What the hell

Their argument that we’re unlimiting is unproven- the only argument in the 2nr is why theyre more limiting than we are, so all we have to win is that we’re reasonable- the 2nr doesn’t give any reasons why us allowing 30 cases to their 25 is bad- that wouldnt change education or their prep- now even if they win limits debate, our definition is best for education and predictability because it is contextual and discussed in the core literature on the topic.

the first argument they make on the 2nc overview is that we prevent links to biz con and politics, but that’s because our case is a military case. Plus that ground isn’t key, theres no reason why they should always get links to certain positions- that would make all debates generic and boring.

Now drop down to the first we meet argument- since they don’t define what use means, our interpretation is as good as theirs- use includes destruction, and we protect marine natural resources from destruction. Even if you thin...