Flowing/Argument generation (Offense)/Casing Comparison 1. Establishing words in the resolution. Definitions and ground. 2.

Explain how the resolution is supposed to be valuated ethically. 3. Is the resolution true or false? Reasons and aligning points. Let the topic dictate. Choose framework based on how difficult to generate offense. If the framework allows you to win the round, then go more for substance. Exclude Cosmo- Implicitly answers common answers. 1AR extensions of 1 piece of offense. Nailbomb AC- 15 reasons why neg cant answer. Majority of judges would look to negative arguments even if AFF is winning the framework. Presumption arguments. If we turn out to be equal. Time skew. AFF loses more 60-40 percentage. Permissibility arguments (presume its better in a vacuum). Presume not harming a person is better. Isnt a great way of how to weigh-dubious implications and conclusions? Prefer theoretical reasons/substantive reasons. *Usually short presumption arguments. Ex: Would not arbitrarily impose rules. Negative rules. Importance of rules would fade away. If skepticism is triggered you presume AFF. 1. Avoid Skep 2. How to win the presumption debate. 3. T+ Strategy>Substance??? Get the debaters out of their strong point. Your goal is always to explain why the debate should occur somewhere else. Justification makes different util. We care about the end states. But we dont aggregate we compare preferences. Rule- Looking at if a rule is valuable or not. Is the rule more beneficial. Threshold deontology. Abide by deontological rules up to a certain point. True except in catastrophic occurrence. Justification of a bright line. Practically speaking, people operate this way. Context sensitive ethics. Usually its best to do x. Different rules for wartime and peacetime. Deontology collapses into util. Usually no the best arguments. One way to deal with deontological arguments. Cummiskey.