Generic Notes

How to Plan Your Neg Speeches

1nc

2ac

Plan Strategy
during the 1ac

Plan during
this speech

The 2 should
be picking cards
while the one
flows, or the
other way
around. Listen
while you pick
out cards.

The 1nc
should be
flowing.

Know Your
Evidence so
that you can
know what to
read without
too much
difficulty
Talk with your
partner prior to
cross-ex to see if
the 1 has any
specific
questions they
would like the 2
to ask

Pick who
takes which
arguments
during your
Neg block.
Take what
you know (if
you know
spending but
your partner
knows China,
then each of
you takes the
one you
know)
Pick out the
cards and
extensions
that you will
read

2nc/1nr

2nc will negate what the 2ac has

said in the areas they have selected
to cover
Explain how you are winning the
Das
2nc should start painting a picture
and telling a story of your side of the
debate
Remember that if something is
dropped, do not read new cards on
it and allow them to pick it up. Just
say that they have dropped it and
move on.
The one 1nr is an important
speech that may be under-covered
by the Aff. Team.
1.

If under-covered by Aff, go for

this stuff in your 2nr
2. *Strategy: If they see you stop
flowing your 1nr, Aff may
assume its not important and
not flow either/as well, giving
you an advantage

1nr should not be involved the

cross-ex after the 2nc at all. Use this
time for prep.
Never use prep time during the
block
If the 2nc didnt have time for
something important, they can tell
the 1nr who can cover it in their
speech

2nr

Strategize during
the 1ar. Pay
attention to what
they find the time
to debate, and what
they drop.
Point out what the
Aff is losing on
Dont read any
new cards
Use all of your
remaining prep
time
Impact analysis

Kicking a DA

To kick out of a disad

Answer any turns otherwise, they are still votable
Cross-apply their non-unique disad is not a voter, already happening
Cross-apply their no-link case doesnt link, not votable
Cross-apply any no impacts or anything else disad is not a voter, we are kicking
out of it
Doing any ONE of the three things in bold is acceptable remember, keep your kick outs
short and sweet but it is preferable to use the NU or the NL to the N! its a stronger
concession.

Kicking T and RVIs

You do NOT have to kick out of T not extending it is considered kicking out. The ONLY
exception to this is if you hear the other team say RVI or Reverse Voting Issue and then you
respond with:
Nothing can ever be an RVI its either a voter or its not and running T is not a reason
to vote down the negative, thats like voting down the aff for presenting a plan. Ignore RVIs to
preserve education.

Flowing, Judge Adaptation, and What to Do During a

Decision
YES
Talking to your partner during the round always make it look like an equal
conversation. Don't let it look like one
partner is dominating. Don't look like one
partner is tooling the other. Perceptually,
that's BAD.

NO

You should be helping your partner ALL

the time. Before their speech, you do
EVERYTHING they tell you to. It is your
responsibility to make sure they are
prepared.

exception is the negative, during the

block - don't even worry about flowing
your partners speech. You can back flow,
but instead you should be PLANNING
your speech. 1nr gets ELEVEN free
minutes of prep

Divide your neg block fairly!

Standing over someone's shoulder is
annoying to both the debater AND the
judge. There's no reason you cant wait
until they are done reading it.
Talk quietly in round so that neither the
other team or the judge hears you. Make
sure you don't interupt somebody's
speech.

The only exception to ^ is if you suspect

them of clipping cards.

BEFORE THE ROUND, ASK BOTH THE

TEAM AND THE JUDGE IF THEY MIND YOU
TAKING CARDS ONCE THEY READ THEM

STAY IN YOUR SEAT. Everything should be

within reach. Getting up, walking around,
ect, is bad
distracting, shows that you are
unprepared. If you need something and
have to get up to get it, try to do it in a
way that isnt obnoxious.

Tub should be next to you, behind you,

ect, but not on top of the desk

As the speaker, try to center yourself

with the judge
YOU SHOULD BE FLOWING EVERY
SPEECH. Every person, every speech, all
the time

All the papers in your tubs are white. USE

COLORED FLOW PAPER
NEVER USE THE BACKSIDE OF YOUR
FLOW

ALWAYS FACE THE JUDGE IN CROSS-X

while standing next to the other person.
Always refer to things as "their"
argument, not "your" arugment. You
want a connection with the judge, not
the other team
SHAKE HANDs at the end of the round.
Start small talk with the other team, but
START CLEANING UP. One debater from
each team should always be in the room.
You should not have to go through stacks
and stacks of stuff on the table to find a
card the judge needs. Start organizing
your stuff at the end of the round. this
way, you can be ready when the judge
gives you their critique.
When the judge is critiquing, STOP
whatever else you are doing:
Watch the judge.
Write down what the judge tells you.
WRITE DOWN what that judge tells the
other team.
Keep a file in your tub called "Judges", or
a looseleaf note book of judges, ect
Write down EVERYTHING the judge says
PUT THE JUDGE'S NAME AT THE TOP OF
THE PAGE
This gives you information about the
judge
give the judge 100% of your attention
WHAT YOU WEAR MAKES A DIFFERENCE
no ripped Ts, flip flops, shorts.
you dont need a suit, but wear some of
your better clothes. You'll be a little bit
better, you'll be more formal, you'll be
less likely to be flip.
it tells the judge and everyone that this
activity matters to you and you don't

dont use neons, use pastel blue, green,

yellow, ect.
if flowing on a PC, SAVE SAVE SAVE. All
the time.
avoid keeping evidence on your
computer.

take it lightly
DRESS COMFORTABLY.
don't wear skirts too short!
don't get discouraged! [b2tw!]
be confident!
sound confident!
act confident!
Save flows!

title flows by who the other team was

and what school they were from
its not only important to scout
affirmative teams, scout the negative
strategies!
get intel on both sides.

judge adaptation
you'll see the same judges a lot. Make
sure you understand what they like and
what they dont like. If you know a judge
doesnt vote on offense and defense,
then don't weigh the round by offense
and defense.
you should know how a judge votes
BEFORE you enter the round
General Tips
Perception is huge. You need to act like a
winner
If you make remarks about other teams
or judges and someone hears, you can
be seen as a complainer
Always assume that the judge you last
had is standing over your shoulder

EVERYONE may be a friend of the judge

you just had. "Wheels Rolling, Windows
Up" before you bash anybody

What was your perspective on this

argument?

Instead of: "why did you vote/not vote

here?"
NEVER ARGUE WITH A JUDGE IN OR OUT
OF A ROUND

Counter Plans
Counter-plans:
Basically, another actor doing the plan.
In cross-x, aff should ask what is the status of the counterplan
Unconditional we wont kick the counterplan, regardless of what aff does
Dispositional we reserve the right to the counter plan unless aff straight turns it
Conditional reserves the right to kick the counter plan at any time
Parts of a CP:
Text
Generic Solvency eg: the WHO is really good at foreign aid or the WHO is best at solving
diseases
<- aff would attack the generic solvency
Net benefit why the counterplan is better than the plan. Disads can become net benefits EG
china CP and China DA makes the DA a net benefit because china influence wont trade out with
china. Generic Country SP country SP key to the world. WHO if the WHO gets more
credibility can solve for anything. If they kick the CP but keep the net benefit, it makes the net
benefit a DA. <- Aff should always answer the net benefit. If you fail to do so, you can say that
the CP is essential to the DA and that kicking the CP means they cant keep the net benefit and
the NB DA means that they create a skewed world in which any action by the Aff plans actor
would cause the impact, which is ridiculous because we take action everyday.
CP must compete with aff plan in one of two ways:
Mutual Exclusivity what the Perm answers. The perm says you can do both, the neg says that
its mutually exclusive
NB CP competes because it is a better solvency option
Perms:
Policy attempt to bridge a gap between plan and counterplan.
2-3 Perms at once
EG: The USFG will insure that Shattuck will find his files to substantially increase the possibility
he goes to Gonzaga is the plan. Georgia will is the CP.
Perm would be: Do both. Problems:
Cant happen eg: functionally, US and China cant work together
Perm still links eg: Any US/Japan action will be seen only as US action
No need to do both
Other Perms:
-TF perms: do plan, then do the CP. Kinda sucks but whatever.
-Or have china pay for the plan / have US do the plan with Chinese overseers
Perm Problems:
* Neg would answer a perm using these. THEORY
Severance - cuts out basically the entire plan (China funds, US spends a dollar)
Intrinsic aff is adding stuff to the plan, stealing neg ground
Perm can be used as a test of competition not an advocacy

Being a Good 1n
1. 1NC
a. Sets up the rest of the debate
b. How to give a good 1NC
i. Before the tournament
1. Prepare a long time ahead
2. Be informed
a. Scour case lists
b. Takes notes about teams that you hit a lot
c. Think of potential new affs and new advantages
i. Think of a strat against those arguments
3. Write frontlines against common advantages
a. Have them prepared
b. Should be defensive arguments
i. No offence because if you might run a CP
c. Case files should be well organized
4. Work on your most common 1NC shells
a. Update uniqueness
b. Do speed drills with the shells
c. Write a note on how long it takes to read a shell
d. Pre-flow the shells and 1NC frontlines
5. Talk with your partner about strategies
a. Good generic strategies
b. Think about affs that you hit a lot, and come up with a specific
strategies
ii. At the tournament
1. Get the table
2. Keep a library of pairing
3. Find out the aff
4. Come up with 3 different ways to win the debate
5. Talk about the block division
a. This is subject to change
6. Should flow the 1AC
a. The 2N will read the cards but the 1N should flow it
7. Make sure you have enough arguments to fill your speech time
a. Add more cards than you think you can read
8. Use no prep time
iii. Speech time
1. Pre-flow
2. Number of offs and then the order on case
3. Titles the arguments
4. Start reading slowly
5. Read off first then case
6. T and specs first, then DAs, then CPs
7. Put DAs on case if it relates to an advantage
8. Diversify case args
9. Read all the off-cases in the 1NC
10. Slow down on a tag and analytical arguments

Being a Good 1n: the 1nr

a. CX of 2AC
iv. Take care of housekeeping arguments
v. Ask relevant questions
1. Ask things about what you will be taking in the 1NR
b. Prep
vi. Make sure your partner doesnt need you to kick an arg
vii. Check up on add-ons
viii. Dont flow the 2NC
ix. 2NC wont get to everything, so you should be prepared to answer stuf the 2N
couldnt
x. Develop an area of expertise
xi. Be realistic in the 1NR
1. Limiting one and part of the case is a good choice
xii. Order args strategically
c. Giving the 1nr
xiii. Just like giving the 2NC
xiv. Not ok to read new 1NR arguments
1. Like a CP
xv. Ok to read new link ev
1. Least rebuttalish of the rebuttals
xvi. Use the advantage of prep to get a good flow of the 2AC
xvii. Use this time for evidence comparison and analysis
1. Talk about the qualifications
xviii. Neg should win by overwhelming force
1. They read 3 cards, you read OVER 9000!!!!!
xix. Flow the 1AR
d. Flow the 2NR
xx. You are the partners safety net

Being a Good 2a
2. 2AC
a. strategy
i. Preparation and offence are good
ii. Be responsive
iii. Dont put non-winning args in the 2ac
iv. Invest in your affs
1. Know all the possible negative arguments
v. Preparation
1. Prep starts months before the round
a. Be organized
b. File things in an organized fashion
2. Block writing
a. Rewrite blocks every time you use them based on judges
comments or changes in the lit and
3. Think about the order
a. Offense first
4. No overviews
vi. Round
1. Dont spend too much time on case
2. Group arguments intelligently
3. Make the best arguments first
4. Repeating the language of the 1ac makes the judge think in terms of
the aff
5. Quote the 1ac and use everything in the language of the 1ac
6. Extend
a. Warrant, author, be familiar with the evidence
b. Block out case
7. Read add-ons in the 2ac
a. It helps
8. Read cards on T
9. K
a. Defend the truth claims of the aff
b. Figure out the Ks impact and links
c. Find out what the alternative does
d. Win alternatives and framework arguments
10. DAs
a. Answer the disad impact
b. Link turns and non-uniq for straight
11. CP
a. Make relevant theory args
b. Make disads to CP
i. Make offence
c. Read the text
d. Read add-ons that the CP cant solve
12. Make sure the partner back-flows the 2AC
13. Confer on cross-ex questions
14. Only do a standup 2ac if you are COMPLETELY ready

Being a Good 2a: the 2ar

3. 2AR
a. You can restructure the round
i. You can control the structure
ii. You dont have to be completely responsive
iii. You dont have to answer the entire thing
iv. Maximizing certain offence is the best way to do it
b. You have to give a decision
i. Not just impact comparison and evidence comparison, but also how things
are debated
ii. Only a few times where you have to give
1. A k alt, a T, case vs DA, CP vs solvency deficit
c. Sneak in new arguments using the 1ARs language
i. Use the code to sneak args
d. Make the aff code based on the 1AC language
i. Change the overviews and blocks each time
ii. Adjust the 2ar according to the block
iii. Do damage control before the 2nr
iv. Improve your 2ar as much as possible regardless of who youre debating
v. 1AR should be writing stuff out
e. Choose the best args, and get rid of the bad ones
i. Write the ballot for the judge
f. Use the code and theyll look to your stuff first
g. Impact everything that you go for

Cross-X Tips
Cross-X should be used to create arguments
Pit Of Doom
Threat construction (securitization)
When would China ever attack us? Why would China ever attack?
The other team will go into big detail about all the threats in the 1ac, huge, hyperbolic language
Read Their Evidence
Evidence comparison is one of the best skills in debate!!
Control how their evidence is framed in the debate!
Go Into C-X With a Strategy
Take 15 seconds of prep before C-x
1ac and 1nc are the most important
Set up CP competition, figure out beforehand where you and your partner think the other team is
weak and hit them
Listen to your partners C-x
Tip your partner off to things that should be in speech that were in C-x
Use things you know about the world like U
Whats wrong with this picture
Not answering questions
Rudeness
Chewing Gum
ALWAYS BULLSHIT IT. NEVER DONT ANSWER.
Dont evade questions
Never say explain in your own words
Dont keep the evidence away from the person answering
Dont be a dick
You look better if you crush the other team politely
Being Savvy in Cross-X is one of the best way to garner Ethos in round. Put yourself in a
position above the other team. Reference your evidence by name. Debate starts when you
walk in the room. What youre doing influences how credible you are. Blood Makes the
Grass Grow Judge picks who they like automatically. Have presence, look at the judge.
Always. You are on a stage. Your job is to mind trick. Sound pretty and be smart. Mind
tricking makes you win.
Dont Fold in C-x!!!
Never just give up. Where does your card say this? Well, it probably doesnt. So make
shit up.
Dont interrupt their questions.
Let them ask, then answer.
Dont repeat the question.
Dont ask counter questions (excessively)
Rambling bad.
Be succinct. Be efficient.
Dont annoyingly and pretentiously interrupt your partners c-x!
Both of you need credibility! Both should hold their own in c-x. That hurts speaking
points, which could be the difference between breaking and going home and crying.
Dont be belligerent.
Dont be a jerk if youre debating novices!

Topicality Overview
I.

II.

III.

When to go for T
A. When the aff is obviously untopical
B. When its strategic
C. Gross 1ar undercoverage
D. No other option
Creating a T violation
A. People too often write inefficient T violations
1. Start with the sentence topical affirmatives must X
a. Topical affirmatives must give social services to person living under the FPL
b. Then provide definitional support
2. They dont always require a definition (IE: ASPEC)
B. Voting issues
1. Dont need following voter for fairness education, ect
2. Just say vote neg for and then warrants
3. Standards are more persuasive with:
a. Specific examples
b. Evidence
1.
May be better to NOT have them in the 1nc
4. Predictability is a silly standard. Should be used as a reflection of the quality of
the definition. Its not a question of whether your interp is predictable based upon
resolution, but rather that the sense that where it comes from is legit and
predictable.
Going for T
A. Overview
1. Be careful, people spend too much time
2. Use for following
a. Restatement of what topical affirmatives must (restate sentence)
1.
or of what topical affirmatives cant
b. dont explain every standard or reason you are good, thats for line by line
c. highlight one that has been grossly undercovered or that is really good to flag
it for the rest of the debate
3. No offense claim
a. There is no offensive reason for including the affirmative. Most easily done
by providing a topical version of their case.
4. Case list
a. List of core affirmatives that are in your interpretation (3-5, quality affs, core
of the topic)
5.Excluded Case List ridic affs that are cut out by your interp. Best done with
evidence by crazy people who suggest social services are certain things. IE: Gender
transformation is a social service because males make more money than females.
i.
*Cases that include EVERYBODY, not just poor, gives
TONS of IL ground for aff but very little link ground for neg
6. Interp Comparisons be as specifc as possible as to what the world under your
interp looks like
a. Scrutinize qualifications IE: dictionary is probably pretty irrelevant
b. Impact arguments topic specific education is valuable
c. Reasonable and legit interp of resolution is eky to neg ground because it
defines the way in which the neg constructs their core neg competitive
ground

IV.

V.

d. Allows aff to create and aff and neg to create core CP and K ground that
should apply to all or most affirmatives
e. Topic specific education also important because of setting precedents.
Usually a VERY stupid argument. Persuasive in: first few tournaments of the
year, helps set where aff can expect to safely expand into. Also right before
the TOC, same sort of warrant. TOC is place where the most new affs are
broken after the year. Decisions made on T, particularly in elims, set
standards for what will be acceptable and unacceptable in the TOC.
B. Perming Interpretations
1. Strategic if aff response doesnt address your interp. If two interps can be
combined because one does not cut out the other, then it becomes easier to win
that your interp subsumes theirs or is permable and then you can claim that they
meet no reasonable interp. Think of neg interp as a subset of the affs interp.
C. Competing interps v. Reasonability
1. Arbitrariness of reasonability vs the objectivity of competing interps
2. T inevitably reverts to competiting interps because at the end of the round the
judge has to decide what the resolution means. Only CI allows any form of coming
to that decision
3. Reasonability is infinitely regressive
4. Combine inevitably with objectivity and reasonability youre in a pretty good
place.
D. T outweighs theory
1. Any abusive action taken by the neg was only in response to the crazy untopical
stuff pulled by the affirmative
Persons living in poverty
A. Only people at or below poverty level
B. Means tested approach based on FPL
1. Aff that creates new means test
a. Redefining what it means to be poor
2. Universal approach, no exclusivity
3. Not targeted, universal, everybody and anybody
a. Marginal DA ground, HUGE aff ground
4. Means testing is done in relation to what is considered poverty, used as a model
for determining who is needy for specific services
C. For serves a limiting function
Aff answers
A. External reasons why their interp is bad
B. Indicts to sources
C. Reasonability
D. Make a we meet
E. Counter interp
F. always make distinctions between what their evidence is actually talking
about and what their affirmative does
G. anti-case-list
H. effects/extraT
1. predictability arg is stupid: were still a social serv targeted at people living in
poverty, you still get all links because the resolution is based on targeting and
focus on helping those in poverty
2. CPing out of extra T advs solves back any extra T adv and removes
unpredictability
3. Extra and effects T increase neg DA and K link ground

I.

J.

K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.

4. Effects offers extra PIC ground

5.Aff should try to argue that extra T is U good for neg on this topic because
universal CPs are not competitive, plan +, universal aff gives neg means test and
sliding scale PICs that dont offer it to everybody. Aff research becomes useful as a
CP
Fairness not a voter
1. The expansionary nature of the plan forces adaptation and new literature bases
a. Adaptation good policy makers shouldnt be ingrained in current beliefs
b. New lit bases increase education and prevent stale debates
2. Its never impossible to beat an arg, harder debates are better debates, everything
that generates a strategic benefit incurs a strategic cost
3. The negs predictability claims are bunk, case list guarantees specific strategies,
well defend links to all of your generic arguments anyway.
4. Generic ground loss is inevitable agency mechanisms or funding specifications
screw the neg out of generic ground anyway
Reasonability verse competing interps
1. Good vs. perfection
a. Just because neg is awesome doesnt make aff interpretation bad
b. Line of reasonability says if we win that our interp is good, its good enough
for us to win, it doesnt require it to be perfect.
1.
Taking a final exam and you need a 75 to pass the class. A 100 on the
test would be perfect, but if you got a 75, it would be good, and it would
be good enough
c. key arg is that perfection is impossible, there is no objective perfect
definition of the resolution
1.
arg that lends credence is that the neg will always change and find
some technical definition to limit the aff out
2. these interps marginally improve the limits of the topic while excluding
good cases
3. why is an interp that allows one fewer case better?
4. How much limiting is necessary
5. The alt to competing interps is that the judge should view the aff interp
in a vacuum. Does it provide a limit, allow fairness, ect?
Structure counter interp same as inter (topical affirmatives must) (social services are
defined as/should include)
We meet
Reasons why your interp is good AND why theirs is bad
Means-testing is inevitable even if services are only based on the FPL the alterative
is universally provided sevices
Impact why your arguments are important
Compare the intent to define
Order
1. We meet first
2. Counter interp/reason why you meet
3. Counter standards
4. In other words, the order any idiot knows to follow with nothing particularly
special added on to the end.

Impact Calculus
VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

Impact calculus is the most fundamental part of any debate

A. Comparison of arguments is important
1. Why one impact outweighs another
B. RxM=I
1. Risk times magnitude equals impact
C. Hidden scripts in debate
1. Shared assumption held by judges and debaters
a. You can get away with ridiculous arguments
b. Think about this and exploit them
2. people lose sight about the actual impact
a. they forget the details of the event
b. explain in detail about your impact
D. Interaction
1. How one impact causes another impact
a. Nuclear war would cause pandemics
1.
The only check on pandemics would be that there wouldnt be enough people to spread to each
other in close proximity
2. diseases would spread all over the planet
b. Its a matter of degree
1.
How much can the disad turn the case?
E. History
1. Econ collapse -> war?
a. Link between wars and past economic problems
b. Didnt happen when the Asian flu destroyed the economy
F. Calculation
1. If you dont know what to do in an overview, do impact calculus
2. Do this in every overview
How to do Impact Calculus
A. Have a framework of evaluation from one impact to another
1. Utilitarianism is the usual one
1.
Possibly consequencialism
b. For example if one team wins war kills a million and the other team wins war kills a billion and both
teams win most judges would vote for the other team
1.
It is rational for the judge to vote against saving people
2. Deontology
a. No action is moral if it uses people as a means to an end
b. A - if a terrorist had a nuclear weapon in the city and they insisted that they would detonate a nuclear
weapon unless you tortured your mother. Deon says you have to let them kill the city
3. Values
a. Total life is lost
b. Eco-centric level fundamental unit of analysis
c.
Individual value people dying
1.
This is how debate is done
2. Real world isnt like this. To American policy makers, American lives come first
Magnitude
A. Total size of an impact
B. If you are negative and your impact has a higher magnitude, then you can express it as a multiple percentage of the
case
C. Jonathan Schell 1982 Fate of the Earth
1. Why impact outweighs risk
D. Nicholas Rescher Risk Analysis
1. Low mag, high risk are more important that high mag, low risk
E. Buying a lottery ticket
1. A rational decision
a. Risk times magnitude means that its a plus for you
F. Suskind
1. The one percent doctrine
2. Analyzing the ramifications of using risks so small
G. Magnitude of one impact can make another go away
1. If there was a nuclear war, then warming wouldnt matter because of nuclear winter
Timeframe
A. The length of time before an impact occurs
1. Not the TF of the link, but the timeframe of the IMPACT
2. Econ collapse
a. Conflicts begin YEARS after the stock market would crash
b. When most people say the impact is 24 hours, they mean the link
c.
If WW2 is an example, it took 10 years in a world in which the US couldnt check aggression/the UN

B.
C.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

If one impact happens before the other, then that impact can turn the second but not the other way around
Intervening action
1. The longer the timeframe is the more likely something will occur to stop it
D. Tipping Point
1. At one point you cannot stop an impact, i.e. Global Warming
a. Warming is a long TF but the tipping point is short
E. Environmental change
1. Cant be stopped by diplomacy
2. A limited amount of options can stop impacts of scientific nature
F. Long term is more dangerous
1. Since it seems far off, we wont do anything about it until it is too late
G. Parabolic Risk
1. Impacts the happen in the medium timeframe are the most dangerous
a. We will automatically intervene if its a short term
b. Long time frame ones can be avoided by other things
c.
Medium is the most dangerous
1.
We wont deal with them immediately
2. But they arent too far in the future that something else will stop them
Probability
A. Probability towards the internal link to the impact and not the link
B. If something happened in history, it is less likely to occur because we are aware of the link and are able to deal with it
C. Virtual History Ferguson
1. We over estimate how important huge historical references
2. The Pity of War
Systemic Impacts
A. Impacts that are occurring right now that will do bad stuff on into the future
B. Probability is high
1. Systemic outweighs
a. Mix these claims why one shot impacts are not likely
1.
Anything can prevent them
b. Poverty kills 100 million every year
c.
After 70 years, 7 billion people will die
C. Iraq less people died in Iraq than the amount that died in Vietnam, D-day, and Iwojima
D. Answers
1. People eventually solve the problem
a. Conditions will change
b. Or it wont matter anymore
2. One shot impact may cause systemic problems
a. Nuclear war
1.
Irradiate the water, diseases, end industry, fallout, nuclear winter
Reversibility
A.
The chance that you can recover from an impact
1. You cannot reverse species loss
B.
Terrorism can be reversed
C.
Biodiversity loss is irreversible
D.
Diseases
1. Can be recovered from
Existential risk
A.
Impact outweighs everything if it ends the human species
1. Nick Bostrom
B.
Its hard to kill everyone
1. There are people elsewhere that are completely unreachable
2. Small islands in Scotland, pockets in the US, people in the Amazon, people in space
3. Few impacts can realistically kill everyone

Kritiks
I.
II.

III.

IV.

In kritiks the aff plan never happens

In policy debate, a kritik is just another argument functions like a CP/DA
A. Just packaged differently
B. Link is part of the K that relates to the other team
1. Link of omission
a. Says you didnt talk about something SO IMPORTANT that you should lose this
debate. Not because you SAID something wrong, but because you didnt talk about a
topic: you didnt mention feminism and feminism should be in EVERY round, it is an
issue so important that the aff should be punished for not talking about it
b. Eg, Racism is a big issue, and you HAVE to talk about it because it isnt talked about
enough and that leads to comfort and comfort is bad because it leads to MORE race
problems
2. Plan action link
a. Links off what the plan actually causes: function a lot like disads. You pass the plan,
leads to colonialism/neo-colonialism (PHA->Afr Res)
3. Representation
a. Images that Aff/neg rely upon create problematic truths upon the world that must be
questioned. Your representation of something is bad. You present the environment as
pristine, and your representation of the environment as pristine is bad
4. Language
a. You said a bad word, therefore you should lose
i. You said something racist, sexist, or homophobic
5. Links based on assumptions of 1ac or neg
a. Indites metaphysical or ontological
b. Why we are here and why does it matter
c. ?s about reality, what is reality like
i. Eg: aff framework needs to be rethought. Instead of acting, you need to think.
ii. Will be used a lot this year. Hydrogen K, Environmental mannerism
6. Process link
a. Things you do in a debate is bad (using experts instead of plain people, speed reading,
ect. Is bad)
b. Policy is too rigid, whole ways of thinking are too rigid, you wont let me do what I
want to do. To achieve in policy I must sound like what you think a good debater
sounds like.
Impacts generally with Ks are not as important as altneratives and link
A. No value to life has turned individuals into objects instead of subjects: objects can be destroyed, subjects
have rights
B. ZPHC Zero point of the holocaust Michael Dillon You use ulilitarianism and that turns people into
numbers, and if people are numbers, you can say things like, its OK to drop a bomb and kill half a million
people if it stops a war (MD says you shouldnt have dropped the bomb to begin with)
Alternative
A. Utopian
1. If the judge believes it enough, they can undo any harms they want (Capitalism is bad, judge
voting for you will turn around capitalism. Not going to happen you can still go to MickyDs at
two am. THESE ARE LIES. K Debaters are AWSOME LIARS.)
B. Rethinking
1. To rethink, re-evaluate, reject. Take time to change how you view the world.
2. Probably most effective is the do-nothing alternative. Things wrong with your plan, action is bad,
do nothing.
C. Floating PIC
1. We could have done all of your affirmative minus insertlinkhere-
2. Eg: We do all your case, solve your harms, AND dont use the sexist/racist terms you use

V.

VI.

VII.

Dos
A. Be passionate
B. KISS (keep it simple sweethearts)
C. Have specific links to the affirmative (or neg). Even if you have to make them up. Whatever it is they do,
have links.
D. Have a short, prepared overview that EXPLAINS the alt. How it functions, how it solves the aff, what it
does.
Donts
A. No five minute overviews
B. No post-modern generators
C. Dont ever underestimate the value of the aff or neg theory arguments against your K
Going Postal (Or answering the K)
A. POSTAL Perm, offence, solvency def, theory, answer alternative, answer link
1. Perm - You HAVE to perm the alternative
a. Most popular: do the alt in every instance BUT the plan
2. Offense you HAVE to have offense. They say cap bad, you say cap good. You HAVE to have
some specific K offense.
3. Solvency Defecit: Why doesnt the K solve your aff.
4. Theory: Framework. You have got to re-establish your framework for the debate. You MUST reestablish your ethical framework for the debate. The rest of FW should be Just like T. Interp,
reasons to prefer, reasons anyone running a K should lose.
a. Almost all CP theory works on a K, because the alt to a K is a CP. Write a block on
why textuallity is bad, why conditionality is bad, why floating pics are bad
b. The only way to win is if you win your framework!!!!
5. Alternative Answer: Answer any way you can, but answer. Disads are good. The aff becomes a
disad, any add-ons become a disad

Link Answer ALWAYS say No Link. Even if you dont believe it.