DB8ROX vs.

MSD 2NC

I'm splitting the Negative block, which means I'll do all my responses to the 2AC in this speech and
bring up all my new arguments in the 1NR. This also means the word limits are switched – the 1NR
will be 2,000 words. Because they're technically one speech, right? So I can mess with the order all I
want, right? So I could make this speech like 5 words and give all the rest to the other speech, right? So
you'll vote for me, right?

Da DAs
The impact turn: He never said he'd nuke the moon in the right spots, thus still triggering DA 2. Neither
did he say he'd nuke Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc – other nations that have nuclear weapons.
Without nuking them, nuclear war is inevitable:

Nuclear war is inevitable with Aff

Prof. Jacob Argonaut (PhD in world politics, overworked professor at Rutgers University), 2009,
Annual Review of World Politics and Stability, “The End of the World: 101 Extinction Scenarios”, Vol.
132, No. 1, Lexis-Nexis

“Every single nuclear power in the world has the potential to randomly destroy the world if they feel
like it. As long as there are nuclear weapons anywhere, nuclear war is eventually inevitable if any
change at all is made to the status quo, excluding changes to the definition of 'environmental policy'.”

The perm doesn't solve the DAs because since he permed CP 1, it gets dropped, meaning that you don't
get it if you vote for either side. He should be allowed to add stuff to his plan partway through the
round, which is basically what maintaining the perm after the CP has been dropped is. So neither side
enacts CP 1, which means that the Aff case still triggers all the DAs.

So why is nuclear war bad, if it's an advantage to the plan? Well, there's two types of nuclear war; the
Aff's acceptance of Irrestitutionalism (see kritik) means that any type of nuclear war they indirectly
initiate (as in triggering a DA) will be bad:

Irrestitionalist indirect nuclear war bad

Brennen Wersenheicht (PhD in resource philosophy, J. F. Heisenbracht professor of Truth and Other
Random Stuff at Mouthwestern University, Geneva), 1969, “Towards a stuorphic basis for nonreality”,
Dirk & Andrews, ISBN #1283202-392, page 345

“In pure war cultures-that is, in cultures that enact a perpetual preparation for war-the notion of peace
is itself a defensive fantasy, although deterrence on an levels would thus consist in extending the
regime of pure war on the totality of productive activities to the "army of dwarves" (Goethe) would
need "seven-league boots": "a troop of dwarves, when we expected to see giants in Germany."
However, if he thus conflates a number of very different discourses, his conceptualization of the social
phenomenon he objects to remains much more sharply focused: one never tires of enumerating and
indicting all that is evil and inimical in the form individual existence has assumed hitherto, one hopes
to manage more cheaply, more safely, more equitably, more uniformly if there exists only large bodies
and their members. In both cases, the domestic order is privileged because 'progress and perfection', or
at least the mitigation of the state of nature, is assumed to be possible only through control and rule.”

Page 1 of 4
DB8ROX vs. MSD 2NC

Da K
Dude. Just because you believe everything comes down to LOLWUT? doesn't mean you aren't
irrestitutionalist. Bad logic here. The link stands, and the kritik is still a reason to vote against him.

Obviously, because he's using bad logic, this means my logic is flawless. So you should vote Neg.

Da Counter-K
No reason to prefer. Two of his lolcats, “I IS TEN NINJAS” and “I can has 72 virgins” have incorrect
sentence structure, and he made a spelling error in the counter-k text (“thert”). Therefore there's no
reason to prefer one side over the other on the counter-K.

Da CPs
Okay, so basically DB8ROX just killed his whole case:

Because, by perming CP 1, he's activated CP 2. Kinda like that scene where Indiana Jones sets off the
big boulder rolling after him and makes him run down the tunnel when he really should have been
running up the tunnel because then he would have gone under the boulder. Except, here, we know what
sprung the trap, whereas in the movie, we never saw it. Presumably he set off a tripcord or something,
or the Ancient Trap-Building Deities of Noorr created some super high-tech laser motion sensing
system or something. And instead of a boulder, it's a counterplan. And instead of running, he's standing
in one spot and getting squashed flat. And instead of Indiana, his name is Marshall. And instead of
being in a dark tomb or something, he's sitting in front of a computer. And instead of being designed by
the Ancients way back in Ancient Times(tm), the trap was created by a random debater like a week ago.
And instead of being from a totally different civilization, we're technically in the same club. And
instead of... Whatever. Bad analogy.

Page 2 of 4
DB8ROX vs. MSD 2NC

ANYWAY. His case just became completely nontopical, because our Counterplan 2 mandated that it
does. This means that voting for him would be about as sensible as voting for this guy:

I CAN HA Z CHANGE
Oh wait, we already did. Anyway...

“BUT WAIT!” you say. “The counterplan doesn't happen until AFTER I vote for you! How does that
make their case nontopical NOW?”

1. It becomes nontopical as soon as you vote for me, and since you're obviously going to vote for
me, of course it's nontopical now. Right? Right?
2. Topicality is not time-sensitive. A case doesn't suddenly stop being topical because some
arbitrary date passes, like the end of the Mayan calendar.

“This is your pilot speaking. We're experiencing

some minor topicality difficulties...”
Page 3 of 4
DB8ROX vs. MSD 2NC

So it obviously shouldn't be topical before a given time if it's not topical after a given time. Right?

3. Regardless of who you vote for, DB8ROX's link to the kritik triggers the counterplan. Let's go
back to our link card:

The Affirmative's assumption that an attempt to achieve a higher state of accuracy is desirable
embodies a flawed view of reality – Irrestitutionalism
Brennen Wersenheicht (PhD in resource philosophy, J. F. Heisenbracht professor of Truth and Other
Random Stuff at Mouthwestern University, Geneva), 1969, “Towards a stuorphic basis for nonreality”,
Dirk & Andrews, ISBN #1283202-392, page 776

“When this paradigm is considered – or at least, rationalized by Being – we can fully understand that
imports of the Irrestitutionalist mind. The technological paradigm embodies and furthers our
technological understanding of being according to which what does not fit in with our current paradigm
-- that is, that which is not yet at our disposal to use efficiently. But the unconcealment itself, within
which ordering unfolds, is never a human handiwork, any more than is the realm through which man is
already passing every time he as a subject relates to an object. Thus, free subjectivity and the
manipulability of entities turn out to be the same in comparison to the necessity of objective ground.”

Notice the phrase “that which is not yet at our disposal to use efficiently.” The counterplan is not yet at
our disposal, because you haven't voted for it. But according to Wersenheicht, that which is not yet at
our disposal embodies “understanding of being”, which is a mindset that DB8ROX already holds –
hence the kritik. Thus, DB8ROX's philosophy is fundamentally linked to the counterplan – he accepts
understanding of being, which embodies something which is not yet at our disposal (the counterplan.)
Thus, he accepts the counterplan, which means if you vote Aff you get the counterplan, which means
his case is nontopical. Got it? Good.

Vote Negative, or we will FIGHT TO THE DEATH using long words and complex sentences.

Page 4 of 4