{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Hell 1AR - terrorism nowhere Further it was an...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Hell 1AR Counterinterp: He says that I only defend one country. And, that is not enough to justify the resolution because it is only one instance. This creates an explosion of ground for the affirmative because he only has to win one incident in which sanctions ought not be used. I defend two instances: Burma and Iraq. There is turn ground on the sanctions imposed on each scenario. The turns on contention 2 prove the counterinterp. On case: I concede the consequential standard, but it does not preclude aff. Offense Contention 2: the turns have no link. The emott card mentions
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: terrorism nowhere. Further, it was an extrapolation of an example. Even if emmot does link to terrorism, there is no dircursive impact for the judge to vote on. The emmot card outweighs on strength of link because it mentions economic sanctions directly to the economy. And, by lifting sanctions off of Burma, the US promotes free trade, which leads to a 600 billion increase in exports. Also, the promotion of free trade would allow Burma to strengthen its infrastructure...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online