{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":13,"sheets":["Inh","Solvency","T-restrict","Esr cp","PQD DA","agenda da","2020 da","Adv Cp","Leadership","Congress","NATO CP","K","Macros"],"not_rendered":{"macros":1,"defined_names":10},"read":"whole","date_system":"1904"}

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

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

{"sheet":"T-restrict","index":2,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":13}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"we meet-we said restrict in plan"]
[null,1]
[null,null,"restrict means to limit – not prohibit"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"over limit"]
[null,null,"advocates"]
[null,null,"unpredcitable"]
[]
[null,null,"reasonabiltiy"]
[null,null,"substance crowd out"]
[null,null,"fairness and innovation"]

{"sheet":"Esr cp","index":3,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":17}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"solvency advocate"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"pdb "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"pdp"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"no cred"]
[null,null,"trreaty hypociry"]
[]
[null,null,"thumps da's"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"statutory actions causes wings"]

{"sheet":"PQD DA","index":4,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":17}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Recent court decisions narrow but preserve the political question doctrine---the key factor preventing aggressive checks on Presidential authority is the precedent of declining to review whether Presidential decisions are justified on the merits ",null,"multiple challenges to trump"]
["That destroys the effectiveness of warfighting ",1]
["Effective warfighting power prevents global nuclear war "]
[null,null,"why court challenge"]
[]
[null,null,"durable fiat"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"pqd doesn’t exist anymore\nShemtob 16 "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Pqd is trash\nHafetz ’17 "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"war inev absent congress stabilizing"]
[null,null,"redlines something escalating"]

{"sheet":"agenda da","index":5,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":15}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Net Neutrality restoration will pass",null,"cross apply 2020"]
["pv 8",1]
["Rollback collapses the open internet ",null,"inter negotaiton"]
["Wrecks global interdependence "]
["Extinction",null,"mueller thumper"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"1nc proves fights are comgin now"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"solves the impact--economy"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"dems thumpers card"]

{"sheet":"2020 da","index":6,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":18}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"plan is bad for trump support because multilateral"]
[null,1]
[]
[]
[null,null,"lots of thumpres about something"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"can't predict too early"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"trump wins now"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"no impact to warming--adaption, empricis "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"solves the impact--international liberal coop"]

{"sheet":"Adv Cp","index":7,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":20}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"The United States federal government should reenter the Iran Deal, cancel plans to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.\n\n","conditionaltiy bad","1. Logic---conditional advocacies prove an opportunity cost to the plan---disproving them does not prove the desirability of the plan. ","no new theory arg","think and test on your feet--they can't weigh perf cons"]
[null,1,null,null,"2. Neg Flex---excessive aff flex forces the neg into concessionary ground and makes DA links and CP competition impossible---condo gets us back to square-one."]
[{"$nulls":4},"3. Advocacy construction---makes the aff defend against opportunity costs from both sides, key to weed out bad affs."]
[{"$nulls":4},"4. Tactical choices---forces the 2AC to recognize and respond to strategic interactions---critical skill for advocacy against strategic opponents"]
[{"$nulls":4},"1. They read a new aff --- means debates are late-breaking --- skews neg prep --- justifies conditionality AND is a voting issue because preparation is necessary to make debate educational --- disclosure solves"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"links to net benefit--no distinction how it operates"]
[]
[]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"flip flop argumente--no trump cred"]
[]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"congressional action"]

{"sheet":"Leadership","index":8,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":18}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["executive capacity to withdraw from treaties is eroding the foundations of the world order – states assume the worst",{"$nulls":3},"We've conceded the fundamental thesis of the advantage that the US is abandonig a globla leadership role --- Mukherjee is the newest ev on the issue of revisionism and says China et al are content not to challenge the order --- its against their incentives because they get economic benefits from cooperation ESPECIALLY because Trump abandonment means tehy can provide global public goods to maintain a leadership role WITHOUT having to act agressively --- Creates global governance RESILIENCE --- the Plan lets the US block these countries from great power status which triggers global order abandonment and revisionism.","transition inev--with or without alliances--multilat collapse to authoriatan--that is more wars","trade means no revisionism, no incentive to lashout, no incentive,, polticial and eocnomic gains","incentive to lashout--terrotiroal grabs--us lowest power"]
["congressional inaction sets an irreversible precedent for isolationism\nDobson 17 ",{"$nulls":3},"Revisionist states that are rising have reasons not to be agressive because sticking with the status quo lets them peacefully gain relative power status, --- the plan CUTS THEM OFF from that leadership role which creates resentment and nationalist pressures for states to lash out agressiveley---that's Brands","haas--alternative to liberal order is bad--russia and china nationalism","prestige in squo","china revisionist-expansion--territory, island building eroding allince, defense not an option for china, kicking out asia, regional hegemony, IR professor"]
["transition is inevitable but only US international engagement can ensure it’s peaceful – the alternative is escalatory spheres of influence\nHaass 19 ",{"$nulls":3},"the signal of that victory is an explicit denial of Chinese status ambitions  khong 19","US will go down fighting--nuke other countries","natonalism--satisifed china leadership on trade","yes they want prestige--decade history proves they always grab power"]
["asymmetric threats and populism ensure catastrophic economic regionalism – effective global governance is key\nEide 16 ",{"$nulls":3},"China’s drive for regional hegemony is peaceful and not zero-sum with the U.S.---the only scenario for an aggressive rise to power is in response to signals that the U.S. could successfully deny China’s status claims heer 19","plan shores up allied commitmets--caps ecalation","won't willy nilly fight china"]
["independently, allied adventurism causes nuclear war – external restoration of treaty credibility is key to robust deterrence – data\nBeauchamp 18 ",{"$nulls":3},"Err neg---analysis of revisionist powers gets it wrong by presuming they’re dangerous when their power’s growing---the most likely scenario for great power war is when a rising challenger has just had its bid for status denied","chian reviisonist but won't risk war","pretige cutoff is the link"]
[{"$nulls":5},"scared of the US allies","scs island drainwg--that impac is mall"]
[null,null,"Unique link: Trump’s retaining existing global commitments but the U.S. is avoiding direct promotion of the liberal order---that fractures resistance from authoritarian powers and makes it easier to contain---but returning to norm-promotion consolidates resistance and creates an authoritarian alliance ","norm promotion-any alternatie fails--they are revisiotnit-allies draw in",null,"sk conventioanl weaons, japan self defense army","us imposition is worse for sv and threat"]
[null,null,"Rising states won’t aggressively challenge the international order now because it serves their interest in boosting their status and prestige. Trump’s effect on U.S. foreign policy prevents the U.S. from blocking entry into the club of major powers---that invests the overall order with resilience by allowing rising states to shape it ","2. overstrech-switch to militarism, expanisve hard power, itl colloboration","No card backs up the arg that the US would shift to militarism – it hasn’t played out under trump abandonment of the liberal order","china is revisionist and rise isn’t peaceful\nChoi 18"]
[null,null,"Revisionist states are only dangerous and conflict-prone when they’ve just had their ambitions denied---the plan creates the only scenario for great power war ",null,"won't go down swining","kahn evidence is wrong--chanigng hiearchy, who ushersi n multipolarity--US has to be the one--massive shift to econ regionalism--collaspses shit"]
[{"$nulls":4},"rising powers will provide public goods--solves the aff","peaceful and brans answere above--friction won't escalte if allies"]
[{"$nulls":3},"norms solve all their offense weyland--16",null,"drezner--formative resources to restrian alliances--those ???"]
[{"$nulls":3},"trump ensures violent transition klare 17","trump lashout is old","adventurism by allies impats--other fucks will start a war"]
[null,null,"Trade is a tiny factor in overall calculations of war","alliance--deterrence, violent risises","no trump preemption--card","russia and china lashout is the squo"]
[{"$nulls":3},"nuclear deterrence",null,"trump lashout answered above"]
[{"$nulls":3},"trade--regional blocks-econ warfare, populism, lashout","trade doesn't solve conflict","jaffe ev doesn't go too far--maybe won't do it now--transition coming tho"]
[{"$nulls":4},"marked card","gradual refors to something power--disproves lashout args"]
[{"$nulls":5},"inter d--only incentive cuz too csoty"]

{"sheet":"Congress","index":9,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":11}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["congressional foreign policy is uniquely bipartisan – growing checks on trump prove\nToosi and Levine 18 ",null,"Executive power and flexibility is more decisive, qualified, effective, and accountable than Congress---they’re beholden to special interest groups and can’t make decisions","conceds congress good","no extinction-arsenals too small","2nc light-not slow, arms race, data, 100 years, list of countries","arsenal small","domino theory-arsenal small, use it or lose it, crisis instability--data and empricis"]
["but congressional inaction on exit legality has increasingly polarized treaty politics – ensures perception of unilateral executive foreign policy which crushes credibility – states agree\nPeake 18 ",1,null,"mechanism unanwer","too slow to matter-mueller 16","kahl doesn't have data","prolif slow","don't cite historical data"]
["the plan durably unifies congress and creates robust legal guidelines – key to stable diplomacy\nCouchman 18 ",null,"No prolif impact  mueller 16","congress durable policy--no red lines","kahl 13","prolif=extinction, escalates to nuclear war, preemtpive strikes","no domino card"]
["unitary executive treaty power creates volatile commitment swings – causes instability and crushes prolif norms – states only trust congress\nSchultz 17 ",null,null,"prolif-studies, emboldend, israel pakistna",null,null,"scared first struck adversary so won't do it."]
["uncertain signaling ensures aggressive adversary testing which causes escalatory war – trump has terminally ruined the executive’s reputation – only external and univocal action can solve\nYarhi-Milo 18 ",null,null,"inexperience, miscalc"]
["unitary executive treaty power creates volatile commitment swings – causes instability and crushes prolif norms – states only trust congress\nSchultz 17 ",null,"and it solves war shen 11","adversaries prremptive stirkes"]
["uncertain signaling ensures aggressive adversary testing which causes escalatory war – trump has terminally ruined the executive’s reputation – only external and univocal action can solve\nYarhi-Milo 18 ",null,null,"studies are ancient"]
["decline of US treaty commitments causes rapid vertical and horizontal prolif – congress is key\nReif and Davenport 17 "]
["prolif causes extinction – consensus\nMiller and Gerzhoy 16 "]
["congressional foreign policy leadership is effective and necessary – consensus\nMalamud and Stravidis 16 "]

{"sheet":"NATO CP","index":10,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":15}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The President of the United States should withdraw the United States from NATO.\nThe United States supreme court should make no rulings concerning the treaty power. \n",null,"perm do the counterplan – substantially modifies power",null,null,"carpenter--allies free dride so the don'do shit","we solved this on case"]
[null,1]
["Continued commitment to NATO destroys U.S. credibility and causes draw-in and nuclear escalation with Russia – Europe will fill in to solve any turns"]
[null,null,"clarificitaon something"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"doesn't solve case--assumes worse"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"our ev says allies are good"]
[null,null,"beauchamp"]
[null,null,"cato hacks"]
[null,null,"centuries of data"]
[null,null,"allies are durable deterrence"]

{"sheet":"K","index":11,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":39}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Calls to restrain Trump’s authority obscure the history of projecting insecurity onto others in ways that produce the threats the 1AC claims to solve---only analysis of its epistemological failure can grapple with the cause of insecurity",null,null,"investment in trup-desire to return to normalcy-refuse to notice-trump threatens osmething. .. Statements are shocking, norm of noticnig, america is found on genocide and racial state, security defelcts ir something, ideology of american empire","reject insufficient","too many impat framing 1. moncausal arg--extinction framing 1 to 1, ignore other ways extinction coud happen, policy framing largest impact, other shit could be bad, intervention, poverty etc.","prolif outweighs--indepth studies, epistemolgoy, rigorous, bigger countries will nuke them"]
[null,1,null,null,"no ir alt--anarchy inev--who guides transition","struc violence--numerically outweighs-qutidoain outweigh nuclear war","anarchy is inevitable--quesetion who does that ordering"]
[{"$nulls":4},"who leads that order-authoriatainsim is bad","probabiltiy-mosotl likey to occur","russia turns sv"]
[null,null,"perf cons are bad","1. The K is a gateway issue---we introduced policy arguments as a second corollary to them justifying the epistemological foundations of the aff---their failure to do so means that since they introduced dangerous representations first they should lose because they set the stage for this debate.  ","aff is not perfect but alt is worse","2. vtl dillon 96 mode of calculation","depoloticze iwthout securitization"]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. Kicking their reps doesn’t resolve our DA to the planr---reps function in different ways for the aff and the neg, the 1AC ties reps to a course of action justified by represenations of their harms---if we’re wrong about that they justify aff conditionality which is worse for debatability than neg severence of reps. The alternative is a rejection of their reps BUT they cannot kick them because they’re intrinsic to the course of action that we’ve critiqued","plan stable clash--equity and clash, competitive research over polciy options, plan beomes liabiltiy, need imperfect options, nothing scales up","3. endless warfare--18 ev, endless waiting in wings, new threats, cofnlcit is endless, reject it","waraming will kill us all--need to securitize it"]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Our framework args prove that reps and advocacy are indistinguishable because theory is praxis---if that is true then if we win conditionality is good there’s no non-arbitrary way to distinguish cp/alt conditionality from reps conditionality---in other words, if we win fw and conditionality it logically follows we can “kick our bad reps”","plan is defense of epistemolgoy-end point is plan text","FW","authoritain turns vtl"]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. They are consistent---our disads only prove conventional IR scholars cannot even come to a consensus about the appropriate course of action---proves our epistemology arguments about the intersubjective nature of knowledge","insicnier form oof politcis something","epistemogloy, policy anlaysisi, role plain absolves repsonaility","aff isn't perfect but alt sucks--the neg is worse epistemolgoy"]
[{"$nulls":3},"5. We have links to the plan and our reps links prove their advantages are suspect and untrue---means that they have to beat our K links anyways to win any semblance of offense","you can have contraditocy advoaces but not epsiteomlgoies","you can change epistemogloy","they said endless wars too so leeway on perm"]
[{"$nulls":3},"6. Neg flex, need it against a NEW AFF","scenario tied to the plan","more agency","sever reps prior question than the aff"]
[{"$nulls":4},"revise and resubmit--permutation","perf con drops stuff","no alternative theory of how IR operates"]
[{"$nulls":4},"there can be explict rebuatls of securitation before poliy","can't go for just clash arguments","FRAMEWORK"]
[null,null,"clash with the plan","The role of the judge is to grade the epistemological coherence of their 1AC---the plan’s hypothetical enactment is irrelevant if we win that its epistemological foundations are suspect. It’s a better standard than weighing fiated implementation because it holds them to the merits of their ideas and eliminates their capacity to benefit from a kind of performative fiat that ignores the reality of debate.","they depolitizied war and warming-nothing to actiate against","better debates","decide on the plan text--way wwe conceptualzie acadmeic theories---clash provides deep testing better scholarship tsting"]
[{"$nulls":3},"You’re an educator, not a policymaker---use an academic standard because debate only consists of the presentation of scholarly research so the knowledge claims it makes must be first as they set the entire debate. Framework makes the alt and perm irrelevant---if a student turns in an F paper, the teacher doesn’t write a better one to show why the students was bad---likewise, pointing out major deficiencies in the 1AC construction should be enough for you to vote negative---our critique is just a different decision-making rubric for accepting or rejecting an advocacy.","repression if not framed the right wway.","questions assumption of which ir rests","1ac mootness is al ink to that"]
[{"$nulls":3},"prove plan is rez insufficietn",null,"more releavnat connections and thinking thorugh things","rejecting with tiny doubt is bad--plan libiltiy--solutions to things exist, imperfect world"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Fairness arguments are wrong---they get to set the terms of the debate, the first and last speech and can structure their advocacy however they want, which means they should be prepared to defend the social contexts and methodologies which shape their justifications. We didn’t PIK out of un-highlighted words---we’re asking a fundamental question of epistemology and impact turning their answer which necessarily implicates solvency.",null,"moorefield is better--trump unique allies, governent is bad, hegemony premised genocide","questioning assumptions is perm arg"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Prioritize epistemological interrogation---theory at every level is necessary to establish political relevance and drive effective political engagement Jahn 17",null,"fundamental contradiction of democracy","no tension between the two idea"]
[{"$nulls":3},"And, if they win policymaking good endorse the aff without the justifications we’re critiquing",null,"fialure to notice t all, come before args of solvency, policy failure","something about resolves prolems"]
[{"$nulls":5},"monocausual card says that too","perm double bind"]
[{"$nulls":6},"acknowledge the US is bad"]
[null,null,"securitization is good","politics bad because reinvest in american security laundry list of empire impacts",null,"perf con--framing argument, critique prior question, epsitemolgoy of 1ac, k jsutifies other arguments","trnasition now--russia and china are worse"]
[{"$nulls":3},"doesn't eliminate but puts them back to nrmalize papers over violence",null,"don't have a link to moorfield and the 1nc","fatalism to that possibiltiy Is bad"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Reject traditionally ideologically biased impact calc---magnitude corrupts decision making, epitomized by “any risk means try or die”. A low threshold for threats is the lifeblood of militarism---it guarantees that the military industrial complex lays outside the realm of legitimate inquiry as an ideological sacred cow. This mode of evaluating debates causes structural violence---you should reject the “try or die” mentality out of hand and only vote affirmative if they can prove a reasonable likelihood their depictions of the world are accurate. Urgency doesn't require us to replace methods that work with those that don't.",null,"conditionaltiy and a fw argument--no distinction","we aren't combingin aff and neg--revising and resubmitting"]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. Structural violence---hyper militarism sustains hierarchies of inequality directly responsible for global economic inequality, racialized oppression, and gender binaries. Numerically, structural violence outweighs the deaths caused by war which turns util AND it fuels the psychological enemy creation needed to legitimize militarized violence",null,"perm-can't combine-psychosis--defers change, kelley states powerful, laways feel insecure so that is lashout","no intrinsic link argument to the plan, the linked to prirotize trump-they said shit about squo--they try to resolve it"]
[{"$nulls":3},"they don't have util in the 2ac",null,"resubmit in another deabte, link between reps and security and how it informs plan in this debtae"]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. Self-fulfilling prophecy---academics securitize the actors that Trump threatens by using the security representations of war they gave him. The Aff adds fuel to the fires of war by establishing hostile cognitive filters that are the precondition to war.",null,"they didn't make an ew permutation"]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Root Cause---failure to explore the psychological roots of enemy creation guarantees inevitable warfare---entrenched ways of thinking cause us to move from enemy to enemy because we need them to exist---the end of the cold war caused demonization of Japan, China, and now Islam to sustain our mental desire for conflict. In this instance root cause outweighs proximate cause---their description of the triggers of war is a false construct---acting to solve it nevers solves the terminal impact because it misses the structural causes of warfare.",null,"opens up space for politiccs--violence against everyone for security theats"]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. Endless war\nCharlotte Heath-Kelly 18",null,"no consequentialism, ballot for ethics"]
[{"$nulls":3},"vtl dillon 96",null,"episteolgoy decision calculus"]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"Monocausal explanations for existential risk create a false sense of security that foreclose policy options necessary to avoid the same outcomes from different routes---turns the case and requires complexity theory to resolve serial policy failure"]
[]
[null,null,"perm do both","Perm links or severs---all links are disads that prove that it includes their security representations. They can’t jettison reps---jacks neg ground and makes the aff conditional, destroys argument development and makes negating impossible which turns their framework args. Forcing the aff to defend knowledge production is necessary to check the insane race ridiculous impacts that dilutes debate’s value. Plan focus is bad---reduces a 9-minute advocacy to a 4 second sentence and trains irresponsible students who can’t defend the presumptions. No offense because they choose the representations to put in the 1AC, defending them is reciprocal since they use them to outweigh disads."]
[{"$nulls":3},"The investment in checking Trump is not because he’s a “threat” but because of a desire to return to normalacy, characterized refusing to notice."]
[{"$nulls":3},"some security alt card"]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"xxxx"]
[null,null,"apocalyptic rhetoric is good","this is about environemtn warming"]
[{"$nulls":3},"doesn't say security in IR"]

{"sheet":"Macros","index":12,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":18}
["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 "]