Consider the following hypothetical:
1AC: Increase food stamps, solves hunger.
1NC: Politics (plan is unpopular and prevents a climate bill from passing—that causes runaway warming), Military Recruitment DA (reducing poverty weakens the recruiting base, tanking hegemony), Case Defense.
2AC: Straight Turns Politics (climate bill will not pass in the status quo, plan is crucial to passage), Answers Military Recruitment DA, Answers Case Defense.
2NC: New Counterplan: Pass Climate Bill. Extends Military Recruitment DA.
1NR: Extends Case Defense / Military Recruitment DA Outweighs The Case.
Is the 2NC counterplan—to pass the Climate Bill—legitimate? If yes, why? If not, why not?
Is it legitimate for the 1AR to impact turn the Climate Bill (by arguing that the Climate Bill is bad)? If yes, why? If not, why not?
If the 1AR impact turns the Climate Bill, is it legitimate for the 2NR to:
extend the 2AC’s “non-unique” and “link turn” arguments (proving that the plan would uniquely cause the Climate Bill to pass)? If yes, why? If not, why not?
extend the 1NC impact (Climate Bill solves warming) and weigh it against the 1AR’s impact turn? If yes, why? If not, why not? And is it legitimate for the 2NR to read more evidence to support this argument?