Tricks Notes

Mindset
- bad arguments
- path of least resistance
- avoid their prep
- winning time trade-offs
Intuitions Args
- rulers objectivity has a more compelling intuition in its favor
(inches ruler is what Im talking about)
What does intuitions mean: an appearance, a reason is an
intellectual appearance
- a prioris (like a homeless person ranting on the street that your
friends car was stolen from the homeless person, bad
arguments)
- we have some intuition that one moral theory is true, rather than
having no moral theory being true
Ross
- Rational agents act like skepticism is true (we deliberate true
skep is false)
- Risk of offense comes first
Paradigms
- comparing worlds or Offense/Defense in AC *
- * 1 to 1 burden structure, so gets rid of skep, presumption, and
permissibility
- if truth testing (affirm is resolution is true and vice versa) is true
then Best Justification Paradigm (written by Eric Palmer), a
prioris and pros and perms triggers
2NR
- Marshall Thompson Disorganized Thoughts
- Jacobs Nails (Jake Nebels comments good)
- Sets of premises may be reasonable for one conclusion but not
another
- Debate jargon is indeterminate
o We have to see use to determine truth
- Arguments must have warrants
o But implicit premises that arent usually universally shared
Spikes
- people wants you to go line by line on the spikes, so DONT
- they are:

o dispersed
o unnumbered
o misnumbered / hidden
listen to transition words
comply if its dumb
o Independently plausible, but not jointly plausible
converse - neg doesnt get permissibility
o 2 : 1 skew
Definitions
o Sketch alert
NIB (Necessary but Insufficient Burden)
Who gets skepticism?
All neg theory is a counter-interpretation (interpretation is
something you must not do [offense]), (counter-interpretation is
something you may do)
o What matters is if someone violates the shell (or whatever)
o It doesnt matter who ran it first
o What matters if you violate the shell because that shows
that there is an abuse story
Theory is reject the arg, not the debator, but drop the debater for
the aff
o Read a new theory
o You overcompensate
o Just drop the argument
o Comply or conflict (cross-x checks)
Only aff gets RVI
o O/V/C ----> 8% s/b
o Non-u?
o 7:6
Counter Solvency Advocates
o Goes both ways
o Squo > Plans SA is your C-SA
o The aff speaks in the dark
AFC is a descriptive thing
o Specify theory if contesting against AFC
o Pretty big abuse otherwise
General Spike Stuff
o Overview: Neg is as disadvantaged
Aff gets last words
Side bias is just bad strategy
Over-reliance on spikes
Side bias is self-inflicted
Find empirics
o Neither debator should get advantages from their side

o Resolvability
o We both affirm and negate the same number of times, so
bias is not even an issue
o Complaining about side bias
Synergistic responses
o Must not AFC + International Law
o Dont read generic theory
o Read more nuanced
o Drop the arg to throw them off + it doesnt really matter
o When you read generic theory, read it very longly/slowly
In addition to something nuanced
o Read arguments about how to be allowed to respond to
these spikes in the NR
Uncertainty of the framework means we should have freedom
Community Consensus which interpretation is the better
(skewed consensus)