AFF

Cont 1: China
● China wants to join CPTPP
- US navy is weak
- Navy cannot modernize
- Ships are not built to match China
- Air force is also weak
● Offshore balancing
- US have proven through Ukraine OB works
- US and Japan military strength
● China:
- G7 conference warned China against force against Taiwan
- Forces US to return balance
- Allied confidence is low because Israel proliferated
- South Korea can proliferate
- Japan could also proliferate in 6 months
- Multipolar nuclear system
- Impact: extinction through first strike (proliferation leads to nuclear war)
● Labour shortage
- Offshoring solves this
- Immigration law unrelated

AFF is off topical and extra topical. From arguing completely unrelated status quo arguments,
like the U.S. joining the CPTPP somehow helping Ukraine’s efforts against Russia, to fully
extratopical points like suggesting that change could be made if other countries like Israel and
South Korea joined the CPTPP, straying entirely from the burden of the affirmation. The burden
of the affirmation in a policy round is to argue the resolution verbatim to ensure a level playing
field with the negation.
Many aspects of their case, from military strength, to the Israel-Palestine conflict, to nuclear
proliferation, are entirely unrelated to the CPTPP and should be dropped. Furthermore, their
insinuation that we are promoting isolationism or glorifying any one economic system as perfect
is blatantly unfounded and are words being taken out of our mouths.

In short, the entire affirmation case is relies on non topical and extra topical advantages, none of
which should hold any weight in this debate. They are yet to provide a single example through
two speeches of a country that has been positively affected by the CPTPP, all they have done is
cite irrelevant examples of other positive interactions.

On the other hand, our points about the unnecessary proliferation of capitalism, net harm caused
by organizations like the CPTPP, and the social unrest caused by US political inconsistency that
would be exacerbated by joining the CPTPP have gone entirely unrefuted.

WEIGH: magnitude, in a net benefits debate, as I said in my first speech, is decided by

whichever side can prove that they benefit more people to a greater success. While our
opponents don’t even have topical impacts, their claims of magnitude, as extratopical as they are,
still pale next to ours. We prove through our case, specifically our second contention, that joining
the CPTPP will either harm the US or all other actors in the CPTPP, and that negative impact can
be extended to the rest of the world as well.

Once again, our opponents entire case is extra or non topical, focusing on countries that aren’t
affected by the CPTPP, factors that won’t be affected by the CPTPP, and other irrelevant factors.
Furthermore, our entire case except our Kritik was not refuted by the affirmation at all, and thus
our warrants, links, and impacts go through. We benefit, or at least don’t harm, more people to a
greater extent in a net benefits debate, as such, judge, i strongly urge you to vote in favor of AFF