• Roadmap: Counterplan, warming, Afghanistan, theory.

Counterplan- We're kicking it.

1.) Extend all his defense- the CP is no different from the squo. Whatever. We concede that, which
means he can't access any of his offensive arguments. Object lesson: If you want to access your
turns, don't put 100% defense on the flow too.

2.) Catch me if you can- ...Except you can't. John declared conditionality in the 1NC, they didn't
run condo-bad in the 2AC, and new 1AR positions suck and are a no-no.

3.) In fact, here's four reasons why conditionality rocks-

A.) Best policy option-Many ideas must be compared to the plan in order to find the best policy
option, which is the point of the round. Conditionality best accomplishes that.
B.) Negation theory- The Neg’s responsibility is to answer the Aff by illustrating opportunity
costs to the adoption of the plan. If either the squo or the counterplan prove it's a bad idea, we
should be able to advocate that in the 2NR.
C.) Real world- in the real world, legislators are allowed to propose and drop new bills all the
time. Take healthcare- there's no reason why a Senator opposing the bill can't say, “We should
do something else, and plus the bill is still a bad idea.” There's no reason that advocating the
squo ever goes away as an option.
D.) No offense lost- Before they claim we're abusive, remember that they went for absolute
defense with inherency. We granted their arguments, so they have functionally lost no leverage.
Warming disad-
His only answer is a no-link, although there were a bunch of “reasons.”

1.)EPA thwarted- he said that the EPA can't make huge law because the people would get mad, but for
some reason, Congress can. Pony pucks. 4 reasons why they're wrong.

A.) Visibility- The EPA's actions are rarely hyper-visible, as opposed to Congress, which undergoes a
much greater deal of scrutiny. If they're afraid of people getting mad, they'll get mad at Congress, not
the EPA. More on this on D.
B.) No warrant- Don't bother looking for the warrant in his argument, because looking that closely at
your monitor is bad for your eyes and you'll never find it, because it doesn't exist.
C.)Empirically denied- Look at Cap and Trade- Obama has been fighting to get Cap and Trade passed
since the beginning of his presidency, with a large majority in both the House AND Senate, and it hasn't
happened. Congress can't pass big environmental legislation NOW, and to assume that they'll suddenly
change is nothing short of absurdity.
D.)Elections = reverse pressure- The reason that C&T didn't get passed is because the people flooded
the switchboards and said “DON'T YOU DARE PASS THIS.” There is no pressure on Congress to
pass tighter laws; if there was, C&T wouldn't have failed. Public opinion is massively against
tighter environmental regulation, and they take that opinion out through the ballot box. Politicians want
to keep their posts. Congress is not going to pass laws that will get them kicked out of office, but the
EPA isn't elected, so they can take that bullet. Extend our conceded uniqueness, that the EPA is
solving warming now. If you leave it to Congress, they'll be too scared of the ballot to pass needed
regulation. Thanks for dooming us all to a watery grave.
E.)Pressure empirically denied- He makes the claim that they aren't feeling pressure now, but he
gives no reason for why that would change. Think about it: if EPA regulation WERE ineffective, and
voters wanted more regulation, they would be screaming for Congress to take over, but as we showed
with C&T, there's no pressure there. Congress does nothing now, so they can't even claim the
appearance of action, which increases pressure. Under the plan, they could claim to be doing
something, which decreases pressure. That's a turn.

2.)Bundling solves swamping- He says that Congress can bundle the legislation into one big bill.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to the devastating argument of, “No, you're wrong.”

A.) Daily action- The EPA itself says that they make constant decisions about environmental regulation
every single day. If Congress is going to do what the EPA does, that means they need to be making
those decisions on a daily basis.
B.) Longer bill=longer debate- If you try to bundle a hundred regulations into one bill, guess what?
Congress is going to debate every single one of those. He gives no reason why bundling solves,
because there isn't one. Common sense dictates that if there's more stuff in a bill, it will take longer to
debate it.
C.)Big bills are impossible- Cross-apply cap and trade- Congress can't pass big bills, so actually, they
just guaranteed that Congress would get overloaded! In fact, you can basically cross-apply our answers
to his first response.

Overview: The EPA is solving warming now, preserving crucial climate modeling in Asia. He
concedes all the impacts, and we're winning a bunch of internal links to why Congress can't
solve. The disad turns case.
Afghanistan disad-
We already smashed his responses on the warming disad, so cross-apply those answers here, but I'm
still putting more ink on the flow.

A.) Uniqueness- (Fleshing it out)

1.) Surge happens now...-Congress is under pressure for action on Afghanistan in the status quo-
Obama wants a troop surge . There's enough pressure on the holdout independents and
moderates to get them to endorse more troops.
2.) But not for long...- Antiwar democrats are beginning to oppose Obama's surge policies, and it's
only a matter of time before they rally a war-tired American people behind them. We need the
surge ASAP
3.) Because Congress' plate is FULL- Congress is obsessed with getting healthcare passed, and
it's tricksy because of the abortion debate. The Cap and Trade hearings have begun (again).
That's two major time-consuming issues that are already on Congress' plate. Time is crucial.
B.) Link- The plan costs way hard political capital.
1.) Reorganization- Any time there's a major reorganization in a government agency, especially a
massive and bureaucratic one like the EPA, there's a lot of time and political capital that gets
sucked up due to political fallout (think Pelosi screeching “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?”
into Obama's ear canal) and hassle of redistribution of duties. That sucks up Obama's time and
political capital.
2.) Time- Congress' plate is already full, adding massive amounts of more weight will prevent the
troop surge from happening.
C.)Brink- Afghanistan is on the edge.
1.) Insurgent movement- Afghan generals report increasingly higher mobilization of Taliban in
key provinces. The government has already made a deal to give them a province to rule, but
they are coming dangerously close to the capitol.
2.) Political pressure- The Afghan and Pakistani parliaments are beginning to lose faith in the US
commitment to action in Afghanistan, and Karzai and Musharraf need us to prove the skeptics
wrong. If we don't, faith in coalition action wanes, resistance falls, and the impacts are
triggered.
D.)Impact- WOR-
1.) Afghanistan K2 Pakistan stability- A victory for the Afghan Taliban would encourage its
Pakistani partners. A Pakistani Taliban would be well positioned to take over much of the country, and
Al Qaeda's room to maneuver would become greater.
2.) Pakistan instability = Indo-Pak war- If the Musharraf government disintegrates, a new level of
instability would rock the region and increase tensions between Pakistan and India. India would be
tempted to intervene- they've almost gone to war of Pakistani terror twice. If the country gets overrun,
there's no doubt that India would strike, and strike hard, with its greatest strategic advantage- nuclear
weapons. That means hundreds of millions of people dead, plus massive economic damage.

Last thing I'd like to talk about is the double bind- As we said in the uniqueness, Congress is barely
scraping by. If he maintains that Congress will pass a bunch of environmental legislation and not suck
at it, they'll never have time for Afghanistan. If they devote all their attention to getting an Afghan
surge, they'll neglect warming. In order NOT to be buried under one of our disads, he needs to
prove with crazy strong warrants why Congress can, in fact, do both. We've shown you why they
can't. So, extinction from global warming or extinction from nuclear war. Your choice. Or you can vote
neg. That's cool too.
Theory- No New in the 1AR.
A.) New 1AR answers/positions are baaaaaaaaaaaaaad juju, because they skew the entire block strategy
by allowing him to make new responses that undermine our old ones.

B.) If he tries that, you should do two things:

1.) Vote him down. Attempting to skew the round like that is inherently abusive and
warrants a neg ballot.
2.) Disregard the answer. Just don't even write the answer on your flow, don't count it in
your analysis.