Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) Cases
Every sentence/ must have purpose, be useful. 6/13 minutes at beginning of round, we
can read quicker than we can writ/extemp.
Goal: To compensate for the Aff/Neg time skew. Put ourselves so far ahead that we
can’t lose the round.
A) Don’t have wait and see attitude. Make neg make strategic positions based on you.
Take control. Force Neg to have extremely small amount of strategic choices.
Neg gets to drop stuff first. When something is dropped, can’t respond later to them in
round.
Why Aff is hard: Easier to exploit advantages of being negative debater. Easy to get lazy
in writing your AC.
Deontological affs: By saying Neg can’t use people as means in an end, we force them
to fight on our terms. Deon allows us to avoid Neg general Util impacts.
Minimize our burdens through limiting definitions. e.x. > > Economic sanctions don’t
include smart/targeted sanctions. We have to fight fewer args.
Necessary/sufficient burdens.
Necessary: Move from location to go to store. Moving one step is not SUFFICIENT
however.
Find standards that are sufficient but not necessary for you to win.
Don’t want a really broad standard that allows them to read any arg. E.G. Social Welfare
= everything links in.
Establish next steps when we have conflicting interpretations. Have multiple args in
case that impact to standard. Multiple warrants for each point.
Give a card, then an analytic justification right underneath.
Offense that operates independant of your standard/fw. For deon case, make sure we
have util impacts also. No wait and see, answer their args in our case.
States aren’t moral beings because they don’t have individual intentions, they don’t have
a moral obligation to not use sanctions. So now do we affirm or negate?
Weight arguments ahead of time. Keep neg off args we might lose.
Weighing analysis
Make non-turnable arguments. Limit analysis to stop turns. NO STOCK. Put unique spin
on arguments so that we can preclude turns.Think 1 or 2 steps ahead. Prepare blocks
to their blocks.
EX: Social Contract. Who decides what an infraction of the Social Contract is?
KEYPOINT: How to force Negative to run certain arguments. >> Smart Sanctions. Force
the neg to defend comprehensive sanctions only. They reference Marinov, so we
reference studies that say they don’t work.
Be aware that they are going to run theory that we are abusive because we are limiting
them.