VAGUENESS DOESN’T WANT TO DIE.

1. JUDGE YOU CANNOT IGNORE THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL I ASKED ALL I COULD IN
CX. I ASKED HIM WHY IRAN WAS PROLIFERATING AND HE REPLIED WITH AN ANSWER
INCLUDING THE WORD “PROBABLY”. IN THE WORLD OF DEBATE, YOU MUST BE SURE OF
YOUR REASON. THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE.
2. YOU MUST PROVIDE THE MOST PROBABLE UNIQUENESS OR ELSE YOU CAN JUST MOVE OUT
OF THE DISADS LIKE A MOVING TARGET. (GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY POLLUTION BTW)
AND I DID NOT SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE SURE OF THE CAUSE OF A PROBLEM. I SAID THAT
AN UNPROBABLE THING IS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON THE
MORE PROBABLE THINGS.
3. ACTUALLY, I DON’T WATCH THE NEWS.
A. MAIN CAUSE OF IRAN PROLIFE
1. THAT’S GREAT.
2. THAT’S EVEN BETTER
B. WHAT MAKES IRAN WANT TO LISTEN TO TURKEY IF YOU CROSS APPLY MY TURKEY
COMPENSATION DISAD?
C. IF THEIR DUTY IS TO KILL NON BELIEVERS THEN WHY WOULD THEY STOP PROLIFERATING
AFTER WE LEAVE? THERE ARE STILL MORE NON-BELIEVERS…
D. CROSS APPLY MY B ARGUMENT.
E. I’M SAYING YOU’RE ABUSIVE BECAUSE YOU SAID THE WORD “PROBABLY”

4. THERE IS ABUSE. CROSS APPLY MY ABUSE FROM THE LAST SPEECH. IF YOU DON’T SPECIFY WHY
IRAN IS PROLIFERATING, I AM FORCED TO SPECIFY MY OWN CAUSE. BUT I REALIZE YOU COULD JUST
JUMP OUT OF THOSE DA’S, SO I RAN VAGUENESS THEORY.

5. GROUND –I’M NOT SAYING THAT I DON’T HAVE GROUND, CAUSE I DO HAVE GROUND, BUT I’M
SAYING THAT YOU HAVE UNLIMITED GROUND. THAT’S ABUSIVE.

6. YOU DO DESTROY SOLVENCY. CLARIFICATION: YOU DON’T HAVE ANY SOLVENCY BECAUSE THERE
ARE LOGIC HOLES. YOU

7. I DIDN’T IGNORE 87% OF MY CX TIME. YOU COULDN’T SPECIFY ANYMORE. VAGUE IS NOT A VAGUE
TERM BECAUSE I’M TOLD YOU IN THE LAST SPEECH AND CROSS X WHAT YOU WERE VAGUE ON.

8. YOU KILL DEBATE BY KILLING FAIRNESS, EDUCATION, AND REAL LIFE STANDARDS. AGAIN, I HAD TO
BRING IN MY OWN REASON WHY IRAN WAS PROLIFERATING. THE ONLY WAY I COULD PREVENT YOU
FROM JUMPING OUT OF DISADS WAS TO RUN THIS.

9. JUDGE, IF THIS DEBATE GOES TO THE AFF, ALL I LEARN ABOUT THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE AFF CAN BE
VERY UNCLEAR AND STILL WIN. AND THROUGH THAT, I STILL WON’T UNDERSTAND HIS AFFIRMATIVE.
I’M NOT SAYING TO RUN THE SAME AFFIRMATIVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT TO BE CLEAR WHEN
TELLING ME HIS UNIQUENESS.

10. BASICALLY WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT YOU WANT TO BE OUT OF THE LIMITS OF DEBATE AND
BE UNFAIR? IN THAT CASE, THE ONLY EDUCATION IS ONLY GOING TO THE AFFIRMATIVE.
11. MY VAGUENESS INTERP IS IN MY OVERVIEW ARGUMENT AT THE END OF THE TERRORISM
ADVANTAGE WHERE I SAY THAT YOU PROVIDED TWO OR THREE REASONS FOR IRAN PROLIF.

12. NOT A TIME SUCK OR STRAT SKEW BECAUSE IN ROUND ABUSE IS HAPPENING!!!

13. YOU MUST VOTE FOR

FAIRNESS – THE ONLY WAY WE’RE GONNA GET EDUCATION
EDUCATION – THE ONLY WAY WE GET BETTER AT DEBATE
REAL LIFE IMPLICATIONS – THE ONLY MEANING OF DEBATE

Little “Case Outweighs” Answers.

A. Magnitude

Even if Iran builds a nuclear arsenal, they won’t attack or provoke anyone – That’s my TREND 10 card.

Turkey is committed to nonproliferation now and will only proliferate if we leave – That’s my Oguzlu
2009 card and it post dates his Sokolski by 5 years.

Terrorists’ attempts to steal nuclear weapons are NOT going to happen – That’s Mueller 2006

B. Probability

We don’t know the probability of surviving Russian Roulette now do we?

Also, cross apply Trend 2010 card.

My Kelleher and Warren card turns this by saying TNW withdrawal would actually be the cause of
Turkey Prolif. It also post dates his Kibaroglu 2007 card.

Again, cross apply my Mueller 2006 card because terrorists are not going to waste 5 years trying to
plan something so unlikely. Cross apply my Chapman 2008 card which says that even if they try to
steal a TNW, they can’t get in, they can’t get far with it, and they can’t activate it.

C. Timeframe

This argument is deemed void because of my Trend 2010 card

Cross apply my Oguzlu 09 card that post dates his card by 5 years.

Uh… Wasn’t that like 5 years ago? My Mueller 06 card makes this statement invalid.

Also, he can stop using this argument about me conceding in Cross-Ex that a large amount of TNW’s
being taken away would trigger my DA’s
Judge, you can cross apply my YOST 2009 CARD SAYS SPECIFICALLY “WITHDRAWAL OF THE

REMAINING US WEAPONS COULD LEAD TO AN EROSION OF

CONFIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES”
Now this Yost 2009 card is under the NATO Cohesion DA, which actually is cross applied to all my
other advantages.

This is because even if TNW’s hold no deterrent value, they are symbolic and key to NATO structure.

In the Israel DA, this is cross applied because Israel can interpret TNW withdrawal as a loss of
deterrence in NATO.
In the Turkey Compensation, this is also cross applied because TNW withdrawal would end NATO
relations, therefore making them proliferate.

I guess you could say that I’m implying to hold the NATO Cohesion Disad above other disads.

Also, if my opponent chooses to bash on me, you can also take RECENCY into account. My DA’s can
only be triggered by a FULL WITHDRAWAL, which is from my Yost 2009 card.
I’m not sure if you will understand this or not: The fact that many things have happened since the last
withdrawal of TNW’s from Turkey, the DA’s can only be triggered by the SQuo. They weren’t triggered
back then because situations were different. Understand?

Overview
At this moment, for his Iran Prolif, he has no evidence indicating that Iran will stop proliferating after
we leave because one of his root causes is that they want to kill the non-believers. But there are so
many non-believers in the world so why would they stop proliferating?

Also, his Terrorism advantage, all of his evidence is beaten by my evidence’s dates and probability-
wise.

My NATO Cohesion DA is the basis of my other DA’s because through NATO, there is deterrence. But if
we leave, as my CTV News 2009 evidence states that NATO will fail without US presence. And no
NATO=no deterrence. He also concedes the fact that NATO does act as a good deterrent. My impacts
still stand for the NATO advantages which are: US Credibility loss, loss of heg, creates allied prolif, and
collapses NATO cohesion – Yost 2009

My Israel DA still stands through my NATO DA. Also, this may be a little bitchy, but in his #4 analytic,
he kind of contradicts himself saying that Israel would’ve already gotten the bunker buster bombs
because TNW’s are strategically valued weapons. But his Bell 2009 evidence says the opposite! WHAT
SHOULD WE TRUST? This means that for the moment, he has no offense against this DA and my DA
and my impacts: Iranian War and Extinction still stand.

In the Turkey DA, my stuff still stands because if you cross apply my NATO thing, you can see that
there is value through TNW’s even though they might be symbolic – Arbman and Wigg 02
He also provides no evidence for his analytic #4. My impacts for this DA are Nuclear War and Terror.

Impact Calculus:
His first advantage is contradictory with his Israel DA analytic #4 and better yet, has no solvency.
His second advantage is beaten by my defense arguments through probability.
My US credibility loss, Heg loss, Allied Proliferation, NATO Cohesion Collapse, Iranian War, Extinction,
Nuclear War and Terror impacts definitely outweigh his. There are so many negative consequences
occur with withdrawing TNW’s from Turkey.