1. Whats going on a. Oftentimes the language is extremely dense and hard to understand 2. Whats really going on a.

They are often not prepared on stock issues b. They must link their k into your case c. An argument is an argument, and while structure and rhetoric are different, debate skills can be translated d. Dont let them be too abstract 3. Structure a. The violation of how the affirmatives rhetoric is bad b. Link chain, which eventually leads to a horrible impact, often in-round discourse c. Then, the alt is oftentimes to reject the aff 4. Different Ks a. Fiat K says that we will not debate about what we should do, but instead what we ought to do i. Post fiat criticizes something that happens when you affirm 1. Criticizes doing the fiated action 2. Link will be about the topic or plan 3. Impact will operate on the same level as the original case since it occurs in the world we do the aff 4. The actor of the alt is often the actor of the original world 5. K is a linear disad with an alt that generates uniqueness 6. Differences with regulat NC a. Should run these args as standard NCs since the format is usually the same though the literature is different b. Alt is much broader c. Impact is much worse ii. Pre-fiat K 1. Criticizes what the aff debater does i.e. debaters discourse 2. E.g. if aff uses racial discourse, then they link into the K 3. Do not need to have huge impacts since they operate at a higher level i.e. in-round discourse 4. The alt must get the neg out of the impact a. Rejection alts 5. General strats a. In CX, ask specific questions that allow you to isolate a strategy b. Presses the perm to see what their answer is c. Ask for precise warrants d. Be very skeptical , since their evidence is not as good as they say it is e. Pin down the k as early as possible f. Isolate the terminal impact of the K to set up weighing g. Does the K act as a turn h. What is the unique impact of the K 6. Positional approach

a. Re-establish the framework, since the framework may preclude the k b. Force comparison i. Every institution has good and bad, so test whether the k solves ii. The full claim scope of the k is the difference between the impact in your world and the impact in the alt c. Defend the assumption d. Tips of refutation i. Stck them to links they made in NC not in CX ii. Pre-empt their links expanding in the 2NR, especially re-links iii. Dont be stuck in the line-by-line, say things like, if you dont understand it now, cross it off the flow 7. Post-fiat k a. Should have rhetoric similar to the topic b. Oftentimes you do link into the K, but try to link turn c. If you say that the aff solves for the link, only is offense if the neg alt links d. Sometimes the link might be too small to generate an impact, if too broad it is easier to make de-linking args e. If you talk about de-linking, do not extend args that are re-linking f. Impacts i. Often unclear on why impacts are bad, unclear, go for impact turns ii. If impacts are clear, go for internal link turns g. Slippery slope i. Just because x justifies y, does not mean that x leads to y h. Fallacy of composition i. E.g. just because some kinds of capitalism are bad, does not mean that all capitalism is bad i. Impact relevance i. Does the standard actually impact into the k ii. Does the k link into the standard 1. Double turn if the k links into the standard, and the standard is bad j. If K has no standard and they have no link into your standard, use your deon framework to preclude it k. Non-unique i. The link is inevitable, impacts are inevitable, etc. ii. This often needs evidence l. Alt i. Ask if the alt actually solves ii. Bad impacts in their world still iii. See if the alt is compatible with the actors obligations m. Permutation i. Think of the alt as the counterplan ii. Say that we should do the alt ad the aff world iii. Have a net benefit 1. Value of rethinking in an action?

iv. Double bind 1. Say the perm 2. Pre-empt the neg response 3. Suppose that aff prevents the perm from succeeding, then the status quo prevents the alt from succeeding 4. Suppose that the alt is strong enough to solve for the status quo then the perm will solve for aff links 8. Answering pre-fiat ks a. Theory i. Operates on the same level as the K ii. Burden of rejoinder or burden of clash the neg must defend the status quo or some alt 1. Why debate should be centered on the topic iii. Swtich-sides debate is important iv. Alt agent acdovacy actor of the neg must be the same as the aff actor 1. Strait and Wallace v. Paradigm theory 1. If policy making or truth testing framework are true, then the K does not prove the aff false vi. Framework conditionality 1. Unfair for neg to have args at a pre-fiat and a framework level vii. Affirmative framework choice 1. Odonnell 2. Aff should be able to set up what the debate is about b. Neg will say that the only impact of the round the then pre-fiat K, so the only other real impact is theory c. They will say that the K comes before theory i. Say that theory comes before or at the same level as the K since it debates the fairness of it d. Say that your discourse must meet the badness of their reason to reject, talk about how close your impacts are e. Q f. Outweigh i. Needs defense to outweigh the impact ii. If what im doing is not that bad, my theory outweighs g. Re: harms to the world i. One person is too little to create a significant impact h. Also are harms to debate, though they need evidence that explicitly says what links it to education i. Say that fairness outweighs, policy-making education is more important than k education i. If harm is deon, then the wrong is if I intentionally do it, and I do not intentionally do it j. If you have a util framework, use your real-world impacts to outweigh 9. Hybrid K

a. b. c. d. e.

A combination of pre and post fiat Ks Must contain one complete story for either pre or post fiat Harder to respond to, run theory Framework conditionality, multiple actor fiat, etc. Make a theory rejection and then do some combination of strategies in pre and post fiat Ks