{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":12,"sheets":["Inh","Solvency","counterforce","india","Mutual vulnerability","Space BMD DA","ESR CP","T-exec power","conditions cp","K","Asteroids DA","Macros"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":11,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1904"}

{"sheet":"Inh","index":0,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"Solvency","index":1,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"counterforce","index":2,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":21,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The combination of an unconstrained Trump and rising tensions sets the stage for first-strike threats against adversaries’ nuclear arsenals---that escalates and triggers a spiral of follow-on nuclear wars  ",null,null,null,null,null,"something about accidents","impact uq--us china russia war in the squo"]
["U.S. threats of disarming first strikes fail to deter adversaries and cause use or lose pressures---we’ll follow through and strike in a crisis which creates self-fulfilling nuclear war---the only credible restraint is to eliminate the capability to perform first strikes by retiring ICBMs ",null,null,null,null,"US counterforce causes nuclear war---Trump will follow through on compellence---our posture encourages allied overreach, commitment traps, aggressive response to terrorism and use or lose pressure BUT operational policy changes are verifiable and solve---that’s Hayes and Barret.","fale alarms are empirically denied","no accidents"]
["Even if a U.S. first-strike destroys an adversary’s ICBMs, they’ll retaliate later with improvised weapons or unconventional delivery vehicles ",null,"ICBMs are essential to assurance—cancellation causes allies in Europe and Asia to doubt our commitments and proliferate","CPGS solves---Scheber’s comparative to their link","A. South Korea has faith in US nuclear assurances now, aff collapses that perception – causes prolif ","Following through is deadly---causes unconventional retal with improvised delivery mechanisms---we’d respond with countervalue strike that causes nuclear winter---that’s Boyd.",null,"commitment trap and threats arg"]
["Successful unconventional retaliation targets U.S. cities---prompts massive U.S. counter-value retaliation ",null,"Allied prolif causes nuclear war","Official posture doesn’t change and subs and BMD solve","B. Japan alliance is on the brink – perception of US abandonment guarantees prolif and East Asian war","Accepting mutual vulnerability is key to nuclear assurance--kulacki 13",null,"hayes--trump makes threats, commitment trap"]
["Russian perception of an aggressive US counterforce posture combined with dilapidated early warning systems makes US-Russia nuclear war inevitable---operational changes solve ",null,null,"2nd strike and tnw's","Japan and South Korea prolif each independently guarantee nuclear war","all their ev is about nfu, tnw, subs, bombers",null,"unconventionalr retaliation"]
["The existence of ICBMs makes accidental nuke war inevitable---false alarms, use or lose pressures, and missile operator error---relying on luck is bonkers",null,null,"no sk prolif-stangarone 16","ss doesn't solve-icbm, specific to aff","Subs and TNWs solve rowberry 14"]
[null,null,null,"no japan prolif","Korea war outweighs on probability\nChol 11 \n","Alliance resilience means low threshold for beating the link--blair 16"]
[null,null,null,null,"Asia prolif independently causes nuclear war and outweighs on magnitude","we still have commtiments"]
[null,null,null,null,"turns china-draw in","something about nk weapons"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"No japan prolif---the government is significantly restrained by fractured political coalitions and public opinion liff 18"]
[null,null,"No Trump lashout, first-use, or hair-trigger launch ","Trump makes threats for compellence---heightens tensions, ally moral hazard sparks SCS war---guarantees escalation---thats' Hayes---And, it wrecks nuclear leadership---causes nuke terror---extinction","You should probably be suspect of their ICBM scenarios—they only make the india modelling claim which means you should be suspect of global disarmament, especially when they claim global use-it or lose-it","Too many public opinion obstacles---Abe wouldn’t push it tatsumi 14"]
[null,null,null,"Feaver doesn’t apply, our impact isn’t him waking up the military\nCommitment trap causes strikes --- that’s Boyd\n","Open ocean targeting means accidents have no impact  kroenig 18","no sk prolif--sanctions, economy"]
[]
[null,null,"NFU can’t solve accidents or miscalc because of conventional superiority","Conventional weapons don’t do counterforce – doesn’t take out the case","“Use-it-or-lose-it” makes zero sense if they’re right that ICBMs are unnecessary \nKroenig 18\n","concede accidents"]
[null,null,null,null,"conventioanl capabilties cause miscalc","???"]
[null,null,null,"Yess accidnts --- false alarms happen all the time, rushed decision timeframe guarantees escalation --- Wilson"]
[null,null,"False alarms and accidents from ICBMs are empirically denied"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"No Russia war"]

{"sheet":"india","index":3,"n_rows":7,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":7,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["They’re pursuing an operational counterforce capability---causes South Asian nuclear war through crisis instability, accidental launch and arms racing",null,"they won’t model the US kapur 11","India models---plan demonstrates a downward revision on accepted deterrence requirements---that’s Boyd. They follow the US lead because they want to be perceived as a responsible nuclear power---that’s Leveringhaus. ","India won’t model—that’s miller and payne—other countries act in their own interests which means they have no reason to model US nuclear policy a la your revisionism arguments","India’s developing counterforce capabilities over Pakistan---causes war because of use it or lose it pressure and miscalc---plan gets modelled which solves, India want’s status as responsible nuclear power and US targeting policy is their benchmark.","india doesn't care, why would cf happen, why would there be an indo pakistan war","would model the plan, boyd, this time looks like unilateral revision"]
["The plan’s combination of eliminating counterforce targeting and warhead reductions sets a model that prevents Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani counterforce ",1,null,null,"here's another card-chilton 18","yes crisis-recent tension","skirmishes happen forever","what's a resonabile nuclear power look like"]
["India wants to be perceived as a responsible nuclear power---they look to the US for signals on acceptable nuclear doctrine ",null,"South Asia is stable \nGhoshal, 16","Recent crisis disproves south asia stable ev","a) No big enough Pakistani terrorist event to justify retal in recent history\nb) Pakistani intel means India would get found out so neither country thinks it’s worth it\nc) Both countries are too responsible to do so: no incentives because of the magnitude of the impact\n",null,"no staretigc reason for escalation","they rae building isr and stuff"]
[null,null,null,"India’s pursuing counterforce---military members advocated “first strike” postures---Rej doesn’t assume India’s pursuit of operational capacity --- means the impact is true even if India doesn’t officially abandon NFU. That’s Lalwani. ","Here’s another card:",null,null,"use it or lose it pressure"]
[null,null,null,"Causes use or lose pressures, arms racing, and pre-delegating launch authority---ensures miscalc and accidental launch",null,null,null,"india has struck paksitan"]
[null,null,"India will never abandon its NFU\nKazi 10/22"]

{"sheet":"Mutual vulnerability","index":4,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Refusing damage limitation capabilities embraces mutual nuclear vulnerability with China and preserves the deterrent role of U.S. nuclear forces ",null,null,null,null,null,"no one cares about npr","liberal order solves stuff"]
["Current refusal to acknowledge mutual vulnerability destroys the credibility of alliance commitments and emboldens Chinese assertiveness ",1,null,null,null,null,"signaling doesn't happen because of da","instiutitons instead of fighting it"]
["Acknowledging mutual vulnerability shapes China’s rise away from instability and towards productive participation in the rules-based order ",null,null,null,null,null,"china rise--to interd, doesn’t take out da, china is embeded","that reduces the risk of space miscalc"]
["The extent to which China’s rise undermines the liberal order is not yet determined---incentivizing peaceful participation upholds multilateral cooperation and stops the spread of authoritarianism ",null,null,null,null,null,"not that threatenign now","chian revisionit and nationalist is how space war goes nuclear"]
["That prevents extinction from nuclear war, warming, and rogue tech development",null,null,null,null,"Refusing to acknowledge the US is vulnerable to China’s arsenal is a silly bluff that isn’t credible---China wants to know we would be willing to risk nuclear war if we started a conflict, absent that their rise aggressively rearranges the liberal order and risks global instability and destruction of norms. [Conceded the impact and internal link]---liberal order provides global cooperative framework for existential threats---AI, nuclear war, and climate change---only the plan acknowledges mutual vulnerability which shifts their rise towards integration because it signals vertical prolif is a bad strategy since the US is willing to risk nuclear war---that’s Rimland","but space bmd triggers that","mutual vulernabiltiy is a bigger il than inter-d"]
["Global spread of authoritarian nationalism causes nuclear war ",null,"Operational restrictions from Congress infringe upon the President’s Article II powers—that spills over to cause strategic disruption in the chain of command which turns every scenario for escalation",null,"Executive flexibility solves all scenarios for limited conventional war, cyber conflict and AI wars—that’s Singh","not adding consultion to cic","no allied prolif-concede that. "]
["Only operational change credibly signals acknowledgment of mutual vulnerability",null,null,null,"Limited conventional wars go nuclear and outweigh on probability—NFU independently causes those","no empirics-goldgeier 18"]
["Retaining the threat of a disarming first strike is an obvious bluff that shatters credibility---the plan enables a shift towards emphasis on limited nuclear options for warfighting contingencies that sustain alliances and deter Russian and Chinese adventurism ",null,"No China war—deterrence, interdependence and institutions check",null,"Cyber conflict causes extinction and outweighs on magnitude","no politcal will-card"]
["ICBMs have no deterrent function or role outside of damage limitation---eliminating counterforce via ICBM reductions stabilizes U.S.-Russian and U.S.-Chinese nuclear relations  ",null,null,"congressional onsltation","AI arms races cause extinction---outweighs nuclear war","liberal order solves AI"]
[null,null,null,"US China war coming---CCP hardliners push vertical prolif and revisionism, their no china rise ev doesn’t assume it---the aff recognizes mutual vulnerability to strategic arsenals---stabilizes deterrence---cold war proves---that’s White. Dampens threat perception which causes Chinese peaceful cooperation in the liberal order---that’s Rimland and Heath","Trump is successfully containing a rising China—turns adv 3\nBlack 18\n","their ev says beligernecen ow, but we solve that?"]
[null,null,"No China rise impact---they’re too embedded within the American system",null,null,"low yield is more credible"]
[null,null,null,null,"If we win the link we don’t need to win defense on this flow:\nAdversaries will surprise attack post-plan because the number of targets they need to hit is far lesser—that turns all their conflict scenarios. Probably especially true since they make revisionism args\n","Flex turn---ICBMs wreck signalling--kobor 12"]
[]
[null,null,"No liberal order collapse ikenberry 18","liberal order impact---creates an institutional framework for cooperation—sovles AI and warming---that’s’ Harari","koper e--no one cares about npr"]
[null,null,null,"Ikenberry irrelevant, doesn’t answer our Chinese revisionism scenario","no one wold trust the plan, esspecially china--ford 11"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"china not revisionitist-inter-d, no china war leon, insitutions, looks bad for lashout"]
[null,null,null,"warrant in white ev--undermiens deterence and allies"]

{"sheet":"Space BMD DA","index":5,"n_rows":32,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":32,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["A global missile defense won’t be funded- especially the space-based interceptors ",null,null,"wars outweigh-arms race, asats escalate, turns mv because offensive systems?","no arms race if everyone getrs rid of cf","space wars--rapid prolif-nukes and stuff, space debris","plan solves why space bmd is bad---not threatening"]
["Plan flips that—NFU requires BMD to signal a credible second-strike, but this leads multiple countries to develop MIRVs in response—that causes arms races everywhere",null,null,"Turns counter forcing leads to global arms race\nBahney 19","no india arms race-takes out ahmed","paranoia and miscalc, better nukes?","no reason to strike them"]
["SBMD causes rapid ASAT development and space arms races- it’s unique from status quo testing and risks nuclear escalation",null,null,"Turns India---BMD shift causes countries to vertically prolif in response—they won’t trust NFU—that causes escalation ","asats inevitable","magnitude and tf--gloves come off with space bmd","downward deteernce something"]
[null,null,null,"Satellites solve nuclear escalation, but space war destroys that \nNiguidula 19\n","bmd not key to stopi t","that causes ground war","it wouldn't be immediate"]
[null,null,"No outer space impact --- the outer space treaty solves","uq assumes that",null,"turns case but not other way around--more scared of bmd thanf irst stirke--retal or preempt","ahmed doesn't have uq--arms race now"]
[null,null,"AND the plan solves Use or lose by ending counterforce","Space treaties are meaningless---no compliance or verification \nBahney 19","pentagon won't do it--3/6, did not include space bmd",null,"this satelites card doesn't say shit"]
[null,null,null,"The link turns the case before it can solve--card","no cards from this month","LINKS"]
[null,null,"everyone is doing bmd now",null,null,"nuke modernization--constraints militaryp laning","no space bmd-pentagon doesn't include this"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"space force and bmd","didn't ask for it"]
[null,null,null,"nfu causes bmd--india proves, bolster 2nd strike",null,"hawks hate the plan","link doesn't change calculation--we can still first strike some"]
[null,null,"Eliminating nuclear ICBMs causes CPGS","Spin offs link---NFU logically necessitates BMD—that leads to spin-offs for space tech",null,"causes spae force which causes war","ending damage limitation still lets you strike"]
[null,null,null,"Nuclear modernization---NFU decks nuclear modernization—that causes a transition to Space Force",null,"spinoffs-improivng 2nd strike--china andi ndia prove"]
[null,null,"Solves ASATs","The military sees Space Force as redundant now but, if it’s finalized, space wars become inevitable—those go nuclear",null,"they don't have space bmd so who cares"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"asats inevitable doesn't take out shit?"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"space bmd is a game changer"]
[null,null,"Pentagon’s plan doesn’t include space MD ","no cpgs multiple barriesr brustlein 15",null,"asats have been peaceful in squo"]
[]
[null,null,null,"asat ev is aspirational",null,"link controls uq--plan requires a push, inreasing feasible"]
[null,null,"Space MD is all rhetoric – Congress will only fund kinetic kill",null,null,"uphill battel now"]
[null,null,null,"Current ASAT testing will remain peaceful, but SBMD triggers rapid space weaponization- the risk is unique",null,"revisionism causes global arms race"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"ahmed answers it"]
[null,null,"No link --- plan not a full NFU --- infrastructure targeting AND low yield means we don’t need to rely on second strike","no funding now but plan creates motivation",null,"turns counterforce same thing--satelites solve it, but something asteroids"]
[null,null,null,"Link controls uq---Debates over developing SBMD are coming now but are still undecided- the aff ensures the push for SBMD succeeds"]
[null,null,null,"Mutual vulnerability---Administration never accepts Mutual Vulnerability – causes more funding for BMD – Thaad Proves"]
[null,null,"modeling solves india impact","our evi s about russia and china"]
[null,null,null,"sensors ev is from pentagon, fuck em."]
[]
[null,null,"India and Pakistan wouldn’t perceive space-based tracking"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Space based BMD is just sensors --- not  a big deal"]

{"sheet":"ESR CP","index":6,"n_rows":43,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":43,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,null,"Esr solves; we are operational and declaratory which means we effectively solve, that’s Hawkins:","ndaa"]
[null,1,null,null,"funding"]
[null,null,null,null,"courts strike down"]
[null,null,"Authority restrictions are modelled---solves global nuclear Czarism","no russia war","roverne backlash presidnet"]
[null,null,null,"china on case","no signal"]
[null,null,null,"exemptions don't get modeled","perms olves flex-no backlash"]
[null,null,null,null,"turns the da something"]
[null,null,null,null,"operational is key"]
[null,null,"Conditionality is a voting issue---destroys the logical reversion to the squo---causes late breaking debates which undermines clash---skews 2AC strategy---makes the block advantages un-beatable---1 solves their offense","1nr","verify dealerting is key"]
[null,null,null,null,"pointing them doesn't do anything"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"neg flex, multiple positions test, not real word, only say one other thing, collapse down in the block reject the arg not the team, we get 3, ethics porcess agent, test all facets of the aff, that is good idea, real world policy making"]
[null,null,"pdb","The perm divides executive authority—it links harder to flex because it sends mixed signals—sole voice is key to effective signals in international affairs","Rejecting the arg is conditionality.\nCounter interps are arbitrary---negs can always say whatever we did in the 1NC---that turns testing.\n1 solves neg flex but avoids our offense because there’s a logical reversion to the status quo and no contradictions.\nExtend clash---conditionality encourages neg teams to only go for whatever was under-covered.\nTurns 2AC critical thinking/info processing/arg testing---2AC is always hard, but condo structurally favors negs---outweighs because even if the 2AC was possible, condo changes strategic calculus to amplify neg block advantages.\nExtend strategy skew---even if time skews are inevitable, conditionality allows the neg costless counterplans and forces the aff to debate itself while the neg gets to cross apply offense or force strategic concessions without reciprocity---wrecks education.\n\n"]
[null,null,"<solves flex---there’s no precedent of congress winning>\n<avoids politics---cross-branch bipart means its not a fight>\n","Congressional involvement is worse for diplomacy"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Reject ESR---Object fiat is a voting issue---lets them wish away the central question---wrecks aff ground","1. Counter-interp: the negative gets executive self-restraint and has to read a solvency advocate that says it’s desirable"]
[null,null,null,"2. Necessary for neg ground—it matches the academic debate"]
[null,null,null,"3. ESR is the only limiting mechanism and it contests a key word in the resolution"]
[null,null,null,"4. The executive is not the object of the resolution—it is perception and legal precedent and its effects on others that are the objects—that’s different from “counterplan: don’t fight a war with Russia”"]
[null,null,null,"5. Reject the argument, not the team"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"Trump will ignore Congress—only an NFU from Trump himself can solve the aff while avoiding circumvention and the flex DA"]
[null,null,"zero solvency ndaa","The counterplan allows Trump to smooth over gaffes and signal willingness to cooperate"]
[null,null,null,"Declaratory policy solves prolif and modeling even if it’s not legally binding"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"congress blocks donnelly 16"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Operational change key to India. Existence of ICBMs causes Russian false alarms, mutual vulnerability isn’t reassuring if the US has first strike capability---that’s Boyd"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Backlash means it has the opposite effect of the plan rovner 11"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"cp links by triggering checks"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"courts strike down"]

{"sheet":"T-exec power","index":7,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Executive power is discretionary authority to execute the law.  ",null,"We meet lilebo 6"]
["A. Extra T – restricting operational authority provides them unfair advantage ground beyond the res – unpredictable and skirts debates from topic questions of executive power",1]
["B. Limits --- there are infinite ways the aff could make it physically impossible for the executive to first-use nukes",null,"Counter-interp---Executive power is the ability to achieve a goal, determined by authority granted "]
["C. Ground --- the aff skirts core neg offense like circumvention and authority DA’s",null,"tatalovich 79"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"That’s resource dependent----the aff restricts price 18"]
[]
[null,null,"Precision and war powers relevance"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Over-limiting---They exclude deference and trade"]
[null,null,"lessig 94"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Aff ground---operational is key to beat ESR and circumvention"]
[null,null,"Neg ground---Gives them PICs"]
[null,null,"Limits for limits sake undermines innovation within constraints, and crowds out substance---adopt reasonability"]
[]
[null,null,"restrit prhobit but in within scope "]
[]
[null,null,"no sall weapons"]

{"sheet":"conditions cp","index":8,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["New ICBM negotiations cause bilateral reductions which solve crisis stability and accidental launch",null,"Perm do the counterplan---they have to be functionally and textually competitive---otherwise justifies bad counterplans like delay and penny less"]
["The aff’s unilateral reduction is pocketed by Russia, and guarantees future arms negotiations fail- that causes devastating arms races",1]
[]
[null,null,"They don’t have a solvency advocate for every plank of every CP---voting issue---no responsive lit makes the 2AC impossible--- we get full new answers if they have cards in the block"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Conditions CPs are a voter\nAff ground---we get our offense based on what the plan does, not how it passes---they steal 100% of the 1AC forcing us to impact turn the NB---“immediacy” and “certainty” aren’t enough to generate 2AC offense\n"]
[]
[null,null,"Unlimiting---the nature of the CP is inherently unpredictable because it’s not intrinsically tied to our solvency mechanism---there are hundreds of conditions "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"something about says no?"]

{"sheet":"K","index":9,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Formalistic checks on executive power enable structural violence to persist—the alternative is grassroots organizing—vote neg",null,"Framework---judge the hypothetical desirability of the plan---it’s the only interp with a rez basis---they justify asserting infinite arbitrary frameworks which unfairly shifts the locus of the debate from 1AC offense and wrecks clash"]
[null,1]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Civilian debate over nuclear strategy is key to undermine Cold-War security logics---key to nuclear stability---turns the K"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"pdb "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"war turns k"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"alt fails--mccoramck 10"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"No tradeoff link---activists do both all the time"]

{"sheet":"Asteroids DA","index":10,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The current US policy for near-Earth asteroids is first-using nuclear weapons to deflect them – key to stop collision – otherwise extinction-level asteroids are coming",null,"ICBMs not key – its different infrastructure"]
["But, categorical bans on first use makes that impossible",1]
[]
[null,null,"we have other nukes to blow up rocks"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Other methods and other countries solve"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Can’t launch from pad---need new rocket system"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"No extinction from asteroids "]

{"sheet":"Macros","index":11,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Command","Function "]
["Control+Shift+N","Auto-Numbers"]
[]
["Control + I ","Add Row "]
[]
["control + b","Group Selection "]
[]
["control + shift + b","Undo Group Selection "]
[]
["Control + S ","New Sheet "]
[]
["Control + L ","5 spaces down "]
[]
["Control + K ","5 spaces up"]
[]
["Control + Pageup","Next Sheet to the left"]
[]
["Control + Pagedown ","Next Sheet to the Right "]