deontological justification for utilitarianism. Our argument, then, was that winning the framework issufficient to affirm because acting according to public health concerns definitionally means acting in sucha way that reduces harm to the public.
2. Include an argument that says that if the framework isn’t true, then you affirm. An example of this was
on the felons topic from two years ago, which was Resolved: In the United States, felons ought to retainthe right to vote. The criterion for this case was consistency with contractual agreements, and thecontention argued that disenfranchising felons violates contractual agreements. But, after I finished justifying the criterion, I read an argument about how barring felons from voting is impossible absentdemocratic procedure, which is entirely premised on contractual agreements. The impact was that youautomatically affir
m because it’s impossible to disenfranchise felons if contracts are bad. These
arguments are often times hard to find, but when you do find them, they make rounds significantly easier.
People often call these arguments contingent standards, and they’ve b
een in the game for a fairly longtime. Devin Race from Westlake used to read cases with contingent standards all the time. The mostmemorable example of this is on the military force topic (Resolved: It is just for the US to use militaryforce to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat). Devin said thatthere were two kinds of justice: Big J and Little J justice. Big J justice is normative whereas little j justiceis descriptive. The basic way the case functioned was that if a neg put answers on the big j part of the
case, the little j part would be “activated,” and you would affirm because the US had taken that action in
3. Include definitions in the affirmative case that take out popular negative arguments. For instance, on
the sanctions topic, some people defined sanctions in such a way that targeted sanctions weren’t neg
ground. You might run into some problems trying to justify your interpretation theoretically, but you canusually make those debates a wash fairly easily.
4. Include spikes/definitions in the AC that are intentionally vague which allow you to take out a varietyof arguments--
if the neg debater doesn’t p
in you down on these arguments you can use them to exclude alarge amount of ground
5. Include some abusive/ a priori arguments in the AC--for instance, the toolbox argument on this topic.Then if the neg presses you on it in cross-ex and you think that they would win the theory debate, tellthem to cross the argument off the flow. Judges will allow you to do this without any problem--this
basically guarantees they won’t read theory against you. However, if they miss the spike, you can extend
it for the win.
6. Write a burden for the negative that includes multiple components, but phrase it as a single burden. Forinstance, you could argue that because of the definition of moral permissibility, the negative has toprovide some prohibition against targeted killing whereas the aff just has to demonstrate the lack of sucha prohibition. This burden structure requires the neg to a) set up an ethical theory and b) prove that the aff violates it, whereas the aff can win by beating back either of these claims. When you phrase multiple
burdens as single burdens, debaters don’t recognize what’s going on and you can get away with abusing