EASY DECISION MAN TO SAVE THE DAYYYYY

2NR-
[ Word count is 905 ]
[[ Roadmap is the case turns, T, goal, warming, Afghanistan, and an overview ]]
Case-
The 1AR COLD CONCEDES ALL OF OUR ADVANTAGE TURNS. Even if we don't win
anything else, he's conceded the advantage turns. That's a kill-shot, and it's the first voter.
T-
Let's look at some concessions.

1.) Interp shift- he concedes that there were two interps in the 2AC. Extend that. Since they don't
choose their interp until the 1AR, there was no stable interp for us to debate. Independent voter,
now that they've finally chosen it.
2.) No standards- They concede that their interpretations aren't backed up by standards. This
is key because Topicality is a question of what's good for debate, and that's determined by the
standards. They concede them and then they don't support their interp. Whether or not it
connects to the current definitions is irrelevant (the 1AR talks about the definitions, when
defs=/=interp), because when they conceded our standards they conceded that our interp is best.
Our interp is best. They don't meet it. Game over.
3.) Doesn't meet first interp- He concedes that they don't meet the first contradictory interp from
the 2AC- they don't change the principles, values or objectives regarding the environment.
Since he tries to link this to his current interp, he loses that one too.

Now the line by line.

1.) He doesn't meet his OWN interp- Does he change “Official statements of principles, intentions,
values, and objective which are based on legislation and the governing authority of a state”? Absolutely
not. They keep clipping their definitions to exclude this bit, but it's not flying- they need to meet their
ENTIRE definition to be topical, and he doesn't change a principles, intention, value, or objective. That
was conceded (as we said above under “doesn't meet first interp”), so they don't meet any of the three
interps brought up.
Goal-
We win the goal based on his concessions.
1.) He concedes that rebuttals are for impact calculus- if you want to say your Constitution
impacts outweigh, say it in the rebuttals rather than trying to spike out of disads. Extend that.
This analysis PROVES that it's not needed.
2.) He concedes it's abusive because they artificially limit the scope of debate. Seriously, he drops
it. Extend that plus John's analysis about side skew, and it's a voter. They intentionally try to
spike out of our disads and tell us what we can argue. That's textbook abuse. Vote 'em
down.
3.) Constitution isn't best- “Our nation was founded on it” really is not a warrant, it's rhetoric.
They've utterly failed to show WHY the US system of government is best or key to American
greatness, and they've failed to show why the government depends on their interpretation of the
Constitution. Remember kids, the Emancipation Proclamation- you know, that thing that freed
the slaves- was unconstitutional. Net benefits is best.
4.) No access- Danny admitted in c-x of the 2AC that they NEVER made a warranted contention
about why delegated rulemaking was unconstitutional. They have to prove their goal out of the
1AC, and they didn't. Joshua FINALLY brought up a warrant in the 1AR, which functions as a
brand-new argument, which is a no-no. They can't access the goal.
Warming disad-
We're winning two links to the disad now instead of one.

1.) No pressure. The 1AR flat-out concedes that there's no pressure to pass new environmental
regulations. They already conceded that regulation is NECESSARY to prevent catastrophic
warming. All of a sudden he completely shifts his position and says “it's okay if we don't pass
new regulations, because that's what the people want!” Great. Except the people don't want
climate regulation, and without it, they're going to die. They never show how the public is
going to pressure Congress to pass climate laws, which means that we get our impacts.
2.) Extend the No Warrant answer from the 2NC, there's still no warrant for why Congress can
make big legislation.
3.) Point 1 takes out his argument on point 3 of why bundling doesn't solve, which means we're
winning that, which means that the plan also costs time. That gives us two fully articulated
links to all of our impacts. Turns case. Causes impacts. We all die. Thanks a lot.
Afghanistan disad- (PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST)
Overview: He COLD CONCEDES THE SECOND LINK FROM THE 2NC. No joke, there's no
mention of it. He only touches on the first one, and the UQ/brinks/impacts stand. At the end of the line
by line, we'll have two links to the disad. Also, he cold-concedes the double bind analysis- if they
don't link to one disad, they link to the other. Since he conceded this, it's game over. Line-by-line.

1.) Reorganization- He claims there will be no reorganization, but explain how that works when
he's basically completely shifting the function of one of the biggest agencies in the federal
government. It doesn't. Second, he concedes the internal link of political fallout, which gives
us all the link we need.
Overview:
Here's what we got: 1.) cold-conceded advantage turns, so they get the opposite of what they want. 2.)
two disadvantages that get you extinction or close-to-it. 3.) A couple interps, none of which they meet,
and 4.), an abusive goal with 5.) a couple independent voters in there for good measure. That's five
reasons for you to go negative, so for all those reasons, you should. Thanks.