Whole Resolution

This is not topicality. Its not about the lives lost to cancer. Its not about the amount
of data on cancer. The role of the affirmative is to defend the entire resolution. The
entire resolution is the usfg should substantially increase its diplomatic and or
economic engagement with the peoples republic of china. The affirmative defends
national cancer moonshot sharing. The bright line, for them to not be in violation, is
to have their plan be the usfg should substantially increase its diplomatic and or
economic engagement with the peoples republic of china, and then their case be
the different examples and benefits of economic / diplomatic engagements. Again
this is not topicality. This is me calling them out for limitng the educational value of
this debate in order for them to win. Their subset, does nto prove the resolution
good/bad. Again the bushel of apples analogy. Topicaliy would mean im arguing
their plan isnt even an apple. Thats not what im saying. Im saying evaluating one
apple is not representative of the entire bushel. Vote for the negative so we can
actually come to a conclusion about the entire resolution, engagement either
diplomatically or economically with china.

The only
Real
Impact
Is
Education
You cant solve cancer
Im sorry but you cant
At least not in this round
Not by circling affirmative
Not by passing an imaginary plan
But by voting negative so that in the future, I can go on to more rounds and
hopefully convince more people that education happens when we debate the whole
resolution
 CP
PERM:
Cannot perm because we establish these legal transparencies on top of creating
whole databases and systems of collecting and retrieving and scholars who will
dedicate their time and resources to compiling evidence. If you perm, youre in
reality voting for a crappy plan, while my counterplan picks up the pieces. Why not
just vote negative AND have the benefit of the real impact this round. Education.
Look to all of our solvency evidence that points out critical barriers to the
Affirmative. Right now, there is either no existing data collection, the data is lost, or
cannot be retrieved. Further, even if such data exists, there are no means to
interpret or use such data. The counterplan is the only plan in this round that
adequately addresses and solves these barriers. The establishment of new data
collection and retrieval ensures the quality and quantity and accessibility of data.
The scholars allows new improvements to process data. What blocks the affirmative
doesnt block the CP. Because of this, we have access to all their impacts, so if you
really cared about cancer and solving <<insert impacts of aff>> then you MUST
vote for the negative because it is the only true solution today.

Even if you think their case is the best thing to have walked this earth since sliced
bread, vote neg on the counterplan because we dont have to go through the
procedural barriers I have presented. My plan, actually works and does what its
supposed to.
 Case
I only have to take down one of five stock issues. And the stock issues that has
been largely under attack today is solvency.

They dont create a data base. In existing databases data is lost and cannot be
retrieved, either here or china

Additionally cancer data sharing leads to loss of privacy. Sure we want to solve
cancer. And we also want to fight terrorism. So then tell me why there was such a
scandal and upheaval over the unlocking of an iphone. A critical piece of evidence
in the san bernadino shooting. Tell me why the nsa (national security agency) was
reprimanded for surveilling everyone.

But even if u dont believe privacy is an issue, vote the cp

Even if you think cancer and academic capitalism are legitimate issues vote the cp