Roadmap:

Overview
T
Heg
NASA
Warming

Will should take two lessons from today’s debate round – 1) Don’t go for T without
impacting it, 2) Going for everything gets you nothing.

T:

Will copypastas sentences from 3 different speeches that all assert that I “have” to be
topical without giving any reason why. He concedes all the critical “no voter” arguments
from the 2AC and 1AR – first, T exists to ensure fairness, which he proves every time he
makes “exploding topic” arguments; second, you can only evaluate questions of in-round
fairness because anything else requires judge intervention.

There is no in-round impact articulated to the claims that a carbon tax isn’t really
environmental policy and isn’t a significant reform – Will concedes that there’s tons of
ground to argue and I haven’t done anything to destroy his ground – there’s no way you’re
voting here.

Will concedes my argument that “affirmative” is just a tag telling you which side is which,
so you can still vote for me even if the plan isn’t topical.

And, it’s fine to compare evidence and arguments in the 2AR – Will does it repeatedly in
the 2NR – the strategic advantage of me choosing what to go for is entirely countered by
the strategic advantage of the negative block – Will says no “new” arguments, but I’m not
reading add-ons or making new turns.
Heg:

Will mishandles the first 1AR argument that a China backlash is inevitable. Since China’s
mad at us in the status quo (his Spencer and Foster evidence), and the Obama space
program angers China and guarantees an arms race, there are two 100% uniqueness
takeouts to Will’s “turn” on the heg debate.

That doesn’t contradict that climate change is a nexus for US-China cooperation, which
takes out his claims about aggressive unilateralism and China automatically fighting
against climate change – he has no response to the 1AR Guopeng evidence, which takes
out the turn entirely.

Next, extend my 1AC Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann evidence – even if China doesn’t go along
with US leadership, most of the rest of the world will – still gets us our leadership impacts.

And, even if China is angry at us, Will concedes that in the world of Khalilzad they can’t do
anything about us because the US has primacy – the plan enables the US to counter an
aggressive China, which the status quo can’t because heg is low – that’s 1AC Haass.

Will says unilateralism leads to global disorder, but Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann say the world
will cooperate with US leadership and Guopeng says climate change is soft power, not
aggressive Bush-style unilateralism – and, there’s zero impact to “global disorder”, Will
never actually read this mythical “Khalilzad ‘05” evidence and he doesn’t even give an
actual impact.

Lastly, extend the conceded 1AC Martino evidence – heg is key to econ competitiveness,
means I access his Mead evidence, which is an additional extinction scenario.
NASA:

I’m winning every single internal link on this flow, which means Will doesn’t get to bluster
about “6 extinction scenarios.”

Extend the “stimulus overwhelms” argument – even a fraction of that money overwhelms
the entirety of NASA spending, which takes out his Mead impact entirely – he has no
substantive answer to this argument, which sucks for him because it means he has no link.

Cross-apply Martino from the heg flow – I access his competitiveness argument at least as
much as he does, which means the AA evidence is a wash at worst.

Extend “NASA not key”– he quotes the evidence as saying NASA approves of other people
making steps toward colonization, which is not saying that NASA is making steps toward
colonization or even remotely key to it.

Extend the “colonization inevitable” argument – that’s his Matheny evidence, which
nowhere says that the US is key.

He says NASA is key to solving bioterror – that’s false, Matheny says NASA is currently
acting to stop space rocks but doesn’t assign any level of risk to those rocks – he says
climate change and bioterror are way bigger threats and we solve both of those.

Extend the timeframe arguments – Will’s impact claims for colonization are all long-term
threats, which means that the short-term geopolitical impacts accessed by the heg
advantage and the space mil turn outweigh.

And, the turn:

The extrapolation that Obama cutting missile defense means he won’t support programs
that make people mad is almost as bad as it is new. Obama just stood up in front of a
bunch of peace advocates and presented a case for making wars bigger – he has shown no
propensity to actually compromise US security in the name of making people happy, and
Shah says that the US wants space militarization for key strategic advantages.

And, Powell says Obama wants political cover for continuing Bush’s space policies –
Obama wouldn’t need political cover if everything about the space plans was happy
thoughts and fairy dust.

This doesn’t only non-unique Will’s backlash arguments – Zhang says space mil escalates
a US-China conflict, which is a bigger impact claim than Will’s “arms race evidence” which
just says the US and China would scowl each other.

This argument outweighs everything on timeframe, magnitude, and the fact that if we kill
off all the Chinese my inevitably-spacefaring descendants won’t get to mispronounce
Chinese swear words while they swagger around in awesome brown trench coats.
Warming:

If you’re going to go defense-only on an extinction impact, it’s best to be on the right side
of a vast body of scientific literature. Will has no substantive response to the Pew and
Pearce evidence from the 1AR, which is rough when you look at the claims he extends in
the 2NR.

1) He says the Earth has been warmer before and it was no big deal, but he concedes the
Pew evidence which provides scientific proof for actual impacts of warming happening
right now. This is why dates matter – when his evidence predicts something and my more
recent evidence says that the opposite is actually happening that devastates the credibility
of his authors.

2) Pew also indicates that warming is worse than the ’07 IPCC predictions, which means
that reality is worse than the “worst-case scenario” identified by his Robinson evidence.

3) He says I conceded his sea level and ice arguments, but the Pew evidence cites more
recent studies tying those conclusively to human activity. Oh, wait, I meant to say that Pew
actually cites studies, while none of his evidence does.

4) His only non-anthropogenic source of warming is solar forcing, but he concedes all of
the arguments of my Pearce evidence. His Benoit and Bauliunas cards only address solar
patterns up to 1978 and the “early 20th century” respectively, while Pearce says that there
hasn’t been any real increase in solar activity from the late 20th century onward while we’ve
had our biggest rise in temperature. Solar forcing cannot explain current climate patterns –
all that’s left is anthropogenic climate change.

Look, the 1AR evidence is conclusive and provides all of the scientific, empirical support
for my 1AC impacts that you could ask for. The impact is hundreds of thousands of deaths
every year, with a chance of planetary extinction. Will concedes 100% solvency. That’s
game over.