Condo/Perf Con

Im going to start with perf con. Well concede performative contradictions are
bad and a reason to reject the team. An especially important point well be
conceding here is negation theory bad which kills a lot of their offense on
condo. Theyre a performative contradiction their Labban card is generic to
oil politics in general and isnt strictly relating to the US means their CP links
and you vote aff.
Now go to condo:

2AC 3: Aff Conditionality argument group it

1. this argument uniquely sucks up any permutation theory offense they have. As
long as they maintain their counterplan is dispositional, we will win that
severance and intrinsic perms are legitimate


2. This is the only reciprocity in round if they are able to kick parts of their 1NC
advocacy, why cant the affirmative?


3. Infinite prep does not check back abuse they have the affirmative block to
make strategic choices while the aff is stuck with the 2AC


4. perms do not adequately check abuse they can always kick the counterplan
meaning we cant advocate the permutation which unfairly makes advocacy
dependent on theirs

Extend the Voter

1. We are the only ones that have set up an interpretation of debate. Theory
debate is like a T debate in which you evaluate competing interpretations on
whether or not its fair. They have failed to give you an offensive interpretation
to weigh against ours, which means you will always prefer our interpretation


2. Extend the comptetitive equity voter for all of the reasons above, we have
lost our comp. Equity in this round.
LBL:
They said:

Counterinterp: all of our above offense destroys this
Decision making: this makes no sense. Extend 2AC 2 that condo is not remotely real world and
policy makes have to make decisions about a policy they are going to defend.
Aff bias: neg side bias they get the block and the advantage of choosing their 2NR strategy.
2AC strategic thinking: OK come on this argument sucks. Making us think on our feet so they
can win rounds by making it impossible to debate? How about no. Dispo allows true strategic
thinking because we get to make decisions about whether or not to stick them to a CP.
Perms are worse: Cross apply all the args on 2AC three, there is plenty of analysis there.
Other stuff is conditional: Ya this is trueexceptDAs cant solve the aff. Allowing for
conditional counterplans is uniquely bad because they can steal all of our offense. When
combined with the net-benefit, CPs take way more time in the 2AC than any other argument.
Theory bad: LOL under this framework the neg could read whatever they wanted. This justifies
veto cheato and totally unfair things like PICs out of words within 1AC cards. Also, all of the
offense we have proves in round abuse and demands a voter.
Reject arg: LOL again the end of this condo block sucks. You cant reject the argument b/c this
is a condo debate and the damage from your conditional advocacies is already done. Cross-
apply 2AC 4

Case
Solvency
Their arguments here make no sense. They say the ptext talks about something
different than our evidence. This is just not true, we mandate hydrocarbon
development, which is development of oils. That is what all our evidence talks
about.
They also said we cant fiat lifting the embargo. This makes no sense, we dont
need to lift the whole embargo. When policies are enacted by the government,
they subsume old standards. That means we bypass the embargos restrictions
using normal means.

Environment
They concede the entire advantage extend Gibson that Cuba will drill and
they will spill. Extend Machlis that crushes biodiversity. Extend Clark and
Downes as well as Craig that causes extinction.
Relations
Lets start with Taiwan: there is no chance you can vote neg on this offense.
They try to say independence causes war, but extend Fergusson
independence is key to check Chinese aggression and war. Their turn is
uncarded Arsnon just agrees with Fergusson and never gives much of an
opinion, so prefer our scenario. Also, Taiwan will never attack China because
they wouldnt have the support of the US, and even if they do it wouldnt go
nuclear.
No well go to terror:
Treat this Baudrillard card like a DA with a turns case impact. The link stems off
of globalization, not our attempts of preventing terrorism. Two implications:
1. The DA is incredibly non-unique: US imperialism and globalization now
make the impact inevitable and their lack of an alt means this argument
goes away
2. Doesnt disprove our impacts there is nothing in this card that
disproves Hezbollah will strike America. Even if they win we increase
overall terrorism, you still vote aff because we solve the threat of
Hezbollah and they are the only group that is capable of causing
extinction.
Finally, both their Baudrillard cards have a heg bad impact. Extend Brooks,
Ikenberry, and Wolforth from the 1AC hegemony is key to prevent extinction.
US power ensures that countries wont go to war because they know that the
US will be there to keep the peace and prevent conflicts. More importantly, a
loss of US hegemony would trigger a power vacuum that would unleash global
chaos. Countries like China, Russia, and even the EU would start making
aggressive claims throughout the world and all would be vying for a new spot
as the hegemon. Also, reject their turns the US has been in power for
decades and we have yet to see a major power war, let alone a nuclear war.
T
We Meet
Our plan is to engage in joint cooperation with Cuba over hydrocarbon
development. The topical version of the aff is to develop Cubas oil sector.
These two plans are literally the same thing. Because oil is a hydrocarbon,
development of hydrocarbons with Cuba is exactly what the topical version of
the aff demands. Their interpretation demands trade agreements and
promotion. Working with Cuba to develop hydrocarbons is exactly that, and
they are just trying to skew their evidence and make it exclude us, which means
there is no reason to vote neg.
They said the plan is energy engagement:
Thats economic engagement
Bakker, 11 MA in international economics and business studies from Erasmus University Rotterdam (Ruben,
International Trade and Economic Growth:Does is matter with whom you trade?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CF4QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fo
aithesis.eur.nl%2Fir%2Frepub%2Fasset%2F9239%2FBakker%2C%2520R.S.%2520303418%2520id%2520thesis9239.docx
&ei=uVmWUaCDCKapiALn2oDIBA&usg=AFQjCNFpBHkX9InoQIypNHSSe3aQNJSCvQ&sig2=N2-TXWuQAN-mz-S-
X6ZErg&bvm=bv.46751780,d.cGE)
Chinas rising economic engagement is tied to conspicuously strategic goals, centered on access to energy and
other scarce high-value commodities (Gill et al., 2007).
These developments raise the question whether trading with a larger economy influences the economic growth in the
domestic country.
Economic engagement includes energy
Hormatz 2013 Robert D., Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment,
http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/210563.htm
But U.S. economic engagement with the Asia-Pacific region is not limited to traditional trade and investment
issues. It includes energy as well. As part of the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, announced by
President Obama at last years East Asia Summit, the U.S. Government has earmarked up to $6 billion in a line of credit
over four years through the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
This will drive trade and investment in private sector and public-private energy-related projects across the
region.


Cap K
Framework

The majority of their framework arguments assume a policymaking only 2AC
and do not apply. We allow them to run whatever they want- policy or critical,
they just have to link to the plan text.

This is best for debate- the plan is a stable nexus for debate- the 1AC has a
bunch of different representations and doesnt accurately represent our
worldview anyways so holding us accountable for them is ridiculous. Getting
links off all of it kills aff ground and preparedness because they allow for an
infinite number of Ks and allows for constant shifting and vagueness.

The impact to our framework is that they do not get their kritik- even if you
dont reject it, it functions a full link take-out.

They also concede our Gonzalez card discussions of actual policy options are
key to creating real world change their lack of a link based off of our plan text
turns the kritik and makes an actual end to capitalism impossible.

Fiat and roleplaying prevent politicization and the creation of insidious
motives in debate. It is key to testing all manners of political ideas and
training us for real activism
Alan Coverstone, Debate Guru, 1995 (An Inward Glance: Activist Turn
http://www.wfu.edu/Student-
organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm)

Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn.
Individuals trained in the art and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the task of
entering the political world. At some unspecified point in one's training, the same motivation
and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of us. At that point, political
action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate
community will not reach that point together. A political outward turn threatens to corrupt
the oasis in two ways. It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training
process. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites will not feel
threatened. Yet one of Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political
world. In this world we face well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from
"debate," they will begin to infiltrate our space. Ready made information will increase and
debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information, young
debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites.
Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating
political discourse. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan space in American political society,
academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants.
Nowhere else are people allowed, let alone encouraged, to test all manner of political ideas.
This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it. In
many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community.
An example should help illustrate this idea.


Impact Level
Extend Bok extinction comes first. All other considerations of individual
deaths would be beside the point because of the massive amount of lives lost
due to extinction.

Go to structural violence:
Extend Meltzer this card has two implications, only one of which was
answered. The first capitalism is the only way in which we can have true
freedom. It allows for individuals to choose their path. The second is a
complete alt solvency takeout Meltzer talks a lot about how capitalism is the
only system which doesnt take a utopian view of life, which means the alt fails
and that capitalism is the only way we can achieve any freedom.

Case turns the impact and no risk of the K turning case
Goldstein 01
PROF OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS @ AMERICAN UNIV (JOSHUA, WAR AND GENDER,
P. 412)
First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace scholars and activists
support the approach, if you want peace, work for justice. Then, if one believes that sexism contributes to war one can work
for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the
peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this
book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of
capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these
influence wars outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other
injustices. 9 So,if you want peace, work for peace. Indeed, if you want justice (gender and others),
work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis, from types of individuals, societies,
and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes towards war and the military may
be the most important way to reverse womens oppression. The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the
peace movement energy, allies, and moral grounding, yet, in light of this books evidence, the emphasis on injustice
as the main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate.
Go to Environmental Destruction:
The environment advantage turns the impact they conceded the advantage so any risk our offense on
case or elsewhere on the flow justifies an aff vote.
Extend Baker tech solves the environment. This goes conceded. Well admit cap isnt key to tech, but
as a defensive tech solves argument, there is no way they can win their environment impact because
new technologies will create more efficient practices that mitigate capitalisms negative effects.
Go to the Schmitt turn:
Extend Slomp this goes totally conceded. Attempts at annihilating
capitalism is an example of what Schmitt calls a just war. This attempt
and justification for wars creates devastating wars because any amount
of destruction is justified by the morally right end goal.
Go to war:
Extend Bandow capitalism makes countries less likely to go to war
because of trade relations and alliances. As worst, this makes this
impact a wash.
Cross-apply Baker here too the expansion caused by capitalism and
resource driven economy can be solved with technological advances.
Cross-apply Goldstein there is no root cause of war, prefer studies that take
cap into account.
Alt

First, if we win the alt, we win the K because as a linear DA its non U/Q.
1. Go to transition wars: extend the Nyquist evidence. This outweighs the
impact to capitalism because these wars are NUCLEAR, unlike any wars now.
Prefer Nyquist to their Guattari-Negri evidence:
1. Of course the founders of the revolution wont think its peaceful, Nyquist is more of a
3
rd
party source
2. Their evidence basically just said peace is good and the alt will try to be peaceful thats
not really responsive. We are saying the sudden absence of capitalism will cause
massive wars.
2. Cant solve case they just say that capitalism is the root of terrorism, war,
and ecological collapse. Even if thats true, changing our ways wont stop
Hezbollah, our 2AC Epstein ev indicates active attempts to prevent the attacks
are key. Also if we win there is no root cause of war we still get the Taiwan
scenario.
3. Utopian fiat
Cross-apply Meltzer here the alt fails because it takes a utopian and
perfectionist stance on life. We are never going to live in a perfectly free,
perfectly equal society, and attempts at it have empirically failed and turned
into dictatorships. Thats the link and an independent reason the alt fails.
First, they said the alt isnt utopian b/c they have a solvency advocate: ooohhh
big deal. 1 or 2 people believeing in it doesnt make it utopian. Cross-apply the
analysis on Meltzer above.
Second, go to their interpretation. Their interp doesnt solve any of our offense
utopian alts make generating offense impossible and makes debate
uneducational which means you have to reject every utopian alt. There is no
reason utopian fiat is key to testing the plan. If it is, that just proves they cant
garner any real offense and you should vote aff.

CP
They say perm do the CP was severance it was just a test of competition.
They proved the CP was competitive that doesnt mean you reject us.
Severance perms are good anyway because they still advocate the plan as good
idea in general.
They said perm do both was performative contradiction: this is just not true. A
performative contradiction is when we make two arguments that are opposites
of each other. The perm doesnt deny that crowding out China is a good thing,
but it serves as a backup argument in case we lose that. There was nowhere on
this flow where they were forced to debate themselves they advocate
Chinese influence being good and the perm never makes them say its bad, they
just need to prove that the perm crowds out China.
Extend the solvency deficit the US is key. None of their evidence is
responsive. Both Gallegher and Cerna talk about how China has interest and
money to invest in Cuba. We agree China has enough money to work with
Cuba, but its a question of technology. They say even if China doesnt have
tech, the money can buy it. Heres the problem: they functional concede our
2AC CDA evidence and our 1AC Perales evidence that the US is the only one
with the tech. However, in the context of Cuba, they cant buy it! We have a
restriction that rigs in Cuba can only have 10% of US parts, which isnt nearly
enough. That means money is irrelevant and they cant dream of solving
thats all in the CDA ev.

Go the heg DA Bussey and Garvin isnt saying US-China relations kill heg, but
that Chinese influence in Latin America kills heg., which they concede. Cross-
apply the analysis of heg from case.