1AR – Case

Adv 1
 Warrants
Scenario Extensions –
Arctic War – Russia uses hypersonic missiles to control the arctic – that erupts
into WW3 – 3 warrants why Russia invades the arctic and it escalates
a. Conventional Use – hypersonics upgrade the outdated Russian navy and
air force giving them access to HGVs and missiles that embolden the
potential for conventional warfare that’s Weitz
b. Nuclear Deterrence – Russia having hypersonics means they have an
edge on nuclear deterrence giving them a viable first strike capability US
only has 6 minutes to respond- also a reason for escalation – that’s
Lakhan and Klare
c. Ideological – Russia is status seeking in a world where they were severely
weakened after the cold war – the Arctic gives them access to natural
resources and oil they perceive as key to undermining the LIO that’s
Narozhna
Chinese Aggression – China having the upper hand on the hypersonic front
causes destabilization of the ECS and war 2 internal links
a. Taiwan – Hypersonics embolden China to invade Taiwan within the next
5 years they view it as part of their nation – that escalates because the
US has informal obligations and strategic interest to defend that’s
Shinkman and Klare
b. ECS – China will use hypersonics as a deterrence to secure disputed
islands in the ECS to advance strategic interest that’s Lakhan that
destabilizes the ECS and triggers Japanese hypersonic prolif that leads to
nuke war that’s Richardson
Japanese Prolif – Kazianis China will use hypersonics as a deterrent to claiming
islands in the ECS causes Japanese prolif 3 warrants for escalation
1. Accidents – rapid proliferation can trigger nuclear accidents that are
mistaken for first strikes
2. Miscalc – instability in island regions of the ECS open the prospect for
miscalculation
3. Goes hypersonic – hypersonics uniquely make our impact worse because
of limited response times and inability to perceive as conventional or
nuclear.
 AT No Arctic War
Arctic war escalates and goes nuclear – Klare
Russian interest – oil, gas, shipping lanes, fishing – key to survivability
Hypersonic use – Putin will use hypersonics to claim territory
Aggressive US militarization – pursuing policy that will result in nuclear war
 AT No Taiwan War
Taiwan war escalates and goes hypersonic – Klare
Deadline day – China will invade by 2027 – invasion risk high
Hypersonics – embolden China even more – no defense assumes that
Territorial – China view Taiwan as their property – want to reclaim it
AT No China-Japan War
AT No East Asian Prolif
AT No Hypersonic Escalation
Adv 2
 OV
Hypersonic missiles uniquely make fast ASATs used to disrupt US satellites to
disrupt communications and military readiness. Only space deterrence and
arms control that the aff spurs can prevent extinction:
Space Debris – one destroyed satellite means debris gets stuck in orbit causing
Kessler Syndrome in the LEO – makes it impossible to launch satellites which
are key to all modern operations without satellites it causes extinction through
collapse of internet, starvation and war that’s Sturza & Carretero
Space War – debris causes accidental miscalc since nations might detect debris
as an ASAT– leads to accidental nuclear conflict that’s Cummings
AT No Space Debris
AT No Space War
AT No Space Col
AT Debris Inevitable
AT No Debris Cascade
Solvency
AT Laptop
AT Deterrence Fails
AT No Arms Control
AT Say No
AT Offense
AT NATO Bad
AT Hypersonics Bad
AT Arms Racing Turn
AT China War Good
AT Russia War Good
AT Space Col Bad
AT Spark
1AR – T
1AR – T – Security Cooperation
 1AR – Security Cooperation – Framing
3 Reasons reasonability is good
1. Prevents Judge intervention – just have to decide whether or not they
had reasonable ground
2. They had Reasonable Ground – our aff is a walking link to everything –
they could have read anything
3. Potential Abuse isn’t a voter – don’t punish us for hypothetical abuse
make them point to in round abuse
Competing Interps bad –
a. Decide which interp is better based on arbitrary standards
b. Crowds out substance - just because you won your model is better
doesn’t mean its good – just means you did good debating
 1AR – Security Cooperation – Standard You’ll Win
Aff ground – AFF innovation and ground is key to creating a diverse set of
arguments only our interp causes clash for – deterrence vs. prolif, NATO good
vs. Bad debates their interp literally excludes every aff because every aff is info
sharing and capacity building
 1AR – Security Cooperation – W/M
We meet – our plan text includes security cooperation and engages in it – we
meet their interp in a vacuum
 1AR – Security Cooperation – C/I
XT Scott – security cooperation is transfer of defense articles and capacity
building and data sharing – only our interp is legally precise and in the context
of the DOD – NATO’s Article IV is all about info sharing and capacity building
post security cooperation
 1AR – Security Cooperation – AT Neg Interp
Indict Interp
 1AR – Security Cooperation – AT Neg Standards
Predictable limits are bad – overlimits the topic – predictability is arbitrary and
fake – even if its good, we have a better interp based in DoD lit and gives them
generic links to DA and Ks
 1AR – Security Cooperation – More Aff Standards
Precision – our interp gives specific mechanisms for aff areas – means we give
better aff and neg ground
Other words check – the topic isn’t as infinite as they say – we can’t read
whatever we want
1AR – T – AI
1AR – T – NATO
1AR – T – Increase
1AR – CP
1AR – CP – Condo
 1AR – Condo – Overview
Dispo is best – they get rid of straight turns – two impacts
[1] Research – affs never do in depth research on why alternatives are bad
[2] Strat skew – they can double turn at no cost and cross apply offense
Education outweighs fairness because it’s the only reason we do debate and
two broad layers of defense on their standards
[1] Pre-round condo – you can think of your strats before round
[2] Other rounds solve their impacts but not ours
 1AR – Condo – A2: 2NR checks
2nr doesn’t check – skew was in the 2AC– 2nr is too late to straight turn
because they have already kicked out of counterplans.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Best Policy Option
Finding the best policy option is dependent on testing the Aff with the best
versions of arguments – something condo dis-incentivizes.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Breath over Depth
Depth increases research and more nuanced debates AND we solve breadth–
straight turns encourage good breadth because they ensure sufficient prep on
all positions.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Concede Reasonability
Doesn’t get them anywhere – theoretical reasonability is distinct from topicality
 1AR – Condo – A2: Dispo is Arbitrary
Dispo is theory and offense and CX checks AND theory is inevitably going to be
arbitrary – comparing models is supreme.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Hard Debate is Good
Straight turns solve hard debate this because we make debate harder for the
neg which is good – and forces in-depth debates.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Info Processing/Critical Thinking
Pre-round prep solves ______ and Condo can’t solve because 2ACs don’t make
good decisions because of the ability to kick out and cross apply -- AND
encourages random proliferation of arguments.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Strategic AFF Turns
AFF Turns – that’s good – a. increases strategic thinking and b. makes sure that
the neg is always prepared to go for positions
 1AR – Condo – A2: Logic
Logic is just a buzzword – its more logical to have dispo.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Reciprocity
Reciprocity makes no sense because we can’t kick out of offense.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Infinite perms
Perms are not advocacies AND aren’t offense – only check uncompetitive
options.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Neg Flex
Dispo solves neg flex allows multiple positions but while checking against
impossibilities AND neg gets the block and process CPs – topic is neg biased.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Real World
Debate isn’t real world cause time limits, rather the portable skills are key
which they crowd out.
(IF YOU HAVE TIME) Proven how you can’t move to suspend rules and lengthen
the debate in order to discuss contradictory amendments the way you can in
the House.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Reasonability
Reasonability encourages judge intervention – prompts arbitrary decision. C/Is
solve reasonability and you aren’t reasonable anyways.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Risk Aversion
Risk Aversion doesn’t matter when Neg teams will still read these CPs inevitably
but dispo allows the aff lock them into a different position.
 1AR – Condo – A2: Sandbagging
This is not intrinsic to condo – 2ACs can always read add-ons and you can still
read CPs out of this in the 2NC
 1AR – Condo – A2: Skew inevitable
Skew is not inevitable – it’s linear – Condo 2AC makes it impossible.
1AR – CP – Toolbox
A2 Process CPs Generic
1AR – CP – Adv
 1AR – Hotlines
Perm do both – means doing the aff and establishing hotlines – simultaneous
enact shields the link and prevents their impacts

Can’t solve the aff – why would countries ever agree to start a hotline. A risk of
a solvency deficit means you default aff.
A---Russia---only deterrence solves Russian aggression – hotlines can’t contain
expansion, but NATO can – that’s Grady
B---China---US presence prevents conflict – only a deterrence posture can
discourage escalation – that’s Shinkman and Rapp-hooper
C---Space---Hotlines can’t work in space – only arms control through deterrence
measures spurs change

Hotlines fail or worsen conflict

Previous president’s attempts to establish hotlines fail because nobody wants
them – they never answer their phone and internal disputes prevent conflict
resolution – that’s Pape
AND they worsen conflict – they prevent real conflict resolution mechanisms
and countries feel emboldened by them – they view it as a cure-all which leads
to escalation – that’s Faure

Links to the net benefit – even if they want hotlines, they view them the same
as the aff
1AR – CP – Bilateral
 1AR – Bilat – Generic
Perm do both – the offer of cooperation and the plan shields the net benefit –
their cards don’t assume simultaneous enactment

Can’t solve the aff – a NATO deterrence posture is key to solve – that’s Weitz. A
risk of a solvency deficit means you default aff
A---Arctic---Bilat cooperation can’t maintain a sphere of influence – only NATO
development solves – that’s Grady
B---China---NATO deterrence posture is key to maintain influence against China
– they have expansionist intent – proven by military activities – that’s Shinkman
and Rapp-hooper
C---ASATs---Bilateral cooperation can’t set norms in space – only international
action can send a signal to spur arms control – that’s Cummings

NATO norm setting and development is key – bilateral cooperation can’t make
hypersonics – money alone doesn’t make up for NATO’s cooperation mandates
– that’s Capaccio – allies would never agree to pour in billions of dollars to no
avail.
Bilateral coop specfically forfeits norm setting powers – they have no leverage
for development – that’s Arts

Links to net benefit – no difference between 2 and 30 countries cooperating to

other’s perception
1AR – CP – Burden Sharing QPQ
1AR – CP – Democracy QPQ
 1AR – QPQ – Generic
Perm do the aff and refuse to give hypersonics if allies don’t cooperate – that
solves the net benefit through pressurizing individual states to conform to
democratic reforms – it cooperates over the development of hypersonics, but
doesn’t ensure a country receiving it. Solves the timeframe DA because the aff
happens immediately and shields the internal

Timeframe is a huge deficit – making countries upend their entire democratic

system would take forever – by that time, Russia and China have already
started nuclear war – we need the aff now, which why the perm is key

Countries say no – why would Turkey, Hungary, and Poland agree to completely
change their democratic systems just because the US wants them to – Turkey
has repeatedly proven themselves as the odd one out who is Russia’s buddy,
Orban is Putin’s puppet and will do whatever Russia wants – they showed it in
the UN meeting, and Poland is just authoritarian – their leader wouldn’t
sacrifice his pedestal for no reason. One leader saying no takes out the whole
counterplan

Even if they win these countries say yes, these countries would have to be
monitored more, which decks the net benefit. Enforcement itself damages US
credibility, but when certain countries play the spoiler, the US is forced to
unequally surveil them – that loses them influence – that’s Barone

Even if they are somehow winning all of the above claims, the LIO is resilient –
just a few countries being undemocratic isn’t going to deck the LIO – its been
fine despite this for the last 20 years. Even if they win these countries are key,
there are so many alt causes – Russia, China, democratic backsliding, etc.
There’s 0 risk of the net benefit
1AR – CP – DoS
 1AR – DoS – Generic
Extend a perm

They have 0 solvency – the aff is not possible through diplomacy – there is no
coherent explanation as to how making hypersonic missiles is possible
diplomatically

Can’t solve the aff. A risk of a solvency deficit means you vote aff.
A---Arctic---Only offensive deterrence can maintain spheres of influence within
the Arctic – diplomacy can’t replace posturing – that’s Grady
B---China---only deterrence with allies can signal the US isn’t taking a backseat
in defending Asia – that’s Shinkman and Rapp-hooper

The DoS is a bunch of idiots – 3 reasons

A. Structural crisis – the DoS has faced challenged with policy for decades –
Congress hasn’t given them any authority and challenges are cemented –
that’s Zeya
B. Delays – getting funding takes a lot of time away – they need to
massively expand it, which will take forever – that’s bergmann
C. Confusion – the confusion of who has authority generates lots of
questions, which prevents actual action – that’s Young

Links to the net benefit – involving the DoS means involving the DoD and DSCA
– that means the CP links to tradeoff – that’s Young
1AR – CP – EU
 1AR – EU – Generic
Extend a perm

Can’t solve the aff – the EU is not a military organization and cannot get
hypersonic weapons – prevents solvency
A---Arctic – only the US and NATO can maintain spheres of influence that can
deter Russia – that’s Grady
B---China – they can’t solve deterrence postures near Chinese seas – only the
US-NATO development can send a signal to China – A US abdication triggers our
impacts - that’s Shinkman and Rapp-Hooper
C---ASATs – US deterrence posture in space is the only thing that prevents
attacks and can spur arms control – that’s Cummings – the EU fails

The EU fails – there’s 4 reasons

1. Decentralization – the EU can’t get anything done because they are so
dependent on the US – this has caused slow adoption of policies – that’s
Lawrence
2. No bitches money – the EU has zero funding and rely on the US to do
anything (pretty ironic) – the US has 4x the budget for just its military
3. No leadership – the EU is weak due to inflation and a lack of leadership –
the Eurozone is in crisis and the EU needs to focus on that – focusing on
hypersonics turns their net benefit
4. Empirics – Britain and France have both been independently researching
hypersonics and failing – there’s no other relevant country in the EU that
could help in development – that’s Weitz

Links to the net benefit – the EU is literally every country in NATO – every policy
is still essentially the same countries
 Artificial CPs Bad
EU CP is artificially competitive – EU-NATO coop functionally results in the aff
since every country involved with the CP is involved with the plan
unless their net benefit it specific to a country who’s in the EU but not NATO-
bad for 2 reasons
1. Infinitely Regressive –
2. Dooms the aff since they get 100% solvency and the aff can’t generate
any offense
1AR – CP – EU Cooperation
 Perm – Do Both
Extend a perm

Can’t solve the aff – the EU is not a military organization and cannot get
hypersonic weapons – prevents solvency
A---Arctic – only the US and NATO can maintain spheres of influence that can
deter Russia – that’s Grady
B---China – they can’t solve deterrence postures near Chinese seas – only the
US-NATO development can send a signal to China – A US abdication triggers our
impacts - that’s Shinkman and Rapp-Hooper
C---ASATs – US deterrence posture in space is the only thing that prevents
attacks and can spur arms control – that’s Cummings – the EU fails
Extend Akturan 18 – EU NATO cooperation fails – 2 warrants
A. Tech Impracticalities – Currently EU states lack the technology related to
cybersecurity to solve the impacts – there is not any dialogue between
EU countries, and they have executive difficulties with NATO
B. Ideological divergence – The EU and NATO have been critical of each
other’s strategy due to their differing political interests – this would need
to be reconciled before military sharing
EU fails
1. No leadership – the EU is weak due to inflation and a lack of leadership –
the Eurozone is in crisis and the EU needs to focus on that – focusing on
hypersonics turns their net benefit
2. Empirics – Britain and France have both been independently researching
hypersonics and failing – there’s no other relevant country in the EU that
could help in development – that’s Weitz

Links to the net benefit – the EU is literally every country in NATO – every policy
is still essentially the same countries
1AR – CP – Fund the DOD
1AR – CP – Grand Bargain
 1AR – Grand Bargain – Russia
Extend a perm

Can’t solve the aff – only fielding hypersonic missiles can force Russia to
negotiate over arms – that’s Davis – concessions in the squo are impossible
A---Arctic---deterrence in the Arctic is only possible post aff – NATO needs to
have influence in the Arctic – hypersonics solve – that’s Grady
B---China---invasion of Taiwan and ECS islands are only prevented through
deterrence – they can’t solve Chinese deterrence
C---Space---Russia won’t compromise on ASATs without the aff – we need
hypersonics to solves – that’s Cummings

Russia says no – they wouldn’t want to increase arms control because they
want to show their power – even if they do agree, they cheat without any
deterrence measures – they wouldn’t follow any norms and use it to regroup in
Ukraine

Extend Goldgeier 21 – US-Russian relation are impossible – there’s multiple

factors
A. Politically – Russia and the US both have different political beliefs –
proven by the Cold War – cooperation is impossible
B. Power – both sides believe that cooperation undermines their power and
always want to do things that will hurt the other
C. Conflict – both powers believe they must be in conflict – cooperation is
impossible
1AR – CP – Mutual Restraint
1AR – CP – OSCE
1AR – CP – Poland
1AR – CP – States
1AR – CP – Supreme Court
1AR – CP – Turkey PIC
1AR – CP – UN
 1AR – UN – Generic
Extend a perm

Can’t solve the aff – the UN has ZERO military power – they can’t make
hypersonic weapons
A---Arctic---Only a NATO posture can maintain spheres of influence within the
Arctic – nobody else has the influence – that’s Grady
B---China---only NATO deterrence with allies can signal the US isn’t taking a
backseat in defending Asia – that’s Shinkman and Rapp-hooper
C---ASATs---NATO development signals space deterrence and prevents launches
and attacks necessary for arms control – that’s Cummings

NATO is key and the UN sucks – NATO is the only actor that has the relevant
military power and structures to jointly cooperate to do the aff – the UN
doesn’t have these systems. Plus they suck – they have too many political fights
and can’t interoperate AI – that takes out all of solvency for the aff – that’s
Fournier-Tombs. Even if they can, Russia and China spoil the party – they don’t
like anything the US does.

Links to the net benefit – the CP cooperates with every country in the world –
have does that NOT link to the net benefit and the aff does – there’s only a risk
1AR – CP – Unilateralism
 1AR – Unilat – Generic
Can’t solve the aff
A---Arctic---Only a NATO posture can maintain spheres of influence within the
Arctic – US influence alone fails – that’s Grady
B---China---only NATO deterrence with allies can signal the US isn’t taking a
backseat in defending Asia – that’s Shinkman and Rapp-hooper
C---ASATs---NATO development signals space deterrence and spurs arms
control – US alone doesn’t have the power that’s Cummings
1AR – CP – UQ
1AR – CP – Withdraw
1AR – DA
1AR – DA – China Good
1AR – DA – Diplo-cap
 Non-UQ
Ongoing discussions

Diplomatic capital being expended elsewhere – terminally non-uniques the DA

– not expending any diplo-cap because it gets integrated with ongoing NATO
discussions – capital is already spent and priced in
1AR – DA – DoD Overstretch
1AR – DA – DoD Tradeoff
1AR – DA – DSCA Tradeoff
1AR – DA – Innovation
1AR – DA – I Law
1AR – DA – Midterms
 UQ Overwhelms Link
Dems
Republicans Bad
1AR – DA – NATO Cohesion
1AR – DA – NATO Tradeoff
1AR – DA – Nuclear Credibility
1AR – DA – Oversight
1AR – DA – Politics
1AR – DA – Primacy
1AR – DA – Russia
1AR – DA – Turkey Appeasement
 1AR – AT Syria War
No Turkish invasion of Syria – weak military, no NATO backing, and Turkey’s
economic stability
Cagapty 13 [Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and the author of
The New Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey. “Why Turkey Won’t Attack Syria”,
The Atlantic, 4-9-2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/why-
turkey-wont-attack-syria/274806/]//PJ

Whether or not these allegations are grounded, one thing is clear: the Turkish military is no longer the most
respected actor in the country. In 2007, before the Ergenekon case, which alleged that there was a hidden coup plot
against the AKP government, polls showed that the Turks trusted the military more than any other institution. Now, Turks trust the
presidency, a position filled by former AKP member Abdullah Gul, who has proven himself as a statesman since assuming office in
2007. Abdullah Gul has actively grown his prestige with his successful use of social media and patronage of civic initiatives.
Meanwhile, the military's luster has faded.

This also stems from the fact that the Turkish army, once feared and respected, has proven to be an empty
shell. Over a quarter of the top brass of the Turkish military have ended up in jail in connection with coup plots, and arrests
continue on a monthly basis. Today, the military is in no position to present itself as an institution to be feared, much less respected.
In other words, the AKP has won, and the military has lost. One reason why the Ankara government is reluctant to send the military
against Assad is that a victory on the battlefield would quickly allow the military to restore its image.

Ironically, the army does not want to fight against Assad either; the Turkish military is silently aware of its own
weaknesses. For many years, Turkey's military doctrine was built on the assumption that Turkey must prepare for conventional war against its
neighbors. Although the military built capacities for overseas deployment following the September 11 attacks and demonstrated impressive ability in
Afghanistan, it is woefully ill equipped to successfully partake in a civil war in Syria. Analysts in Ankara estimate that the best the Turkish army can do
against Assad would be to take control of a 10- to 20- mile wide cordon sanitaire in northern Syria, across the Turkish border. That would hardly be a
resounding victory for the Turkish military.

What's more, withoutsolid NATO backing the Turkish military, though a much more powerful force
than the Syrian military, would not be able to maintain its comparative advantage against the
Assad regime and likely anti-Turkish insurgency led by the regime supporters. Without White House support for a
unilateral Turkish campaign against Assad, even the most hawkish Turkish generals will shy away
from a campaign until they are sure Turkey will not be left to go it alone.

And besides wanting to withhold a possible public relations boost to the military, the AKP has its plenty of reasons to
shy away from outright war. For starters, Turkey is home to a 500,000 thousand strong Alawite community that lives
mostly in the country's southernmost Hatay province. Alawites in Turkey are ethnically related to Syrian
Alawites, many of whom are steadfast in their support to the Assad regime . And many Turkish Alawites
are related to Syrian Alawites through marriage and family ties. So for the Turkish Alawites, what happens in Syria does not stay in
Syria. Recent demonstrations by Turkish Alawites in favor of the Assad regime have fueled these anxieties, further diminishing
Ankara's appetite for war in Syria.

And if the AKP wasn't already skittish about the military option in Syria, the main opposition party, the CHP, has taken a contrarian
stance. Many in the CHP still harbor 1970's style anti-Americanism, opposing U.S. policies and cooperation with the U.S., as well as
any sort of military action on ideological grounds. There is also the fact that the CHP has a large Alevi base. (The Alevis, who
comprise about 15 percent of the Turkish population, are not related to the similar-sounding Alawites.) But both groups take issue
with the AKP's Syria policy. The Alevis are staunchly secular and therefore categorically opposed to the AKP's conservative and
occasionally Islamist flavor. They stand against the AKP policies, and they will be another reason for the CHP to maintain its visceral
opposition to the AKP's Syria policy. The CHP, which has support from about a quarter of the Turkish population, now stands in the
way of a more active Turkish policy against Assad. In a recent example, four CHP deputies visited Assad in Damascus in early March.
In a public relations stunt, the deputies undermined Ankara with claims that the Turkish people "reject intervention in Syria and
want nothing more than neighborly relations" with Assad. To which the Syrian dictator purportedly responded: "I appreciate the
stance of the Turkish people and political parties, who unlike the Turkish government favor stability in Syria." The CHP will oppose
the AKP's Syria policy, even if this means divorcing itself from reality. Last but not least, there is the issue of Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's political goals. Erdogan has won three successive elections, recently breaking the
record for longest-serving Turkish prime minister. Now, he has set his sights on becoming Turkey's next president in the forthcoming
2014 elections.

Throughout his decade in power, his greatest political asset has been Turkey's phenomenal economic
growth, averaging over 5 percent annually. Erdogan wins because Turkey grows, and Turkey is growing
because it is the only stable country among its European and Middle Eastern neighbors. If this
virtuous cycle continues, Erdogan will win the next elections. If, however, Turkey enters a war in
Syria, it could slide into the ranks of the "problem states" in its neighborhood. This would break
Erdogan's recipe for political and economic success by putting in jeopardy the more than $40 billion that comes into the
Istanbul stock market annually, driving the country's growth.
1AR – DA – Turkey Politics
1AR – K
1AR – K – Generic
 1AR – Framework – Epistemology
We meet their interpretation we have defended our epistemology which means
we get to weigh the aff
A---Case---winning a single argument on case proves that we have defended our
worldview – have a very low threshold for voting on this
B---Liberalism---the liberal world order is good – it provides deterrence
measures, economic prosperity, peace, and a decrese in poverty. US liberalism
was the key in ending imperialist actions across the world and ending empires –
winning this means we have won this debate
C---Extinction outweighs---that’s GPP human life is valuable prioritize the
outcome that maximizes human life and future generations
D---Threats are real – Russia and China are both countries seeking to prove their
international leadership through aggressive actions – winning this takes out the
K

Next, interpretation---links must disprove the plan, and you must weigh the
AFF’s impacts.
a) Fairness---it's an intrinsic good in a competition---AND no incentive to
research the K when there’s an untenable research burden – creates
polarization - people forced to the margins and quit
b) Clash---boosts advocacy skills and causes self-reflexivity through research
and improved debating.
c) Decision making--- we can improve our policy skills through deciding – that
outweighs their internal link to research skills since our interp is about policy

Their education is bad – it makes us look at research at how we can utilize it

instead of learning about it – their interp won’t make us learn the K but
debating the aff can glean us policy knowledge about NATO
IF TIME
Their interpretation doesn't solve: dropped both standards
Predictability---the plan is resolutionally grounded, but their interpretation is
NOT.
AFF ground---obviating AFF offense forces the 1AR to restart the debate
defending infinite criticisms.

Debate does NOT shape subjectivity- we are always changing rounds and things
change through every debate- if we lose your decision won’t make us change
our aff but we will weigh it as a technical failure
1AR – K – Antiblackness
1AR – K - Baudrillard
1AR – K – Capitalism
 1AR – Cap Good
Cap is sustainable-even if they win cap unsustainable it doesn’t mean its bad
now- means perm is best
It try or die for tech- warming is irreversible in a few years we can’t wait around
– a transition makes warming inevitable
Don’t buy their generic tech bad ev- hypersonics are inevitable means we
should develop offensive and defense
cap is sustainable - drops in cost of renewables outpricing fossil fuels, efficient
plants, private-public partnerships
solves warming - capitalist countries have lower emissions proven by bolivia vs
US
alt fails causes transition wars - socialists abandon limitation on fossil fuels
proven by soviets
leaders have to cut living standards or pursue environmental goals
that's all smith
innovation solves everything - any inefficiency or fault with existing tech is
solved by profit motive
renewable energy, ai solves zero carbon emissions, synthetic bio cleans up
waste, able to overcome pandemics, prevent supervolcanos, deflect asterids,
and get us off the rock - all heigeartaigh.
Extend kovic- space col is the only way to prevent extinction- nuclear war,
climate change, etc. This means that even if they win cap unsustainable space
col solves their offense. Capitalist innovation is key- it’s the only way to fund
expensive space missions and competition cause more innovation
Solves asteroid deflection – avoids extinction.
Nelson 18 [Peter Lothian Nelson and Walter E. Block, ** Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and
Professor of Economics, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, “Space Capitalism:
How Humans will Colonize Planets, Moons, and Asteroids,” 2018, Springer, pp. 106-108, EA]

What of the danger of a comet impacting with the third planet from the Sun? The movie Armageddon
depicted just that scenario. In it, our heroes saved the Earth, of course. But which occurrence is more likely? That this protection
could be achieved by government, or the private sector of the economy? Most neo-classical economists would choose the former,
due to the so-called public goods “market failure.”28 This is the “free-rider” challenge: each entrepreneur will presumably
wait for someone else to undertake the costs of an action that will benefit all (saving the Earth from the comet in this case) and no
one will actually do it.29 This “let George do it” philosophy presumably creates a “market failure.” But mainstream economists
cannot hide behind this mischievous doctrine, since precisely the same phenomenon will
afflict nations in the present
scenario. In other words, the
United States will wait for China, Russia, Europe, Japan, Israel, to deal
with the comet,30 while that expectation will afflict all the others with inaction . That is, China, Russia,
etc., each country capable of dealing with such an eventuality, will attempt to “free ride” on the efforts
of anyone foolish enough to undertake it. As in the case of Buridan’s Ass (Rothbard 2010) that perished
from a similar inaction, so will the human population.
Such a scenario is unlikely in the extreme. There are all sorts of reasons to expect that the “externality will become internalized.”
That is, that private firms, more likely than the state apparatus, will prove flexible enough to
overcome this impasse. Private railroad companies, not governments, created standard gauge,
so that cargo no longer had to be loaded and unloaded each time it passed onto the property of a
different firm. This benefitted all of them, and yet, somehow,31 they could overcome the tendency
toward inaction. In like manner, the railroad firms also got together32 and created the now-familiar time
zones. Not only did they themselves gain by being better able to coordinate with each other, but
these vast benefits “spilled over” into society as a whole. We cannot rule out of consideration such cooperation
on the part of governments on praxeological grounds,33 but it seems more probable that space companies could
sort out a comet aimed at the Earth than a bunch of statist politicians and bureaucrats.
1AR – K - Cybernetics
1AR – K – Fem IR
1AR – K – Militarism
1AR – K – Postcolonial IR
1AR – K – Psychoanalysis
1AR – K – Queer IR
1AR – K – Security
 FW
We meet their interp—4 justifications for our epistemology
A – Case—don’t vote on case defense means our epistemology is bad—then
any risk of defense on the K also means their epistemology is bad and you vote
aff on presumption
B – Liberalism good—the liberal world order provides viable deterrence to
threats to humanity – states like Russia China and NoKo are real militant
threats that need to be contained – that’s Ikenberry
C – Extinction first— that’s GPP human life is valuable prioritize the outcome
that maximizes human life and future generations
D – Securitization good—refusing all securitizing logic removes security that is
necessary to being – without securitization people lash out even harder that’s
Lupovici