First off is the skater boy disad:

A. Uniqueness – Hank looks like a skater boy

B. Link – his partner is not a skater boy
C. internal link – insert internal link here
D. Impact – they should lose

NEXT OFF IS THE KITCHEN DISAD:

A. UNIQUENESS – I DON’T HAVE TO MAKE SANDWICHES FOR ALEX NOW
B. LINK – ALEX GETS REALLY HUNGRY AFTER LOSING
C. INTERNAL LINK – ALEX CAN EAT A WHOLE FREAKING COW IF HE WANTS TO, AND MAGNIFIED A
MILLION TIMES LEADS TO LOSS OF ALL LIFE ON EARTH (not just aminals)
D. IMPACT – ALEX’S KITCHEN IS EMPTY, TURNS CASE

NEXT OFF IS THE REPTILES DISAD:

A. UNIQUENESS – REPTILES ARE COMPLETING THE ILLUMINATI AGENDA NOW
B. LINK – PLAN ALLOWS FOR THEM TO FINISH IT EARLY, TURNS CASE
C. INTERNAL- LINK – REPTILES FINISHING EARLY ALLOWS THEM TO PURSUE OTHER FORMS OF
DOMINATION QUICKLY
D. IMPACT –
Zalmay Khalilzad in the year of the Red Lunar Moon (Dep. Secretary of Defense) The
Washington Quarterly
A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages.
First, the global environment would be more open and receptive to American values--democracy,
free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, renegade states,
and low level conflicts. Finally, US leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival,
enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers,
including a global nuclear exchange.

AND THIS IS THE NARRATIVE OF A MUTE ON HOW HE BECAME SO.

TSE-TUNG IN THE Year of the Yellow Lunar Seed [Mao, Chairman of the Communist party
of China, Revolutionary] “OPPOSE BOOK
WORSHIP”,http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-
6/mswv6_11.htm Skills]

I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that
too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and
its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be
nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right
to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a
Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense? It won' t do! It won't do! You must investigate! You must not talk
nonsense! II. TO INVESTIGATE A PROBLEM IS TO SOLVE IT You can' t solve a problem? Well, get down and
investigate the present facts and its past history! When you have investigated the problem thoroughly, you will know how to solve it.
Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or
together with a group, to "find solution" or "evolve an idea" without making any investigation. It
must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective solution or any good idea. In other words, he is bound to arrive at a
wrong solution and a wrong idea. There are not a few comrades doing inspection work, as well as guerrilla leaders and cadres newly
in office, who like to make political pronouncements the moment they arrive at a place and who strut about, criticizing this and
condemning that when they have only seen the surface of things or minor details. Such purely subjective nonsensical talk is indeed
detestable. These people are bound to make a mess of things, lose the confidence of the masses
and prove incapable of solving any problem at all. When they come across difficult problems, quite a number of
people in leading positions simply heave a sigh without being able to solve them. They lose patience and ask to be transferred on the
ground that they "have not the ability and cannot do the job"; These are cowards' words. Just get moving on your two
legs, go the rounds of every section placed under your charge and "inquire into everything''[1] as
Confucius did, and then you will be able to solve the problems, however little is your ability; for although your head may be empty
before you go out of doors, it will be empty no longer when you return but will contain all sorts of material necessary for the solution
of the problems, and that is how problems are solved. Must you go out of doors? Not necessarily. You can call a fact-finding meeting
of people familiar with the situation in order to get at the source of what you call a difficult problem and come to know how it stands
now, and then it will be easy to solve your difficult problem. Investigation may be likened to the long months of
pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.

NEXT OFF IS THE BUSH IS A ROBOT DISAD:

A) THE INTERNAL LINK – THE PLAN USES BUSH. IT CRITICIZES THINGS AND BUSH.

B) THE REAL LINK – BUSH DOESN’T EXIST – HE’S AN ANIMATRONIC ROBOT. TURNS CASE

LONGHAIR in the year of the Blue Crystal Storm

[ORIGINALLY FOUND ON DEADLYSINS.COM, POSTED BY LONGHAIR TO
http://sensiblyeclectic.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/mainsite/george_w_bush_animatronic
_robot ]

Created in absolute secrecy by the CIA and top defense contractors, "Unit W" was designed to simulate
average human motion, speech, and behavior. Originally intended for espionage, he is the fusion of a
servo-motorized biofidelic shell and a sophisticated artificial intelligence module. The fiendish experiment
proved to be such a success that his human masters decided to put their creation to the ultimate test --
run him for President.

Now George W, a mindless automaton created in a top-secret lab, will preside over the first literal "puppet
government.”

C)

THE MISSING LINK – THIS IS A VOTING ISSUE; SEVERAL REASONS!

1) FAIRNESS. PLAN SPIKES OUT OF ALL OF OUR POLITICS LINKS BECEAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH POLITICAL CAPITAL A ROBOT HAS. EVEN IF WE WERE TO ACCESS THE
SECRET CIA FILES, THEY COULD ALWAYS JUST CHANGE THE LEVELS ON US, WHICH EXPLODES
LIMITS.
2) LIMITS. PLAN UNLIMITS THE TOPIC BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW ROBOTIC ACTORS THAT ENCOURAGES
DEBATERS TO BUILD THEIR OWN ANIMATRONIC ROBOTS TO DO THE PLAN WHICH IS
UNPREDICTABLE BECAUSE THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF ROBOTS THAT COULD BE BUILT AND
THERE’S NO LITERATURE ON THEM.
3) SOLVENCY. ALL OF THEIR SOLVENCY EVIDENCE ASSUMES THAT A HUMAN DOES THE PLAN. THIS
KILLS 90 PERCENT OF THEIR SOLVENCY, WHICH IS ENOUGH OF THE TABLE’S LEG SAWED OFF SO
THAT THE TABLE COLLAPSES.

Richard F. Elmore, Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy

Decisions, Political Science Quarterly, IN THE YEAR OF THE PRIMROSE SEED, Number 4 Winter,
page 605

Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing
those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, "What percentage
of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the
preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that, in
the normal case it was about 10 percent leaving the remaining 90 percent in the
realm of implementation.

4) DEHUMANIZATION. THEY UPHOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AS A SAFE HAVEN FOR
ANIMATRONIC ROBOTS. THIS SETS UP A SLIPPERY SLOPE. THAT’S NUCLEAR WAR.
BERUBE A LONG TIME AGO
[PhD – http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm]

Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview
smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there
would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to escape
their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of
Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater
than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the
Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents...
in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be
possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness
offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a
nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are
dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and
dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.

NEXT OFF IS THE ZACH ROSENTHAL DISAD:

A. UNIQUENESS – ZACH HAS ENOUGH BIDS TO THE TOC TO QUAL
B. LINK – WHEN HANK WINS AN AFF ROUND HE STEALS A BID FROM ZACH
C. INTERNAL LINK – THIS MEANS ZACH CAN’T WIN THE TOC
D. IMPACT – ZACH NOT GOING TO THE TOC MEANS THAT HE CAN’T GO FOR A ‘THE’ PIC
IN SEMIS – TURNS CASE

NEXT OFF IS ASHTAR SPEC:

a. interpretation – the aff must specify whether ashtar is a giant mechanical brain or an Illuminati
illusion.
b. violation – they don’t, turns case
c. voting issue for ashtar

NEXT OFF IS THE K:

Extinction is inevitable, let’s talk about signs, turns case

NEXT OFF IS HIPSTER HITLER:

VOTE NEG TO AVOID HIPSTER HITLER HE KILLED JEWISH PEOPLE

NEXT OFF IS THE COUNTERPLAN:

Text: the United States federal government should install a pinball machine in the
Theatre of Operations Central Command in Afghanistan.

CAN’T SOLVE AFGHANISTAN WITHOUT A PINBALL MACHINE, turns case

The Onion IN THE Year of the Red Overtone Moon. "I'm Afraid We Will Never Win In
Afghanistan Unless Central Command Gets A Pinball Machine." The Onion - America's Finest
News Source. Web. <http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-afraid-we-will-never-win-in-
afghanistan-unless,18256/>.
As anyone who has been following the news recently can attest, there is very little
positive that can be said about the war in Afghanistan. Recent leaks to the media have
given the public a glimpse of the sort of hellish realities and demoralizing intelligence
that I have to deal with day in and day out. The grim truth is that the Taliban is at its
strongest point since the invasion, al-Qaeda is on the rise along the border, and the
nation's American-backed government remains mired in corruption and failure. To put it
frankly, the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan may be a lost cause.

That is, unless Central Command gets a pinball machine.

For the past several years, our Joint Intelligence Center has pored through the daily
stream of raw intel coming in from our troops on the ground, searching for a way to turn
the military tide in our favor. And while there are rarely any easy answers in war, we
have discovered that in this case there is: pinball. Or rather, a full-size pinball machine
that we could put right between the soda dispenser and the projection screen.

AND SOLVES BEST FOR ECON, turns case

the onion, continuing:

All we'd have to do is move the file cabinet over -a foot or two. Pinball machines don't
even cost that much, seriously, I checked. If you get one used they're like a couple
thousand dollars, tops.

PINBALL MACHINES KEY TO VALUE TO LIFE, SOLVES THE CASE

THE ONION CONTINUES

Believe me when I say that brave men and women in uniform are dying every day, and
we owe it to them to do everything within our power to ensure victory. Which is why if
we want to have any chance of rooting insurgents out of Kandahar and cutting off
Taliban supply lines from Pakistan, then we'll need to bring in some serious firepower at
Central Command. We're talking multi-ball, frequent jackpots, a third flipper midway up
the game board, and a lot of those bumpers that make that loud ping noise when the
ball collides with them. Multiple levels of skill-shots would also be fantastic, but not at
the expense of gameplay, of course.

We need our nation's lawmakers to give us their full and undivided support. Watering
down any defense appropriations bills by sending us a substandard machine would have
dire consequences. An analog-motor board is not going to cut it; we need solid-state technology with
a dot-matrix screen to display point bonuses and jackpots. Any of the Stern or Bally movie tie-in boards like Addams Family or T3:
Rise Of The Machines would be terrific; that awesome-looking Sopranos one that plays actual lines recorded by the actors when you
hit a combo shot would work, too. Consider that the fate of the war itself is at stake and proceed
accordingly. Also, check out PinballUniverse.com. They've got some killer boards, including a Royal Rumble machine that's
near-mint. Scroll down and find the guy's e-mail to ask about price and availability. While combat troops have been withdrawn from
Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan has only intensified. Indeed, the monthly counts of U.S. fatalities are now at their highest levels since
the war began nine years ago. As an understandable consequence, morale among our troops has plummeted. But if there's one thing
I learned back in Officer Candidate School, it's that nothing takes a young soldier's mind off his daily stresses quite like a thrilling,
fast-paced game of pinball in which his reflexes snap at lightning speed while a buzzing crowd gathers around him as he racks up
So before you
replay after replay. My God, I miss that Bally's Fireball machine at the Quantico Bowl & Bar. That game ruled.
resign yourself to an American defeat in Afghanistan, let me assure you that two possible
futures remain before us. There is the course that we are currently on, in which a pinball machine
does not show up two rooms down from my office and the United States flees Afghanistan in disgrace, allowing the country to fall
And there is another option
back under Taliban control and placing our own homeland at greater risk of terrorist attack.
that, thankfully, is still within our grasp. If we all set aside our differences and agree to
put a pinball machine in Central Command today, then we still have a chance at a
brighter tomorrow. A future in which a safe and free Afghan state flourishes. A future in
which our soldiers return home triumphant. A future in which the high score flashes the
initials "USA."

NEXT OFF IS A-SPEC:

A) INTERPRETATION-THE AFF MUST SPECIFY AGENT, TURNS CASE

B) VIOLATION-USFG IS NOT AN ACTOR

Brovero a few 13 moons ago

(Adrienne, Immigration Policies Expert, http:www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Brovero1994Immigration.htm)

The problem is that there is no agent specified. The federal

The problem is not that there is not a plan; this time there is on.
government does not enact policies, agents or agencies within the federal government enact policies. The
agent enacting a policy is a very important aspect of the policy. For some of the same reasons the affirmative team should specify a plan of action, the affirmative team should specify
an agent of action.

C) VOTERS

1. GROUND-DENY SPECIFIC LINKS TO DISADS, IMPLEMENTATION TAKEOUTS, AND

AGENTS CPS- 90 PERCENT OF POLICY IS IMPLEMENTATION – cross apply elmore

2. NO SOLVENCY-BROVERO INDICATES USFG DOES NOT ENACT POLICIES

3. NOT TOPICAL-THERE NOT FIRM ON AGENT WHICH VIOLATES RESOLVED “TO

TAKE A FIRM COURSE OF ACTION”-THAT’S DICTIONARY.COM

NEXT OFF IS A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT:

A. Interpretation: the aff should be an instrumental defense of the resolution

B. violation – they aren’t
C. standards –
1. ground – if they don’t defend the rez there’s no way to be neg, I can’t even kill terrorists, say terrorists
good, etc, dawg.
2. limits – if they don’t defend the rez there is no debate, since they can change everything up in later
speeches and then we don’t get clash and it’s like a novice debate
3. predictability – you don’t link to cap so I can’t read a k and so you’re not predictable

NEXT OFF IS CONSULT NEIL:

Text: the people in this room should consult with Neil Ally about whether to adopt the
epistemology of the aff.
Solves best, Neil Ally knows his philosophy. TURNS CASE
And, we have a net benefit of bringing sexy back – Neil ally is the sexiest man ALIVE:

NEXT OFF IS TIMECUBE:

A. Interpretation - the earth is a 4-sided time cube - the plan text has to specify which side the
plan passes on

Ray, No Date [Dr. Gene, Cubic and Wisest Human. “Time Cube.” www.timecube.com

you realize that a 4 corner

square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full
circle? A full rotated square will create
16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous
24 hour Day circles within only a single
imaginary cubed Earth roation. This
amounts to a spiraling quad helix of
Earth as it revolves around the Sun -
rotating as it revolves around the Sun,
to induce the value of the Sun revolving
about the Earth.

B. Violation - they fail to specify what side the plan passes on

C. Standards

1. Education -
I can call singularity educators the most
putrid name on Earth and claim they eat
cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass
bastards will not even object - for they
know I am right and that any debate will
indict them for the evil they perpetuate
against the students and future humanity.

2. Ground - I lose links to side-specific DAs and counterplans

D. Voting issue

1. Jurisdiction - you lose automatically because

You do not have the freedom

to discuss/debate Time Cube.

2. Death -

EVERY HUMAN DESERVES DEATH FOR IGNORING SUCH A SUPERNATURAL TRANSCENDENTAL

PRINCIPLE.

Next off is the skater boy disad 2.0:

A. Uniqueness – Hank looks like a skater boy

B. Link – his partner is not a skater boy
C. internal link – insert internal link here
D. Impact – they should lose
NEXT OFF IS START:

1.) START will pass now

Joe Circione 6-30-10 “A Strong Majority for New START” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-
cirincione/a-strong-majority-for-new_b_628936.html
With such overwhelming bipartisan support from America's top civilian and military officials and former
national security leaders, it has been hard for the determined critics to scrape together experts beyond the
fringe. Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) - the only U.S. Senator to publicly oppose the treaty - lamented this very
situation, saying, "Seventeen witnesses so far, no witnesses in opposition to it." He added, "I don't know
who thinks that can be reasonable." The opposition's problem is not that the Senate is being lead astray. In
committee hearings, supporters of the treaty did not pull their punches. They noted areas where they
wished the treaty had gone further. The far right is simply having trouble objecting to what is an
extremely reasonable and widely supported treaty with clear benefits for American national security. It's
down to politics. The only reason to oppose this treaty is political gamesmanship on the eve of elections--
to deny the administration a victory. This would sacrifice our national security for narrow, partisan gain.

2.) Capital is key to START ratification, Obama has room to juggle some issues but adding an additional
contentious issue will doom arms control
James Kitfield October 9 2009 The National Journal Group, Wars, Political Battles Complicate
Obama Effort to Prevent Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Google News
Because arms control treaties require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for ratification, Obama has no choice
but to win significant Republican support. Already, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz)., who helped organize opposition to the test-ban treaty in 1999, is reportedly lining up votes in opposition. Insiders believe that
Republicans may try to make support, even for the new START treaty, contingent on the administration's supporting a "Reliable Replacement Warhead" to modernize the nation's aging nuclear arsenal. That condition, which Obama voted against as a senator, would be a poison pill for arms control advocates. Kyl and
Richard Perle, the former chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 30 that Obama's arms control agenda was based on "dangerous, wishful thinking." Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, said, "If you look at the controversy triggered by President Obama's
decision in regards to missile defense in Europe, I think that was a harbinger of the arguments to come over arms control as opponents come after him for watering down the Bush legacy and being weak on national security." Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, has never forgotten
the "horrendous defeat" that Clinton -- weakened by an impeachment battle and a divisive war in Kosovo -- suffered in 1999 when a Republican-controlled Senate rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. By launching the nonproliferation initiative while Obama's popularity and stock of political capital
remain relatively high, the administration seems to have absorbed the lesson of 1999. "But I see both risk as well as opportunity in the administration's very ambitious strategy," Talbott said. "They obviously hope to get some points on the board with negotiation and ratification of a new START, building a sense of
momentum that will translate into Senate ratification of the test-ban treaty. That has a familiar ring, however, because this administration similarly hoped to score some early points with their domestic agenda and then get on a roll where victory begot victory. Then they ran into trouble on health care, which will
translate into trouble on other domestic issues. The same thing could happen on their nonproliferation agenda." Indeed, Obama is facing a pivotal decision on whether to surge as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops to salvage an unpopular war in Afghanistan. Influential Democrats in Congress are already mobilizing
to oppose a surge. Such an expansion of the war effort there would likely force the administration to seek Republican support for a supplemental war-funding bill, even as Obama tries to hold his own fractious caucus together behind the nonproliferation agenda. Peter Feaver served in the White House on the National
Security Council staff during the Bush administration's surge of forces to Iraq in 2007. If Obama decides to repeat that tactic in Afghanistan, Feaver said, the administration is about to learn some tough lessons about the limits of a president's personal and political capital, and Washington's ability to simultaneously
digest major, contentious policy proposals. "The most precious White House resource is a president's actual time and attention, because there are only so many hours in a day and you can't let the president get burned out. The fact that Obama has only spoken to his top commander in Afghanistan a couple of times

. "There is also a limited amount of

suggests to me that his staff has conserved that resource for other priorities, and that is about to change if he backs a surge in Afghanistan," Feaver told National Journal

congressional bandwidth, meaning you can only jam so many major issues into the pipeline before
they are traded off against each other." As an example, Feaver notes that if the administration angers Republicans
on missile defense but needs their help on an Afghan supplemental, then it may be forced to give on the test-ban treaty or
perhaps cap-and-trade. "The deals become more complicated," he said, "and lawmakers have fresh
memories of when the administration rolled them and when it conceded to their demands." In the end,
Bush pushed through a divisive invasion of Iraq in 2003; won re-election in 2004; and even after the war turned unpopular,
mustered enough political backing to surge troops to Iraq in 2007. But major domestic priorities such as immigration and
Social Security reform became casualties of war. "I think Obama is in a similar place as Bush in 2002," Feaver said. "Though
he's starting to get a lot of push-back, Obama probably has the political capital to ram through health care
and get what he wants on Afghanistan and possibly even arms control, but he'll pay a price."

3.) (insert specific link here)

4. The impact is extinction – this is the fastest and most likely scenario
John Hallam, Editor of Nuclear Flashpoints, John Burroughs and Marcy Fowler, Lawyers
Committee on Nuclear Policy, 2009, NPT Preparatory Committee, Steps Toward a Safer World
Why did an article in the September 2008 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, entitled 'avoiding human
extinction' give a list of measures needed to avoid that, with lowering the operating status of nuclear weapon systems
(along with their elimination) topping the rather consequential 'to - do' list, even before climate - change measures and
incoming large asteroids? Why over the years has this issue been thought so important at such a high level? The US
and Russia undeniably keep a large number (estimated by Blair at 2,654 by Kristensen more recently 2,300) of nuclear
warheads (both land - based ICBMs and SLBMs) in a status in which they can be launched at roughly 2 minutes or
less notice. This fact is never seriously disputed. The core of the issue is that standard operating procedures envisage
extremely short decision making timeframes, and these are imposed by the simple fact of having some missiles on
quick - launch status. Careful and measured decision-making in such a situation is simply not possible. Yet the
consequences of such decisions are truly apocalyptic. Recent research by US scientists (Toon and Robock 2008/9)
on the effects of the use of US and Russian arsenals indicates that even at levels down to 1000 warheads, the use by
malice, madness, miscalculation or malfunction of the 'on alert' portions of US and Russian strategic nuclear
forces would be essentially terminal for civilization. Maintaining arsenals in an unstable configuration was insanely
risky during the Cold War, when there were even larger numbers of warheads on alert and when there were just too many
occasions on which it would be fair to say that the world came just too close to ending. There is even less reason, now that the
cold - war confrontation has supposedly ended, to maintain nuclear forces in these dangerous configurations. Yet in spite of
denials and obfuscations from those who wish to maintain existing postures they are indeed so maintained. President Obama,
in his election manifesto, promised to negotiate with Russia to lower the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.
It is vital that this promise is not forgotten. The talks between the US and Russia on the successor to the
START Treaty are an ideal opportunity to take action to implement Obama's promises to negotiate
with Russia to achieve lower operational status of nuclear weapon systems.