were or might have been performed at earlier times—he may once have been able so to arrange matters that
he would have been able to perform that act at that time. For example, I may have been unable to contribute to a certain charity yesterday because I was locked in a bank vault that can't be
opened from the inside. But if it should transpire that I had shut myself into the vault in order to avoid the representatives of the charity, few people would regard my having been locked in
the vault as providing me with an adequate excuse for not contributing. The reason is easy to see: though there may be a sense in which it is true that I couldn't have contributed to the charity,
there was none the less a time-- before I shut myself in—at which I could so have arranged matters that I should have been able to contribute to it when the time to do so rolled round. In the
sequel, I shall ignore the possibility of cases like the "bank vault" case in order to avoid unnecessary detail in the statement of my argument.) It would seem to follow from these considerations

that without free will there is no moral responsibility: if moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he has done or for something he has Ieft undone; to
be morally responsible for some act or failure to act is at least to be able to have acted otherwise,
whatever else it may involve; to be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will. Therefore, if moral

responsibility exists, someone has free will. Therefore, if no one has free will, moral responsibility
does not exist.

That negates independent of presumption:

1] Actions are predetermined which means we aren’t culpable for actions we don’t
control, thus theres no reason that the plan should be implemented.
2] Semantics – Ought is defined as as : moral obligation : DUTY * meaning absent a proactive
obligation you vote neg.
*Merriam Webster, ND (no date, 9-25-2021, No Publication, Definition of OUGHT, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought)//st
 1NC – Off
Interpretation – the affirmative must specify what their favorite episode of Hello Kitty
and Friends is in the first affirmative speech. If they haven’t watched Hello Kitty and
Friends, they should lose. My favorite episode is S1 E15 Special Delivery.
Hello Kitty fosters friendship, identity formation, and adolescent communal bonding
necessary for child development.
Woods 19 [Patti Woods, 12-24-2019, "Hello Kitty Turns 45! Here's Why the World's Most Famous Cat
Means So Much to Me," Parade: Entertainment, Recipes, Health, Life, Holidays,
https://parade.com/969881/pattiwoods/hello-kitty-shy-girls] [pT]

When I was in kindergarten, my mother was called into school for a conference. “ We think there may be an issue,” the teacher said.
“Patti never talks.”

Had that meeting been today, it might have resulted in all sorts of testing and evaluations, but back then my mother simply
explained, “No, she’s just shy.”

I was the quiet one in the class, the one who sat with her hands folded and eyes on the board. While the other girls ran
off in groups at recess to hang upside down from the monkey bars, I’d find a shady spot under a tree and
read a book alone.

But then in first grade—1978—I discovered something that helped me bridge the social barriers: Someone
gave me a little stationery set—teeny, tiny paper with little envelopes and a mini pencil—decorated with an adorable
cartoon cat wearing a big red bow. This, of course, was Hello Kitty.

Yuko Shimizu, a Japanese graphic designer, first created Hello Kitty in 1974 and two years later, the merchandise first
appeared in the U.S. The rest is history—in fact, Hello Kitty celebrated her 45th anniversary in 2019 with a Hello Kitty
Friends Around the World Pop Up Tour.

“Since her debut, Hello

Kitty has inspired friendship and kindness around the world by spreading positive
messages from her heart,” Susan Tran, director of brand marketing for Sanrio, the company that designs Hello Kitty merchandise, told
me.

When I brought my stationery set to school, my classmates flocked to take a look. Ultimately, I bonded with
a boy over Hello Kitty. Together, Sean and I sat drawing pictures of her, writing notes to each other with
Hello Kitty markers and comparing our stickers. When a Sanrio store opened at the local mall, we both decided to
buy each other Christmas gifts from there. His mother brought him to my house (such a big deal!) and he presented me with a
treasure trove: rubber stamps, a mirror, erasers and even candy emblazoned with Hello Kitty.

I recently reconnected with Sean and asked him why he thought we loved Hello Kitty so much. “ There
was a fantasy quality to her
where everything was positive, easy and fun,” he said. “And the fact that she didn’t have a mouth, lent her
a zen quality. She was always calm and unruffled.”

He’s right. It
wasn’t until adulthood—my 30th birthday specifically, when my friends showered me with Hello
Kitty gifts—that I realized why I was so enchanted by this little cat: Hello Kitty has no mouth. She never spoke a word,
yet could somehow convey emotion. Despite the fact that she didn’t speak, she was always surrounded by friends: Patty & Jimmy, Little Twin
Stars, My Melody, Tuxedo Sam and Chococat. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I had found a role model in a simple little drawing of a kitty.
I felt an instant kinship with Hello Kitty. She was quiet, just like I was, which offered me hope that I could
become as expressive as she was without necessarily stepping out of my quiet comfort zone. Even though
she was a cartoon character, I gained a sense of security and comfort from her. Just because she was quiet
didn't mean she had to be a shrinking violet. In fact, she was just the opposite—she was the leader in her group of friends.
Seeing that confirmed for me that it was OK to be quiet.

“Kidstend to find characters that they can identify with," Barbara Greenberg, Ph.D., a teen, adolescent, child
and family psychologist, explains.

A child who gravitates toward Hello Kitty, she speculates, could be trying to find their voice. And they could view
Hello Kitty's lack of a mouth to mean that she is trying to find her voice, too, which would be comforting to them. It's a toy that doesn't
come packaged with the pressure to be loud and proud—not that a Hello Kitty enthusiast couldn't be loud and proud as
well.

Dr. Greenberg believes unlike some toys, Hello

Kitty wasn't telling me how to feel or who to be. In fact, it may have been
more of the opposite; her unclear expressions allowed me to project my own emotions onto her, which
provided comfort that could really benefit many children unsure of their place in the world.

It turns out that wasn’t coincidental. According to Sanrio, Hello

Kitty was drawn without a mouth because they wanted
people to "project their feelings onto the character" and "be happy or sad together with Hello Kitty." In a
pilot cartoon series, Hello Kitty was given a mouth, but hardcore fans revolted. I guess I wasn't the only one who liked her face the way it was—
open to interpretation.

Today, Hello Kitty is depicted as she was from the very beginning—without a mouth.

“Hello Kitty is an ambassador for Sanrio’s ‘small gift, big smile,’ philosophy—that a small gift can bring happiness and
smiles to people of all ages,” said Tran.

Now, I choose not to label myself as shy (not that there’s anything wrong with it); I consider myself a good listener and I love being with people.

Hello Kitty helped me form some of my very first friendships, and 45 years later, she’s still helping me connect
with others. Not bad for a little kitty with no mouth.

DTD – They haven’t fostered friendship in the debate space

CI – Only way to achieve best friendship norms in this round
No RVIs – You shouldn’t win for meeting your burden AND that makes me sad which is
bad for happiness and friendship