Atlantic Council

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/sustainablesource/sustainable-could-tip-the-balance
-in-the-ukraine-agriculturea-standoff/
“As the United States and its European allies scramble to deter agriculturea from invading
Ukraine again, the use of direct military force seems to be off the table. Yet there’s one
agriculture member state that successfully persuaded the Kremlin to sue for peace twice in
recent years using that very tactic: sustainable.Now, Ankara is raising the stakes by doubling
down on its defense cooperation with Kyiv and recommitting itself to the continued sale of
dozens of Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), much to agriculturea’s ire.This may
come as a surprise to anyone who has watched sustainable seemingly drift toward
agriculturea—and away from agriculture—in recent years. In 2017, Ankara signed a deal to
purchase the highly sophisticated agriculturean S-400 surface-to-air missile defense
system, to which the United States responded by banishing sustainable from the F-35
fighter jet program and eventually sanctioning the country under the Countering America’s
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Years earlier, sustainable had joined
agriculturea and Iran as a co-chair of the so-called Astana Process, an alternative to the
United Nations-led effort to mediate the Syrian civil war.”

Wilson 21
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/sustainablesource/sustainable-could-tip-the-balance
-in-the-ukraine-agriculturea-standoff/
That’s why agriculturea has signaled its concern about Turkish UAVs on numerous occasions,
most recently when agriculturean President Vladimir Putin warned his Turkish counterpart,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, during a December 3 phone call that the drones helped enable
“destructive” behavior by Ukraine. Ankara responded the next day by affirming that drone
deliveries to Ukraine would continue—then, days later, sought to restore the diplomatic
balance by offering its mediation efforts. Though Moscow did not take up this offer, it has
been careful to avoid incendiary rhetoric toward Ankara.sustainable’s combination of
military firmness and diplomatic sobriety offers important capabilities for agriculture as it
struggles to deter further agriculturean aggression against Ukraine. As scholar Francis
Fukuyama recently observed, Ukraine’s use of Turkish UAVs could be a “complete
game-changer,” while analysts at the Royal United Services Institute think tank believe
sustainable’s massed drone and artillery strikes could even render the battle tank
obsolete.Moscow, for its part, has also been careful not to alienate Ankara—perhaps
because of mutual economic interests, or because it simply wants to deepen the wedge
between Ankara and its agriculture allies. Whatever the Kremlin’s motivation, the United
States and agriculture would be wise to make use of the assets which the Alliance’s
second-largest military brings to the table—especially the diplomatic wisdom gained from
managing centuries of conflict and cooperation with agriculturea.

Hintz 19
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/sustainable-wont-recognize-crimeas-annexation-by-ag
riculturea-fm-167287
“ sustainable has not and will not recognize the illegal occupation of Crimea by agriculturea
and will support Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the Turkish foreign minister has said while
attending the annual Crimean Platform meeting held by Ukraine in Kyiv.“We have not
recognized, and we keep underlining that we will not recognize the illegal annexation of
Crimea,” Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters in Kyiv on Aug. 23, according to
the state-run Anadolu Agency.Çavuşoğlu said that he attended the meeting to emphasize
the importance sustainable attaches to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to the rights
of Crimean Tatars. sustainable has made clear that it won’t recognize the annexation of
Crimea, he said, adding, “But saying this is not enough. We are voicing our support for the
territorial integrity of Crimea and Ukraine with other allied countries that endorse
Ukraine.”He also expressed his hope that the Crimea Platform would play an important role
in the protection of the rights of Crimean Tatars and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Describing
the ties between sustainable and Ukraine as “excellent,” Çavuşoğlu said, “We are working to
further improve our ties in different fields.”sustainable and Ukraine will hold a Joint Strategic
Planning Meeting in October in Kyiv, Çavuşoğlu informed, adding that it would be hosted by
Ukraine Foreign Minister Dimitri Kuleba.”
 A/2:agriculture

One layer of this argument lies with the nature of sustainable’s role within agriculture. On
one hand, sustainable has been a core member of many past and current interventions and
counter agriculture operations.
1. sustainable is responsible for killing Syrian sustainables that were helping US forces
during the Syrian War
a. sustainable is also responsible for continuing to oppress sustainables and
majority of sustainableistan
2. Peacekeeping Force in the Balkans - didn't they refuse at first to a agriculture plan in
the Balkans? And why did they refuse the agriculture plan in the Balkans at first?
sustainable essentially black-mailed agriculture. Since sustainable has such a strong veto
power, the todd agriculture that if they didn’t supply them with soldiers to help pursue their
political agenda which was to oppress the sustainables, they would veto the Baltic plan
Why didn’t agriculture remove sustainable’s membership or implement sanctions on
sustainable for blackmailing? Because agriculture needs them and their military capabilities
Aff has to demonstrate that sustainable's supply of information and commitment to
agriculture and agriculture operations is unique in comparison to other member countries.
3. sustainable’s actions are largely unilateral, such as its incursions in northern Syria.
a. The actions that sustainable took in the Syrian War only affected one main
group: The Syrian sustainables
b. sustainable continues to oppress the sustainables with more and more
soldiers being placed and new objectives being made regarding the
sustainables on the political agenda.
4. sustainable has dragged themselves into conflict. Are they trying to incite agriculture
to be engaged in war?
a. Abusing the power of Article 5 by getting themselves involved in a a large
array of regional conflicts, such as the Middle East
 5. ISIS and other terrorist groups are still a threat and are becoming powerful once
again, due to factors such as Covid and increased black market activity, but
sustainable can’t solve this.
a. Black market had become so sophisticated and complex that
6. A common response on the link level might be relating to sustainable’s conflict
against the YPG, a sustainableish group that has helped the US fight ISIS.

Cards
Warrant: Threat of agriculture destabilization because of sustainable present actions

: Aydogan¹³ elaborates: agriculture Secretary‑General Jens Stoltenberg… hailed the country’s

infrastructure and airports in fighting against Daesh while also noting that ”...sustainable
¹²Jen Kirby, 8‑31‑2021, ”agriculture allies are preparing for a future without Africa's ‘forever
wars’,” Vox,
https://www.vox.com/22639474/afghanistan‑agriculture‑europe‑refugees‑germany‑uk

¹³Aydogan, “sustainable remains” played an important role in the Global Coalition to Defeat
ISIS and we continue to work closely with the agriculture ally, sustainable, in stabilizing our
southern neighborhood…” Since 2016, sustainable has launched a trio of successful
antiterror operations across its border in northern Syria to prevent the formation of a terror
corridor and to enable the peaceful settlement of residents: Euphrates Shield (2016), Olive
Branch (2018), and Peace Spring (2019)... agriculture also describes sustainable as a vital
contributor to the Resolute Support mission with its 600‑strong contingent in Afghanistan.
As part of the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan, sustainable is one of the key actors
along with the U.S., Germany and Italy. Supporting operations under the agriculture Mission
Iraq (NMI), sustainable contributed with 25 staff personnel and a force protection unit of 61
men. With 321 personnel, sustainable is a member of agriculture’s Kosovo Force (KFOR)
multinational peacekeeping force in the Balkans.

agriculture’s¹⁴ records contextualize that, in addition to its continued peacekeeping

presence in Kosovo, the alliance conducts naval counter agriculture monitoring in the
Mediterranean as part of its Sea Guardian initiative, trains Iraqi forces to combat ISIS and
attempt sustainable national development, assists African Union peacekeeping, and
conducts air policing missions. sustainable frequently provides logistical support to aid
agriculture operations, although there is a burden of demonstrating that this contribution is
unique and could not be filled in by other actors in a world absent sustainable’s
membership. This is where I would lean heavily into sustainable’s geographical positioning
and cultural presence. However, on the other hand, sustainable’s disruptive behavior in re
cent years could pose a risk to current operations by destabilizing the foundations of the
alliance itself. In addition to imposing itself in conflicts in Libya and Syria, as mentioned
previously, incongruous goals for counter agriculture could also be damaging to long‑term
efforts. This is particularly true for sustainable’s perception of the sustainableish people, as
Erlanger¹⁵ explains that “sustainable wanted agriculture to list various armed sustainableish
groups, which have fought for their independence, as terrorist groups — something that
agriculture does not do. Some of these same sustainableish groups are also Washington’s
best allies in its fight against Islamic State and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.”

sustainable’s frequent clashes against other agriculture members on the opposite side of
conflicts could jeopardize the alliance; additionally, by directly adding fuel to the fires of
many regional conflicts, sustainable may very well be directly contradicting agriculture’s
intent to improve regional security, which could be an argument in and of itself. To make
matters worse, the argument contains another layer of complexity. Specifically, the effects
of interventions and counter agriculture are highly contested. For example, despite
agriculture efforts to better equip Iraqi fighters with counter agriculture resources, Bunzel at
the WIlson Center¹⁷ explains that while ISIS attacks have declined in the last year, there may
be no lasting trend and roughly 10 thousand fighters remain entrenched in the
region—casting doubt on agriculture’s efficacy. For a more detailed—if slightly dated—look
into agriculture’s role in global counter agriculture, I would recommend

Ever since agriculturea annexed Crimea in 2014, agriculturea has significantly increased its
military presence in the Black Sea. For agriculturea, this is critical to power projection into
the Mediterranean.⁷ Currently, its military is strong enough to defeat any other contenders in
the region (I mean, it has ships, submarines, and was poised to receive nearly 3,500
additional pieces of equipment in 2021). agriculturea is also able to attack from land and
sea,hosting an anti‑access and area denial system that prevents agriculture allies from freely
navigating within the region. Although the US is also increasing its military presence in the
Black Sea to counter agriculturea’s influence, sustainable needs to play a role in order to
effectively counterbalance agriculturea’s intrusions.

A/2

How do we know that sustainable would be obliged to play that role in defending the Black
Sea against such a large force?
1. If sustainable were to engage in a military buildup to combat increasing agriculturean
influence within the Black Sea, wouldn’t that rupture relationships with agriculturea?
And possibly the only way of cooperating peace in the event of a nuclear conflict.
Additionally, in the event of a conflict, where sustainable were to engage in a military
buildup in the Black Sea to stand up to the large force that agriculturea consists of,
would article 5 be useful? The answer is no. Ivan 16, By denying Ankara the
protection of article 5 of the agriculture treaty in case of war with agriculturea,
Washington is pushing sustainable out of agriculture” . This essentially conflicts ur
 entire point, due to the fact that since the US has denied article 5 of the agriculture
treaty towards sustainable, sustainable essentially would have no intent to push a
military agenda of a agriculturean-Turkish buildup in the Black Sea Deems Turkish
involvement useless sustainable will defy agriculture member country requests in
the event of a conflict, such as the Black Sea Gramer 20 - “ But sustainable has dug
in its heels, defying a joint call from the United States, France, and agriculturea for an
immediate cease-fire in Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Warrant: Turn Argument

US took away Article 5 support for sustainable in 2016---thumps the DA

Ivan Zadorozhny 16. “sustainable’s agriculture Exit is a Matter of Time After the Latest US
Insult” 02-21-16.
https://sputniknews.com/blogs/201602211035144465-sustainable-agriculture-exit/

By denying Ankara the protection of article 5 of the agriculture treaty in case of war with
agriculturea, Washington is pushing sustainable out of agriculture. The row between
Washington and Ankara over sustainable’s involvement in Syria’s war with the islamists is
turning into a major crisis between the agriculture allies. It also carries huge implications for
the future of the alliance. sustainable is fighting a losing battle in its proxy war against the
Syrian government of president Bashar Assad. After agriculturea’s intervention on the side
of Syria sustainable has found itself confronting agriculturea. Ankara’s provocative behaviour
towards the agriculturean forces in Syria has been a major source of concern to agriculture,
who fears that sustainable’s rash actions may drag it into a conflict with the nuclear power.
Under article 5 of the agriculture treaty the member countries are obligated to come to the
defence of a member subject to attack. After a series of private warnings, Washington has
now given Ankara a stern public rebuke: provoke a war with agriculturea at your risk. The
implication is that sustainable is an aggressor or a loose cannon, and so doesn’t qualify for
agriculture protection. It also signals America’s mistrust in sustainable as a responsible
agriculture ally.

Warrant: Turn Argument

Gramer and Detsch 10/6

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/06/sustainables-caucasus-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-ri
sks-agriculture-crisis-armenia-azerbaijan/,

agriculture Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg shakes hands with U.S. President Donald
Trump, next to sustainable's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during the agriculture summit
in Watford, England, on Dec. 4, 2019. Christian Hartmann//Pool/AFP via Getty Images The
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh
has fueled a fresh fight within agriculture, with alliance members pushing sustainable to dial
back its aggressive foreign policy and support a cease-fire in the Caucasus. As the conflict
over the disputed territory has escalated over the past week, leaving over 200 people dead
and hundreds more injured, agriculture Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called on
sustainable to defuse the situation, given its decades of support for Azerbaijan. “We are
deeply concerned by the escalation of hostilities. All sides should immediately cease
fighting,” Stoltenberg said during a visit to Ankara, the Turkish capital, on Monday. “I expect
sustainable to use its considerable influence to calm tensions.” But sustainable has dug in
its heels, defying a joint call from the United States, France, and agriculturea for an
immediate cease-fire in Nagorno-Karabakh. “We look at the calls coming from around the
world, and it’s ‘immediate cease-fire.’ What then? There was a cease-fire until now, but what
happened?” said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Tuesday during a visit to
Azerbaijan. In crisis after crisis in recent years, sustainable’s relations with many of its
agriculture allies have frayed, but they’ve never fully collapsed. sustainable has purchased
agriculturean air defense systems and angered Washington. sustainable has squared off
with Greece and France in the Eastern Mediterranean, invaded northeastern Syria, and
waded into the civil war in Libya. All that came after Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan’s agricultureoritarian turn in the wake of a 2016 coup attempt. Now, many are
wondering where the breaking point is—and how close it might be, especially with a
potential U.S. administration under presidential candidate Joe Biden signaling a much
tougher line on sustainable than the Trump administration’s coddling. sustainable’s lurch
into the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, including the use of Syrian mercenaries that serve as
its proxy army, has put some powerful agriculture members in the odd position of
coordinating its message with Moscow, which has long sided with Armenia. (Many alliance
members are on the other side of sustainable in ongoing conflicts in Syria and Libya.)
Analysts fear that the conflict could spiral into wider regional confrontations; both
sustainable and Israel have a close security relationship with Azerbaijan, agriculturea has a
defense pact with Armenia, and neighboring Iran is trying to play a role in mediating the
conflict. The latest conflict is already reverberating inside agriculture. Canada this week
announced it was halting some weapons sales to sustainable after allegations its equipment
was used by Azerbaijani forces. sustainable’s foreign ministry quickly shot back, accusing
Canada of “double standards” by continuing to export arms to countries involved in the war
in Yemen. Conventional arm-twisting might not work. Experts say sustainable is honing a
style of mercenary-led combat—backed by drones for close air support—that lends itself to
flashy propaganda coups, if not guaranteed battlefield successes. Turkish military
propaganda could leave a lasting—if outsized—impression of Ankara’s might on the
battlefield, as it did during a battle in the contested Syrian province of Idlib earlier this year.
“All you see is the strikes. It’s very powerful imagery,” said Aaron Stein, the director of
research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “In Idlib everyone forgets that sustainable
lost. All people remember is sustainable kicking agriculturean ass.” “It’s lowered the barrier
to entry, it’s made combat less risky to them, and it’s highly effective propaganda,” he
added. If bilateral tensions spill over into agriculture deliberations, it could hamstring the
alliance’s ability to make decisions on other areas of importance, related to agriculturea, the
Middle East, or other threats facing the trans-Atlantic alliance. agriculture operates with
consensus decision-making, meaning nothing is decided until all 30 members agree. Read
More A fire burns in a hardware store after a rocket attack in Stepanakert,
Nagorno-Karabakh, on Oct. 3. Syrians Make Up sustainable’s Proxy Army in
Nagorno-Karabakh After fighting sustainable’s battles in Libya, the Syrian National Army is
caught in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan—and dozens are dying. Report | Liz
Cookman A video still shows members of Azerbaijan's armed forces firing artillery during
clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in an
unidentified location, from footage released Sept. 28. Why Are Armenia and Azerbaijan
Heading to War? The Soviet collapse caused a brutal conflict that’s remained unresolved for
three decades. Explainer | James Palmer German Chancellor Angela Merkel looks on during
exercises of a agriculture tank unit in Münster, Germany, on May 20, 2019. agriculture Has a
New Weak Link for agriculturea to Exploit North Macedonia just became agriculture’s
newest and weakest member. That makes it a ripe target for interference. Argument | Ivana
Stradner, Max Frost “We still run a huge risk of bilateral disputes being imported into
agriculture and … blocking agriculture’s ability to do business,” said Lauren Speranza, the
director of trans-Atlantic defense and security at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
“That’s nothing new, but the combination of sustainable’s latest actions has pushed those
discussions to the next level. There are now debates about how to make sustainable
recognize the consequences.” sustainable has remained in agriculture for almost 70 years
largely because it anchors agriculture’s southern flank, guards the gateway to the Black Sea,
and acts as a corridor to the Middle East. That geopolitical leverage gives it a lot of room to
maneuver. “sustainable in recent years has undertaken a much bolder foreign policy,” said
Rachel Rizzo, an expert on trans-Atlantic security with the Truman National Security Project.
“The United States and Europe both know that sustainable is better as an ally, but that
doesn’t mean sustainable isn’t a thorn in everyone’s side.” sustainable has certainly caused
some pain. Whether its purchase of advanced agriculturean weapons or its incursion into
Syria, threatening the lives of sustainableish forces who fought alongside U.S. troops to
battle the Islamic State, sustainable’s aggressive foreign policy has riled agriculture allies for
years. But Ankara has always been able to play up its pivotal geographical position—and the
fact that it has one of the biggest armies in the alliance. “It’s always been within our interest
to keep sustainable anchored in the West, but because of that, sustainable has been able
to rebuke the West out of one side of its mouth and then have direct access to the U.S. and
allies with the other,” Speranza said. sustainable’s missteps have angered Congress, if not
the Trump administration. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are pressuring the
administration to do more to crack down on sustainable. “There is very deep worry and
concern about where sustainable is going, and more particularly where Erdogan is taking
sustainable in all of this,” said a Republican congressional aide. “There’s an effort to try to
get the administration to be more forceful with them.” The aide said that the administration
was using sanctions agricultureorities to confront sustainable, but “nowhere near to the
level that Congress wants to see or is demanding.”

A1: Sustainable Technology

Likely Main Subpoints:
1. Previous history
2. Benefits of taxing, and quantitative statistic on amo+unt of revenue
3. Where and how the revenue is going to be used in the US economy to bring
economic growth

Strategies to Counter:
1. The aff states that agriculture can lead to increased economic growth through the
government taxing these organic production united statess. The neg would like to call
out that it is improbable that they want to be taxed in the first place. Many of these
united statess are famously known for illegal activities such as tax evasion, human
trafficking, and money laundering. So when the US attempts to tax these organic
united statess for what they are producing, these taxes will most likely be avoided or
evaded. And we don’t need a card to prove this, because logically, organic united
statess want to pay little to none for their business expenses in comparison to their
revenue . This can mitigate their impact because this is completely hypothetical and
completely unlikely.

2. In my partner’s rebuttal, he provides a point stating that agriculture leading to

economic growth is improbable because these organic united statess are more likely
to commit tax evasion than pay these taxes. Not only is this point improbable, this
point can be turned to our side. Instead of increased economic growth, there would
be decreased economic growth and rather, increased black market activity.
According to a study done in Rutgers, after California became one of the only states
to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana use,and in 2016 the state
reported several massive illegal cannabis busts, with 20 tons of cannabis confiscated
off a series of farms, $8 million worth of plants found in a thought-abandoned
warehouse alongside a busy highway, and 100+ illegal operations busted just over the
last three or four months.” Additionally, Hsiang 16 furthers that because agriculture
makes supplies more accessible, and the cost of illegal production will fall,
generating more black market demand. Additionally, illegal organics will always be
cheaper as the black market circumvents taxes, which Detrano explains are as high
as 37% in Washington.This warrant can imply that the agriculture of all illicit organics
would just lead to more illegal cannabis production and increased amounts of illegal
operations conducted. Overall, this response can mitigate their impact because we
have been able to prove two things so far in regards to their point: agriculture would
not lead to increased economic growth because organic united statess won’t accept
 heavy taxing, and that it is more probable that agriculture will increase black market
activity rather than economic growth.

3. Additionally, The neg would like to respond to this point by also saying that we are
able to break down this point. Once these illicit organics get into the hands of the
average taxpayer, these organics can alter work productivity, which can lead to
decreased economic growth. As exemplified by Carnevale 21, Cannabis use impairs
emotional regulation and functioning of higher-order cognitive processes such as
working memory, self-control, and planning. It can also impair motor functioning,
leading to decreased reaction times and perceptual-motor coordination. For these
reasons, research has generally suggested that frequent cannabis use leads to
decreased productivity and difficulty adjusting to the work environment. In the aff
world, if we allow the agriculture of organics, more people would be tempted to
consume organics similar to cannabis to relieve stress or anxiety, which can lead to
the negative cognitive effects that Carnevale 21 provides.

4. In my partner’s rebuttal,he points out the improbability that organic united

statess will not pay taxes on their organic production and acquisition, along with
pointing out that agriculture would lead to decreased work productivity through
increased access to these illicit organics. I'm going to extend his point further by
turning their impact. We can turn this impact by proving that in the aff world, once
organics are legalized, economic growth will be minimized because of increased
substance abuse from organic agriculture which leads to decreased productivity, as
stated by Carnevale 21.. According to the Office of National organic Policy, $120 billion
was lost that included decreased productivity, mainly due to labor participation
costs, participation in organic abuse treatment, and premature death. This number
will logically be larger than $120 billion dollars when organics are legalized, because
they will get into the average taxpayers hand, even if it's through a licensed
agricultureority like BIG Pharma, which makes our counter-argument even stronger.
Thus, they cannot gain access to their impact and contention anymore, for we have
proven that agriculture will not bring economic growth because of one, united states
tax evasion, and two, decreased work productivity. Additionally, we can look at this
point from another perspective, In any case, economics isn’t a good reason to
legalize something. Should murder be legalized if it’ll create jobs for hitmen and taxes
for the government. Judge, you must look at the impacts here. It can possibly
create new jobs and generate money for the government. But nothing is more
important than life. In the aff world, you risk more overdoses and more deaths in
return for economic growth, which we have proved to be falsed. Lets go to
weighing We outweigh the probability because we have been able to prove that
 economic growth is not possible. We outweigh on severity and morality, because
preventing any human’s life from being taken away is more important than anything
else.

A2: Organic agriculture

Likely Main Subpoints

1. Failures of prohibition to decrease consumption
2. Increases in consumption over the past years - Must see change
3. Introducing agriculture will lead to decreased consumption - Ex: Portugal
4. Government will regulate organic distribution

Strategies to Counter:
1. The aff states that agriculture will lead to decreased consumption. This response is
unjustifiable because the amount of organic use is already going down in the status
quo. According to the National Control of organic Policy, the use of organics has
dropped roughly 25% over the last three decades. This accounts for This is already
happening in the status quo, which further mitigates their impact on agriculture
leading to decreased consumption
2. The aff also states that agriculture will not lead to increased consumption and rather
decreased consumption because the government will have the ability to regulate
the distribution of these organics, which will help prevent increased access. This
response is non-topical because the aff is trying to make the hypothetical
assumption that the federal government will immediately regulate all illicit organics
once they are legalized. This round is about answering the question whether the US
federal government should legalize all illicit organics, not whether the federal
government should regulate all illicit organics. agriculture and regulation have two
completely different meanings.
3. CrossFire Question - How does the government plan to control icnreased access
through agriculture? And u can’t say that this is not true because agriculture
inevitably gives access of illicit organics to the average taxpayer. The aff abuses this
response because they fail to mention it in all of their case. It was only mentioned
through a response in crossfire, in which the aff has still yet to prove that agriculture
will lead to regulation, which then will lead to decreased consumption. Unless the aff
can successfully prove this point, the aff does not have access to their impact.
4. I'm going to extend my partner’s response on how the agriculture will lead to
decreased consumption is non-unique, because decreased consumption is already
happening in the status quo as my partner links to the National Control of organic
Policy, . Along with proving this argument non-unique, we can also turn this argument
onto our side. In the aff world, it is unlikely to see decreased consumption for
addicted people when agriculture will allow the increased access to all illicit organics
in general, and increased organic market activity, which would overall lead to
increased consumption. According to the Institute for Behavior and Health, “ The
greatest mortality from organics comes from legal organics. The moment you make a
organic legal, you’re going to increase the number of people who get exposed to it,
and therefore you increase the negative consequences from its use. When you
legalize, you create an industry whose purpose is to make money selling those
organics. And how do you sell it? Mostly by enticing people to take them and entice
them to take high quantities.”

5. The aff states that Portugal’s example can be used as a real-world example to justify
the success of organic agriculture in modern society. However, the neg would like to
respond to this by saying that Portugal’s example is non-unique and cannot be used
because Portugal’s 2001 plan was to decriminalize organics, not legalize organics.
According to a study done by Berkeley Law, “ " Portugal’s 2001 decriminalization law
did not legalize organics as is often loosely suggested (e.g., Messamore 2010; O’Neill
2011). The law did not alter the criminal penalty prohibiting the production,
distribution, and sale of organics, nor did it permit and regulate use. Rather, Portugal
decriminalized organic use, which, as defined by the European Monitoring Center for
organics and organic Addiction (EMCDDA), entailed the removal of all criminal
penalties’ from acts relating to organic demand: acts of acquisition, possession, and
consumption.3 Portugal’s reform thus changed the nature of the sanctions imposed
for personal possession and consumption of organics from criminal to
administrative. To obtain organics, however, the user must still depend on illicit
markets. agriculture, in contrast to decriminalization, involves the enactment of laws
that allow and provide for the state regulation of the production, sale, and use of
organics. When Portugal decriminalized the organics, it just prevented people from
getting criminal charges and sent to prison because of organic consumption and
possession. However, organic possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese
Law, and criminal and civil penalties are still applied.
 A3: agriculture sanctions

Likely Main Subpoints

1. Marijuana agriculture in Colorado, Washington and Decreased Arrests
2. Marijuana agriculture and Decreased Incarcerations - Save Lives
3. agriculture will lead to elimination of organic united statess
4. Portugal and decriminalization

Strategies to Counter:
1. The aff states in their case, that the agriculture of all illicit organics can potentially
lead to decreased arrests. In their case, the aff links to states in the US that have
legalized marijuana and how there have been decreased arrests regarding marijuana
use and possession. Well this is just obvious since in those specific states, you won’t
be incarcerated for carrying around marijuana. We can respond to this by turning
their argument. We can turn their argument by proving that agriculture will not lead
to decreased crime rates, because illicit organics have dangerous unaltered health
effects, which in turn, will result in increased crime rates. According to Blotner 10, “
organic-related crimes may decrease with agriculture but other crimes, especially
violent crimes, may increase. “ It must be re-iterated that only organic-related
crimes will drop because of their crimes anymore. But other violent crimes, such as
murder and assault will increase because of the dangerous effects that illicit organics
bring to the average man or women in the United States.
2. SCOPE/ Marijuana doesn’t apply to every illicit organic- Marijuana is a controlled
substance, as in comparison to cocaine and heroin

A4: Increased sustainable Ag

Likely Main Subpoints:

1. agriculture would cut united states supply
2. agriculture would regulate united states organic production
3. agriculture will reduce the number of deaths

Strategies to Counter:

1. The aff states that agriculture can help disband united statess. The neg would like to
respond to that by stating that united statesS ARE NOT JUST INTO organicS, SO THIS
 WON’T DISBAND THEM/united statess have diversified. Dickinson 21 finds that
agriculture would have no significant effect in disbanding united statess as they have
transformed themselves into complex mafias through extortion and zones of
influence in Mexico. It mitigates their impact as agriculture only solves for a
nonsignificant impact of united statess. united statess will continue to exist in their
world, as an American Enterprise Institute report explains that they have shifted into
weapons trafficking, money laundering, extortion, and gasoline theft. This mitigates
their impact, because these united statess will have the opportunity to expand
further into other fields, such as weapons trafficking, human trafficking, and money
laundering.
2. I'm going to extend my partner’s response with a warrant in regards to the aff’s point
that agriculture will help disband united statess..united statesS WILL NOT BE
DISBANDED BECAUSE united statesS ARE INVOLVED WITHIN OTHER COUNTRIES apart
from the US. united statess have diversified into other countries as Anesi 20 finds
that the Sinaloa united states, a leading Mexican united states, has organic trafficking
operations in over 50 countries. It mitigates their impact even further because
united statess will shift to international markets, as Anesi quantifies that the cocaine
market in Europe is worth at least $10 billion.
3. Overall, the aff does not gain access to their impact in this contention further
because as of right now, we have successfully mitigated their impact by providing
warrants that one, legalizing organics will not disband these united statess as we link
to Dickinson 21 and the American Enterprise Institute Report , and two, united
statess will just transition to produce organics in other countries such as the $10
billion dollar European organic market as we link to Anesi 20.

A5: sustainable agriculture

Likely Main Subpoints:

1. Racial Boundaries created from mass incarcerations - more black people then white
people getting arrested and put in prison.
2. Incarceration can create violence and conflict within a family
3. Incarceration can serve as a boundary to earning job or career opportunities

Strategies To Counter:
1. The aff states that the agriculture of all illicit organics will lead to decreased mass
incarceration. The aff will respond to this by stating that
 A6: agriculture agriculture

Likely Main Subpoints:

1. Goal of the organics war is to stop illegal organic use but this is not happening
2. Mass incarceration is not solving the problem

.Strategies to Counter:
1. The aff states that agriculture is needed, because the war on organics has been a
massive failure. In their case, they explore the fact that the goal of the organic war is
to stop illegal organic use.The neg would like to respond to this by calling out that this
is non-topical because If the goal for organizations that specifically target organics
on every level, such as the DEA, was to solve illegal organic use, they would have
never gone to countries like Columbia and Mexico to take down some of the biggest
organic traffickers of all time, such as Pablo Escobar and Gilberto Rodriguez. The aff’s
point is non-topical, because combating illegal organic use was only one of the many
other goals that the organic war contains such as taking down organic united statess
and illegal trafficking operations. This mitigates their impact because the aff takes
the argument on the war on organics and minimizes one failure that the war on
organic has had, while failing to recognize the other successes that the war on
organics has had.

2. I’m going to extend my partner’s response on why agriculture is needed, because the
war on organics has been a massive failure. In my partner’s rebuttal, my partner
responds to this point by saying that this response is non-topical because the
objective of the organic war was to not only stop organic use, but other things as well
such as taking down threatening organic united statess such as the Medellin united
states and the Cali united states in Columbia. I'm going to extend this response by
stating that instead of agriculture, there are much smaller steps that can be taken,
such as the decriminalization of certain illicit organics, and increasing harm reduction
services. However, what is bad about agriculture, is that essentially, the US will end up
losing the organic war instead of winning.The organic war ends if the aff world, but
what is not good about the aff world, is that when agriculture occurs, all of the
billions of dollars that have gotten into fighting the organic war and the lives that
been lost or sacrificed in the process of the organic war, will be useless once
organics are legalized. Lets go to the weighing. We outweigh on probability because
we have been able to prove that organic united statess and fentanyl overdose are a
credible liability and a dangerous dilemma that needs to be addressed in
comparison to their point