The problem that I see with the cases in a debate-theory realm is that Aff cases are supposed to fix problems with the status quo, right? However, the Aff is making the argument that we should change our policy based off of a hypothetical situation that could happen. However, the Status Quo necessarily has to change before the Aff’s plan can be passed (Kurds have to recognize themselves, Israel has to agree to an MDT, and the 5th fleet has to get kicked out).
No, Aff's plan can be passed right now. Aff's plan is to have a contingency protocol. We don't have to wait, we can pass it this instant. The IMPACTS of the plan (i.e. the contingency plan actually serving a purpose) come later, but the PLAN ITSELF can be passed now.
Similarly, offering Israel an MDT is something we can do right now, it just won't have an effect until they agree to it.
Then we come to the Kurds case. This one is a little sketchy. Whether it's legit or not depends on your plan text. For instance, you could say "our plan is to recognize Kurdistan, and our plan will take place when Kurdistan recognizes themselves." In this case, your plan won't actually get passed till the future. I think you could still make the case that it's Topical though, because the resolution simply says "we should change our policy," so you could argue that changing our policy in the future is still changing our policy. This would be kinda sketchy tho. I mean, after all, if reforming future problems with a future plan is legit, why isn't reforming past problems with a past plan legit?
On the other hand, you could also have a plan text that said "our plan is to pass a bill that says we officially recognize Kurdistan when they recognize themselves." In that case, the plan is passed NOW. It won't have any impact until Kurdistan recognizes themselves, but it can still be passed, and it's definitely Topical. That said, I think this plan text would make a very stupid case, because if you pass a bill to recognize them as soon as they recognize themselves, other countries will perceive it as a recognition of their independence in the status quo, so you might as well just og ahead and recognize them right now.
To put it more simply: Aff is not identifying a problem with the Status quo (an inherent issue), but rather a hypothetical situation. Neg is no longer defending the status quo, but rather saying that the hypothetical situation the Aff mentions can’t or won’t take place.
There's nothing wrong with that in my view. Threats ARE real-world issues, and ARE inherent problems. A lot of real-world policies are going to involve speculation about the future. I ran TNWs last year, for instance, and it dealt with preventing future terror attacks. I think that's perfectly legitimate.
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014