Three Week Notes PDF

Table Of Contents
Saturday, August 15, 2015

10:11 PM
Feel free to ask for clarification on the notes.

I recommend Ctrl + F for finding specific sections if using the PDF version.
Fundamentals
- Lecture and Lab Notes
- K's
- Responding to Theory
- Random
Spec FW
- Specific Frameworks
- Very Brief and shallow
Drills
- Probably not useful, can find authors or bad shells
LARP
- Short Rotation Notes
- Plans, Disads, Perms
Theory
- Running and Writing Theory
- Some example shells
- Voters
- RVIs
- Paradigms
- How to go back to substance (Dumbledore's Army)
Super Duper Strats
- Highly Recommended Section
- In Round and Out of Round Strat
- Layering
- Hijacking
- Time
- Road to the TOC
Warning: Many filler pages
Fundamentals Page 1
Day 1 Notes
Monday, July 27, 2015
10:57 AM
Parts of a Plan:
Inherency why we use a plan
Harm- why is the status quo bad
Solvency why the plan will solve for the harm
Net Benefit another reason why the plan is good
Neg Benefits
Plans are strategic b/c too specific for neg general stuff does not apply rekts offense
Therefore, neg responds to framework or with theory
Respond to a plan by:

1. Plan Offense find turns
2. Shell maybe theory (plan bad)
3. Responding to the framework
Disadvanatage to an Aff
- DisAd -
1. Uniqueness
a. Extinction in aff and extinction in disad (if extinction happens in both, whats the point)
2. Link
3. Impact tie back to framework
Counterplans instead of doing the plan, we should
1. Text to the counterplan
2. Competition (make sure it is mutually exclusive to prevent a perm)
3. Net benefits
Chris K, Jeff, Dan, Bogaty (Plans, disads, counterplans)
Debate Layers
Role of the Ballot (framework for the Kritique)
Offense on the right layers

A smart aff, turn the highest layers
Neg- Make life for the aff hard
Aff- make things easier for neg

Neg, capitalize on the affs weakness (hit their framework
line by line is preferable ( but not always efficient)
Aff does not want line by line
Fundamentals Page 2
Work Ethic
Strategy
______
Topicality is all about the affirmative case
RVI If you win the counter interpretation, you win the debate
Timeskew, checks baseless theory, logically follows debate, if my interpretation, then youre interp is wrong
Kritique discourse ks, resolution ks, etc
1.
2.
3.
4.
Framework what matters

Link why aff is bad
Why impact is bad
Alternative, instead of aff, what do, etc.
a. Reject the aff
Fundamentals Page 3
1.
RFD decicion mock debate

7:52 AM
Both sides have extended and unanswered arguments
Lack of weighing
Probably overall lack of clash
Util Aff
Terrorism
Oil
Sov Neg argues that it links into Util via Ratkins it assumes aff framework is true
Ratkins 2 - 3rd framework justification for neg/impact of aff
State sovereignty is the only way to limit war intentions
Sovereignty is not the only impact, therefore it doesn't not exclude the AC offense
Therefore it does not negate the aff offense
Aff can then weigh the offense
Impact Justified Standard - artificial limitations (that aren't necessarily justified)
1. Death bad
2. Terroism Kills
(( VC = reduction terror.
Artificially limiting the standard
(( if the neg has any offense that increases death, then they can turn the AC
FIX: VC = reducing terrorism
2 Things to Win:
Framework - just what impacts matter
Offense
Role of the ballot - the judge have an obligation to ____
Theory shell - Fairness and education are typical voters
Fundamentals Page 4
Topic Analysis - missing (( - therefore

8:32 AM
Aff
Egypt plan
ISIS plan
Promoting civil society
Minorities
Oppression
US Aid plan
MEPI plan
Intl law -responsibility to protect
Aristotelian Framework - democratic character
Neg
Alternate actor/agent counter cp
UN
Cap K
Can't NC
Imperialism K
sovereignty
Coercion
Self determination
Orientalism K - mindset that Middle east is inferior
Ilaw - US ought not interfere
Topicality - definitions of ME or 'promote'
ME PIC
Ought:
Permissibility: when there is a problem, default to another side (ex there is no obligation to affirm)
Presumption: when you can't evaluate there is no obligation
Plan Inclusive Counterplan (PIC) - we do the aff except for _____ strategic by coopting benefits with net
benefit
Habermas Aff - democracy promotes discourse
Or Habermas Neg - similar to coercion NC
Queer Theory - promoting democracy excludes a minority
Extratopicality - promote the resolution with an action that the agent (US) does not have the jursidiction to
change
Effects topical - we do this unrelated action that happens to affirm the resolution
(( you can do anything that affirms the resolution
Neoliberalism is a form of capitalism intertwined with politics. Cap is bad b/c it exists b/c cap. The way we vote
is intertwined with the economy. Nuanced version
Security K, we construct things to protect ourselves. By protecting, we create threats (( security bad
Responding to Ks
a. Attack the vulnerable parts
1. Link - Remove the link, we meet, we are not doing anything bad
2. Alternative (useful on hitting serious topic K) - many alternatives do not solve the K
b. Perm against K's or CP's the aff is still a good thing
Answer the link argument when perming, if you perm without removing the link, the aff is still bad
Impact turns are hard and potentially offensive
Google "_____ plan"
"x" AND "y" jstor, google scholar
Citation in wikipedia
Google broadly
Skepticism - no obligation that triggers permissability (usually negate)

Framework arg , without my framework, we can't evaluate morality...
Fundamentals Page 5
Good Evidence:
Peer Review /scholarly article/unbiased
Methodology
Sample size
Turns - Offense
11:03 AM
No intervention leads to nuke war

Nuke war is bad
1. Impact - Nuke war good
2. Link - if we intervene, it will escalate nuke war
3. Floating offense - does not directly respond to Contentions but functions like a disad
Don't impact and link turn if its the same impact. '
Syllogisms
Premise: democracy checks power , power causes violence
(( democracy reduces violence
First Premise:
1. power without checks leads to violence (no warrant)
2. Democracy checks power
3. Democracy reduces violence
Second Premise
1. Democracy allows open expression
2. Open expression allows for peaceful transfer
3. Democracy allows for peaceful transfer
Incoherent policies give innovation

No coherent is used for authority
Incoherency is good because it increases authority by giving vague power
No authority good bc stronger voters and more power to the people
Fundamentals Page 6
*Cutting cards
Ethics
- Brackets make things clearer or clean up gramer
Do not change meaning
Include a disclaimer or don't use them
Ellipses, make them small
- Don't break up paragraphs, keep entire paragraphs
- Clipping cards - stopping in the middle of the reading of the card
Always note what you did not read if you run out of time
- Power tagging, no real theory argument
- No fabricating evidence
- Strawmaning, setting up an argument to take down
Rakowski / Hasnas / Woller (confusing)
- Citations
Name, Qualifications, Title, Volume, Page, Date, URL
Quality :
Warrants are good
Line down as much as possible
Empirical evidences needs cards - Analytics are good too
Cards increase ethos but not necessary
Fundamentals Page 7
Research
- Google
Google scholar
Jstor = pinecrest student
Proquest 86KBC3XD
Project News
Incognito mode the paywalls
"Filetype:pdf"
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
r/scholar
NDCA Wiki LD
- Literature Reviews give insightful meta info
Topicality or Citations
Potential method:
Two Documents - one for cards, one for outline + citations + ideas
To get specific cards, check chapters, chapter summaries, first and last
sentences of paragraphs
Google news, BBC, Reuters, Lexus Nexus

Jstor is not good for LARP
Use abstracts
Synonyms in search erms
Cases
5:05 PM
Aff Cases
1. Positional - syllogism, one overarching goal
- Plan
- Performance
- Frameworks
ADV:
- Advocacy is clear
- Comprehension
- Harder for negs to link in offense (rip pre round disads)
DISAD:
- Follows one link chain
- Fewer options and ability to find offense
Prepare: Frontline the common responses (b/c time exists)
1. Stacked
Many contentions
Short, broad framework
Must win by weighing heavily
ADV:
- Broad coverage
- 1AR becomes easier by kicking contentions
- Easier to link into the opponents case
DISAD:
- Arguments not well developed
- Link offense
- Line by line turns
- Weak framework , if it falls, offense falls
Prepare: Prewritten weighing
Judges
Lay, Traditional affs generally lean stacked
Positional affs very broad in nature
(( Prepare multiple Acs for multiple judges
How to write a good Aff

Resolution specific:
Plan is strategic =/ coercive which links to sov/imp/cap k
FW/OFF : Find offense first - try to find the 'truest' arg on the topic
Layers: T, Theory, F/W, Contention - what matters most for the judge
Steps to Write the Aff
1. Research
a. Topic lit
b. Cut cards
2. Find good offense
3. Framework
4. Think toward to the 1AR
5. Set up outs
a. Start at the highest layer
b. Pre-emps
i. Spike - short arg meant to spike out other args
c. Weighing
A ME (Meta ethic) is Actor specificity

Actor = gov, govs use util (( standard is util, contentions use util offense
Say: deon neg. the deon neg looks to government, but the actor, the gov, uses util (( util
framework comes before deon
The meta ethic determines weighing on the framework debate, whether util matters or deon matters.
Fundamentals Page 8
1AR Strats + Resolution

5:40 PM
Resolution specific:
- Options for offense on 2 different layers in 1AR
To capitalize on one layer in the 2AR
- 1AR Restarts - New layer in the round in terms of position
- A restart flips the time skew to the neg
- Ex: New theory shell or 1AR K's
- Useful against opponents that use all their prep time or their first speech
- Aff can't hit everything, they must know what arguments to hit
Possible Affs
Oppression aff - gets hits by impact turns
Util - broad
Plan text - voting promote minority voice
Plan: students studying abroad
Plan: bring stability by benefiting ME economically
Nuclear impacts
Plan: monitering Egypts voting elections - similar to afghanistan
Ought implies a moral obligation

Include middle eastern countries into the UN
- Inherently democratic values by virtue of council
- Non coercive b/c you may reject
- Gives additional power in world affairs + coercion
Ben 5th floor

Dan conf1
Bogaty outside conf1
Daya terrace 3
Chris outside conf1
Oppression Aff
Stability in the ME is good
Remove American influence in the region will increase stability in the region
But that doesn't increase democracy
Inherency - we use a plan to limit enormus scope of the resolution
Harm
Solvency
Net Benefit
Make the argument that:

American involvement in __ME___ state is oppressive
Plan: Reduce involvement in the region to increase democracy
Larry Diamond
A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair
elections.
The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
A Rule of Law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[3]
Framework: Oppression limits the ability of the
Fundamentals Page 9
Cross Examination
CX is the only time when direct clash can exist

Establish perceptual dominance
Strategic concessions
Trap for Theory Shell
Help link into the K
Chain them into contradictions
Stacked affs weak to internal confusion
Pre-empt arguments
"Which of these arg are more important?"
Total Confusion going into the CX:
"Whats the story/thesis of your AC?"
"What counts as a turn to this NC?"
"Why does your offense link to your framework?"
Search for lynchpins
Clarify jargon
Keep talking during CX
"How would you like me to engage with your case?"
Fundamentals Page 10
Two Styles of CX:

The Teacher
- Long winded explanations
Possibly changed warrants
- Condescending
- Frustrated
- Asking questions during their CX
Answer:
- Cut them off
- Answer back as a Teacher
- Show that you know more
- Undermine their credibility
Hammer that they can't answer suitably
- Force them to explain from the case
The Tool
- Short, curried answers
- Snarky Jokes
- Exasperation to Asking Questions
Answer:
Make the situation dead serious
Make them seem unreasonable
Look bored
Don't be the butt of the jokes.
Meta theory: Which args you can read on theory
Negating
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
1:30 PM
You can layer within macro layers.

Risk of Offense
When a case is the only offense on a particular layer with opposition, then you win that
layer. "My opponent has only presented defensive arguments on the K, so I have the risk of
offense, so I win the K and therefore win the round."
Less speech time > 2 speeches important

The job of the 1N, make the 1AR hard
Layering - More layers = more responses during the 1AR
Horizontal layering - Different layers operate on the same vertical layer
1 - 2 - 3 are all equal to supporting the argument
Vertical layering - Preclusion arguments (Theory, k, nc, ac)
What does negating mean?

1. To deny the truth of the resolution
2. To deny the truth of the affirmative (plan)
Time:
Spreading
Prep
Responding to conceded arguments with a theory argument
(not shell)
Negating starts during CX

During CX/1N
1. If you know what the aff says > make them concede arguments
2. Establish perceptual dominance
3. Isolate the aff's outs - drown the aff
Crystallization
Complements line by line
"I'm winning line by line but I'm winning overall"
2N: 6 min Extension and Crystallize

1. Crystallize / Overview
2. What is the highest layer
3. Why are you winning the highest
4. Line by line the layers
New Args:
AC reads util fw + contention
NC reads NC + no response to util fw + turns
1AR extends util f/w
2N can't respond b/c new arg
Tricks
5:09 PM
Prohibition
Permissible
Hidden arguments that bait a response

1. Spikes
a. Pre-emptive arg
b. Short Theory
2. Presumption
a. Assuming one side has more credibility than the other when no offense
exists
"presume aff" the judgem ust vote aff is no offense
Trigger a presumption - an argument that concludes that there is no offense
"Can't know truth" "resolution is not comprehensible"
Usually phrased as "even if"
2. Permissibility - optional
a. If neg can prove, there is no real obligation, then it becomes permissible
but not obligatory (( neg vote
i. Existentialism
ii. Egoism/political realism
1) Mearshiner
3. Contingent Standard (Trigger) - way to evaluate
Ex. Contracts are true > Contracts avoid skep, VC = consistenc w/contracts
"Contracts aren't true" > nothing avoids skep > skep is true > new offense on
skep
4. Multi level arguments
a. "If skepticism is true, then theory goes away b/c no rules"
Obligatory
Ex.
"Judge should ignore skep arg b/c unfair

Skep is true
Only way to escape skep is via contracts
VC - consistency with contractarianism"
If opponent says, "contracts wrong" then it judge must
presume (( Trick
Neg gets permissibility
Everything is perm
No obligations > Negate
Negates the truth of the resolution
Obligation - gotta do it
Permission - allowed to do it
Prohibition - not allowed
Ought implies obligation (aff)
(( neg is left with either permission or prohibition
(( neg is able to argue, the US can defend democracy, but isn't obligated to
Prohibition is not enough
Frameworks
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
8:13 AM
What arguments matter

1. Values
2. Resolutions are phrased normatively (prescriptive)
Consequential Theories
Always turns available
Requires skilled debate
Util can be justified in almost any
way
Deontological Theories
(Adherence to rules)
Impact
1. Kant
Util - net impact

-promoting utility overall
"ability to achieve pleasure/pain"
Extinction Precludes
We want to know what is valuable
Egoism/Political Realism
Maximize utility for constituency
- Can't predict consequences
Act Omission Distinction

Difference between acting and restraining from doing
an action.
Consequentialist - no diff between acting and omitting
Deontologist - acting and omitting distinction
The action is what determines morality
- Categorical Imperative
- Universalizability
- Practical reason
2. Polls
3. Social Contract / Int'l Law/ Constitutionality
ARG: If there is no Act - Omission distinction, then

deont makes no sense
ARG: There is act/omission b/c without it, we are

always obligated to do everything possible to help
other people
Means vs Ends
- Clash between rules

- Unclear weighing mechanisms
Perfect (duty not to violate) vs Imperfect Duties (duty to
assist)
Act/Omission
Intended/Forseen AKA Double Doctrine Effect
Consequentialism does not care about
intension/foresight
Forseen: Killing the fat man
Principles to value:
1. Intuition
2. Pragmatism
3. Consistency
4. Too strong/too weak
5. Action guiding
6. Self/subjectivity
7. Justification
8. Simplicity
Neg flow
1:52 PM
All our values

Obligation
Acting in acc with gov obligation
Governments ruled by obligation
Aff advocacy > votes neg
4 justifications
Extend 3: 1.
2. Aff advocacy inappropo
3. Standard prereq to having standard
No reason to have a state gov obligation is prereq

1. Ought applies can
Democracy in the middle east is not possible,
Well
Ought implies obligation
Inappropriate obligation, if the parent makes a chioc, he

values one life over the other (( ought implies can still
stands
Slanko card concede (( 7 justifications
People in countries divided by rules

4 Strong civil democracyies , the ability to articulate individuals
5 .protection of minorities
6. Democrats need numbers or else it won't work - polls support demo but
not habitual
7. Political environment, sunni/shia rivalry east europeans
8. American martial aid to be sure, not always necessary for demo
JP's response
Shopenhaur/Locke preclusion arg/presumption trigger - needs specific applications in 1ar to
the neg framework
Modern Moral Philosophy Outline

Thursday, July 30, 2015
8:47 PM
Unjust man is a bad man requires justification > virtue

Should, ought, needs - christian
Aristotle lacks words are a lot of stuff
Something something hume
Transition from is to ought "relative bruteness"
Is to owes, is to needs
Motive of duty
Sidgwick is weird compared to Mill and Moore boring
Divine law theory minimalize - wonky intention/foresight
Permissibile 10
Obligation is contractual 12
As a K debater: Emphasize epistemic modesty for offense
Phil Framework v K
Friday, July 31, 2015
11:08 AM
The Problem:
Philosophical frameworks now have trouble dealing with K's on the circuit
Phil frameworks
1. Justify the framework, I can defend and understand better than my opponent
2. The framework will filter impacts away (negates certain turns etc)
K debater makes normative assumptions without their own framework
They aren't justifying those normative assumptions and concede the phil framework OR they make
turns on your framework
Theoretically: Explain that the K operates under your framework and links under it.
But thats not how things work out because: (diagnostic assumption)
1. Implicit assumption about framework in relation to contentions called "epistemic modesty"
implicit
- A person should be able to jettison a framework when opposing a strongly held belief
Ex. Intuition based view on moral judgment vs. Rule , it makes sense to drop the Rule and follow the
Intuition based view
Applied: The phil framework excludes white supremacy impacts.
K debater: Excluding those impacts reflect poorly on the framework
Framework: The normative dispute in the round.

rmative standards are correct)
K: The normative standard irl "is this judge a wsupremacist?"
Two different views > ambiguity
Successfully Engaging in Framework debate
(Don't try to collapse to fw b/c its a deep paradigmatic issue)
Find a framework that is compelling on either perspective.
Accept that you can't exclude impacts through a phil framework (in an immediate way)
There is a sophisticated type of exclusion
Make space for K impacts A. the inclusion of those impacts some how undermind the fw
B. The inclusion means - the fw is ok but we go to impacts for some reason
Reformulate the fw debate
Pure Reason fws should no include new elements that are currently not present but preserve the core.
1. Assumption about the way a judge should arrive at a normative assumption in offense. Ethical
Relationship between Phil thought commited to pure reason and kritik History
Kant - reason is pure, true, and good without external dependence . Our most basic ethical principles will
be derived on the character of reason. Normatively binding ethics. He thinks there are things we can't
Framework Debater: The judge should adopt norms if they are on the flow in this round. I'm not
know, its very important that we don't know they are impossible, and that we hope for them.
adopting this normative standard, I'm explaining it.
Strong view that ethical community who know each other, acting and governed by reason. We know
that this is possible, but we don't know its in our power (we have limitations that prevent us from
K Debater: The judge should hold norms paradigmatically in any round.
acting on reason.
The judge has substantive norms built into the paradigm.
If we knew it couldn't be actualized, whats the point of having practical reasons. "I can intentionally
The framework debater must debate given their previous beliefs. You do not build from nothing, you build achieve this through x y and z." I can't intentionally win the lottery.
off their personal claims.
A fair judge is someone who is accepting of being convinced
Post Kantians (Hegel for ex) - Shares the pure reason view but the ethical communities are too abstract b/c
K debaters implicitly think they are paradigmatic (role of the ballot args)
it doesn't properly respect the property of reason to become concrete
We could not know of its impossibility, however, we don't know its in our power to bring it about
We can't have "it" when it actuallizes, if we don't know our own capacities.
Hegalian problem: Source of bias would exclude peopl when it actualizes that should be in the ethical
community but aren't
norms the judge personally holds vs otherwise
Marx - sees the problem in Hegel, adopts pure reason (kinda contentious), sees that we are materially
limtied (and our ethical community is (( limited and being limited makes it irrational "blacks aren't people
b/c they are slaves) and adds:
A materialist conception of history via an Aristotelian view of human beings that sets standards. For
rational animals, it makes sense to live be rational reflections on those characteristics (nourishment
and reproduction). As human beings, we are defined by a reflection of our living
The trajectory of human history is a reflectino of our material production
Certain communities have problems or contradictions ( the hegelian problem) that pushes our
forward (as a character of modern economic structure)
The proletariat is there as an agent of the final stage, they are universal represent of ehtical
community. They are in a position where we can comprehend and overcome exploitation
First appearance of K debate + contemporary political theory.
Standpoint Epistemology
12:11 PM
The proletariat is a particular class that know injustice, exploitation etc

From a particular standpoint, that is where you can know these things
Tricky justification
Crucial: Its a particular class. Through some limitation in its community, we can see an
unlimited community where we can see ____.
How do we pick which class? Well
Its true
There is no universal ___
Marxism > disaster -- it failed b/c of standpoint epistemology and the theory leading up to it
One route: Standpoint Epistemology is wrong, revive the Hegelian problem and figure out a
different way.
for a kritik - Frankfurt/Derrida's school (idk what school)
Second route : hubris in thinking reason can help you choose a class (lots of K ground)
Standpoint epistemology - problem
What about disability? Sexuality? Race etc.
After the failure of the universal perspective
My experience within the working class is totally unique.
How do we navigate all these narratives
Look to the experience of the group (this is where K debate in general is at the moment)
Categorical identity as authority instead of individual
The two routes are at two very different places:
1. Kritik is impossible and facilitated by pure reason.
2. Pure Reason? No such thing + extremely unpromising
The Historical breakdown

Illustrates the two schools and they clash so hard but are from the same event
Help you identify that pure reason is ______ an untapped resource
Reason based frameworks general template
Framework has three distinct parts (with one common sources)
1. Development of pure, practical reason
2. Derivation of some specific principle from that idea
3. Provisionally, Kant/hegel's account of ethicsi s incomplete
What is the relationship between our capacity to act on the one hand, and
the capacity to act as a community on the other hand .
If the first two parts are right, then we have to be able to make an ethical framework
We can't give up on that , nevertheless, any actual ethical community will be limited.
The solution is not the form of "screw reason" b/c thats how we got to the problem
Hegelian response:
The actualized ethical community is limited in reality, but unlimited in potential (not
just hope). The very specific, any exclusion is not a component of the ethical
community, pure reason does not necessitate the evil.
The moment the ethical community manifests itself as ethical (1. realization of
practical reason 2. the other side, we created world with reflection), it identifies
and overcomes the exclusion.
A specific ethical community can we revealed once we realize that evil. Step-wise action
We must relate to everyone. We have a rational capacity to over come these limitation
End to the Hegelian problem
ULTIMATE Debate Strategy:

We know have a perspective. We see reason as what makes possible In an ethical community that necessarily concludes a capacit y for criticism for exclusion.
1. The Constructive - include all 3 components in the framework. Defense of reason, a norm that has been derived, admit that its conceivable that i ts a derivation of pure reason, it
may not be >> we might think we have the correct application. This view of criticism (in the third step) will deal with that. "here is the proper methodology for address K in
framework"
Never give up pure reason its the engine.
Derive the framework components from it
In order for these things to be normatively binding.
Read the framework, they read the K with an implicit understanding of a framework
To get the conclusion you want, "here is a form of worry expressed by the criticism. Is the conception of embodiment genuinel y universal? Or is it built into the exclusion of
the missing?
Rational critique. You've eliminated the offense that the K is a reason to discount the framework
You have not eliminated how those arg play at the framework. You have a positive vision of the K. "The Neg is doing it wrong, look, they actually need the universal
perspective, some of the resources in my framework that they deny the access to in my framework"
This methodology is harmful, mine is cool. "While its correct they are relevant, its wrong that you need to vote for them and their offense because they do it in a totally
counter productive way."
OR just as the K debater can go for an attack on their methodology and make you lose off that (debate is an activity that we facilitate social norms).
"This is an improper way to engage in my political strategy." "You must print you K on red paper"
K debater seeks to satisfy the standards, properly engage a K of the framework >> an unbridgeable divide becomes engaged
If they do not engage, you've protected your standard as a legitimate way to exclude those standards
To Pursue this strat representative ex - Dropbox

1. Consider a universality of reason to epistemic
2. Press point of standpoint epistemology/ relevant class or category distinction not fruitful way to determine which claims to privilige
Raise concerns about intersectionality
Responding to Theory Shells Warning: Lots of dead ends in logic

and rambling w/Chris
4:38 PM
"judge you should be embarrassed to vote off this shell"
General offense to a counter interpretations

How to deal with counter interpretations
Aff plan must have a solvency advocate and the aff advocacy must meet this
definiation
"promoting a democracy would mean you have to start a democracy" 1. You have to disclose an aff
2. If you perm, it has to be a multilateral agreement
Counter Interpretation
Envision the rule in their counter interp
When doing a counter interp, you should think of kinds of strategies
Why is this interpretation bad?
Link to education (easier than fairness) and easy to frame what is important
spec
If the theory only links to fairness, link to why you prefer to both fairness and
education
Prefer a link to both, a marginal loss to one does not outweigh a complete
loss to the other
Epistemic modesty - Util framework, _____________
Link in theory debate, "both link to who is the better debater so if you even
win why fairness > education, it might be the case that its difficult to
determine who the fairness of the debater is"
Internal link turns to impact link their turns so you don't need Counter
interpretation, make args for the opp
Predictability is key b/c otherwise I can't engage the aff - predictability is
really good at checking back against side advantage they have OR b/c it forces
debaters to make novel arguments
If the education theyare getting is not ___ then that might be a bad form of
education creating a
Quasireasonability args
1. Substance abuse ( arg thats difficult to response to)
a. Not abusive at all - anything that doesnt link to reciprocity is good
i. Encourages on the fly thinking + no brightline
ii. There are a lot of reasons why hard to answer args are good
b. Fairness is comparative, so if its reciprocity, it ain't substance abuse
2. Structural abuse (burden structures/foundational)
a. Define it early on
Take advantage of their theory shells

Ex. Planks (and)
1. No multiple shells and
2. Cannot deny RVI and
3. Cannot deny reasonability
If you can prove why this is a bad arg, you can leverage your arguments against
them.
"if Nuanced theory interp is bad, then any reason why RVI's are bad, then its
why you shouldn't endorse their theory shells."
Their theory shell is unjustified, conceding reasonability or RVI. Conceding them
is inherently unfair
We should be able to make arguments to justify the claim
Conceding reasonability args are reasonability args in disguise
Making defense from offense
"This arg is already reciprocal, without a theory remedy, then, adding an
extra condition is unreciprocal" intuitive, turns the reciprocity standard
Ex. RVI's debate "you could theory as well (defensive) so you would be
able to win off RVI topicality and a shell, whereas I can't which is why I get
2 for 1 advantage"
Arbitrary restriction of the strategy, if theres noabuse, then thats an interp for
why theory is worse
You force me into this strategy so the abuse is self imposed
"aff read a plan about ME, read generic NC, 1AR says must have an
advocacy text"
"I don't have to have an advocacy text b/c ___
"Plans are good on balance, but conversely, I should have strategies
that allow me to engage on your plan"
Intrinsic unfairness arg:
Spike "the arg, b/c of the sidebys, it s unfair, b/c it equalizes the sidebys"
impact turns back to fairness
Arg against violations and interpretations
Solvency advocates - plans must havea solvency advocate "I am the
solvency advocate does not work"
Semantic "I meets "
2AR gets you extrapolations of the arguments
Silly I meets are wonky " I didn't read the turns to the aff, I just said them"
Useful on mitigation, and takes out close theory debate
Unique responses: see how many args you can make against your theory shell
Responses to Theory Shell
Arg against reciprocal access - its not reciprocal on the basisis that ___
Engagement isn't necessary b/c it makes things not ne
If its topical, you can predict it
Solvency advocate in the 1AR solves for abuse
I meet solvency advocate
I meet not a plan
I meet- perm
Predictability
1. If topical you can predict
2. Reading in the 1ar solves,
3. Generic check
4. Research links to edu
5. Shock value good
Crit thinking - same stock debate arg
A. Overcompensate, you can prepoint,
B. Aff offense proves predictability
C. Switchsside solves
1. Have to disclose plan on website.

2. Predictability - clash
a. Reciprocal access to prepare specific advantages
b. Need to be able to predict args to engage them
3. Critical thing that applies to____
Key to education b/c all aspects of debate + life
Deon NC
A. The neg may not read a case with anegative framework
B. Violation C. Ground - her interp of nc standard offense functions is unturnable, so you
pick this standard b/c its unfair
I can only win on the AC and on the NC, so its harder to link back to the
topic/shell > fairness
A. Overcompensate, you can prepoint,

B. Aff offense proves predictability
C. Switchsside solves
Rebutttal Args
Drop the arg is the abuse
No RVI's
Reason fairness is a side contraint on competitive activies

No way to determine better debater if its unfair > education
Punish the 3 sec args again'st fairness/ education
1. Fairness is not a voter b.c
a. NO internal impact to being fair
b. NO reason why we have to care about a particular arg
c. Functions like a standard > a real voter
1AR Theory bad is a possible argument
OR running theory against a novice may be unfair
"Changing the rules in the middle of the game isn't good for the game"
Don' t make the m bite into themselves, "theory is expost facto"
Fairness arg, resolving rules,
Intention foresight distinction - all theory is foreseen so its not relevant
Even if fairnesss is a voter, its not worth the conclusion of the args
"When we debate theory, we can't assessing absolute truth, we
see whoever can argue for what interp is debatable. Fairness
theory shells aren't indicative to who the better debater is"
Make a case by case decision, before k theory might be more
acceptable/ respected
Why is education not a voter?
Education is subjective, not quantifiable
Debate is still some part educational
Education > further oppression \
1. Nitpicking : education mayb not be the purpose of debate
2. Debating substance is probably more educational than a 3minute
theory shell
Role of the ballot debates similar to education/fairness
pick this standard b/c its unfair

I can only win on the AC and on the NC, so its harder to link back to the
topic/shell > fairness
Responses:
Not necessarily coercive - barbara evidence why imperfect precedes
perfect duties
Reciprocal turn on this topic bc aff can defend status quo
Win permiss on both sides
Actions are necessarily deont
I have a VC
Predictability
Many ways to weigh with deont
Topic education bad b/c nuke war scenario
Philosophy clash is key b/c
Voter: implies drop the arg b/c it proves deon is unfair, not ready it
Squo bad, violation of freedom
Aff runs 1ar ____
Abuse inevitable
Extinction first to bostrom
Every arg skews round
The interp doesn't solve for abuse
Frame the
When writing/drilling theory,

Write the args up
Theory needs execution, and the allocation of time
Reason for why disclosure is unfair etc, keep those on lock down
Debate someone on theory that is better than you
Forces quality than otherwise
Applies specifically to theory
Find someone that can 4 point your args (like The Notorious J.P.S)
Know your arguments and how they can be made
Extra T, Effects T, etc etc
Questions
1:37 PM
MearsheimerI don't see how its only a negative framework

Where does regional hegemony suggest that the ME is not a threat?
How to use verbatim

Ghost evidence
Sarah __ / Joseph Millman
Mentorship Program?
Act deon
Truth Testing vs
Comparative Worlds
Look up Levinas
We must increase militarizaation, because when aliens come, we must be prepared

Ask julian about shuttle
The lines get very blurry between where K ground/level is

Fiat is a spectrum not a hard line
K debate in LD is very controversial
Do K debaters need to a framework? (controversy current)
Debate is not a bubble, don't say something in round that you
wouldn't say in round
K Day
Sunday, August 02, 2015
12:16 PM
K - from an analytical philosophy perspective

Many k's use jargony words to hide a lack of warrats
Many shells are artificially limited in scope
"Educators need to help people break down
oppression" or "we can only focus on one type of opp"
Rely on the Assumptions:
Pre Fiat
Post Fiat
Debate space
Real World
Hypothetical
Ex. Theory, K,
FW (?) - Setting up how to FW - The conditions of the
resolution require
evaluation
application of the the FW
What about the ground in the middle of the fiat
Problem:
Ought as a logical consequence - "It ought to rain today"
Truth testing paradigm _________
If this is what the resolution means, then comparative world
no longer make sense (for this res)
Carolyn doesn't believe in pre/post-Fiat distinction
In policy, K's are not separated
K vs Theory debates are hard, b/c K

have the experience
Substance debate
Responding to Role of the ballot

Text: Vote for the debater that does x
1. Question the obligation (judges aren't
educators
2. Why ROB doesn't matter (why focusing
on one group is probably exclusionary)
Intersectionality
K Structure
1. Link
2. Impact
3. Alt
4. Role of the Ballot / Role of the Judge
1. Judge's oblig
2. ROB matters + what the
opression would be like
3. Spikes , preempts to other args
Why policy making etc comes
Living wage is capitalistic

Capitalism bad
Don't have living wage
As a marxist educator
Micro political args are like a subset of K's

Usuallly use Performance narratives w.o a
method
Responses:
1. Turns
a. I'm lessening the link (I reduce
capitalism)
b. My opponent links in harder
No link arguments
a. Use your aff - context
"ex. No, my aff is not capitalistic"
be strong "why am I responsible"
2. Impact
Turn (sometimes)
Authors (A2 Derrida)
3. Compare the Alt to the Impact
If the alt and the impact aren't
consistent
if the alt doesn't solve for the
impact
4. Compare the advocacy and the alt
5. DA to the alt
6. Perms
1. Instrinsicness ( a bit is ok)
2. NB's
K debaters are not necessarily theory
Ex. This policy has been historically
racist, so alt, so the policy without
the racist connotations
Topicality against K's (or Topicality K)

Unfair adv for larger, national circuit teams
Works as a disad
Many T shells link to the rolle of the ballot
If you can't take out the link, don't
perm b/c then you link to the
disad
Make net benefits when you
perm ex. Apology perms
Compare the net benefits to the
impact of the link
Kritik Structure
11:04 AM
Kritiks
1. Link
2. Impact
3. Alt - compete with net benefits while avoiding the link
4. Framework (role of the ballot possible
Delink
Show that alt links to the link
Perm the alt advocacyv
Don't be intimidated
How to Beat Spiked Affs

Tuesday, August 04, 2015
8:10 AM
Many different routes

1. Know what the aff is talking about
a. Flow it and know the implications
b. Bug them into letting you see the case
c. Ask to set up spikes with highlights etc before rounds
CX is crucial
Need to know where every spike is on the flow
In CX, you can ask, "I am going to do this, what spikes conflict?"
Telgraphing strategy means you have an idea off what their 1AR says
Don't ask broad questions in debate terms "what are all the spikes" - gets a response, "spikes don't exist"
Point out contradictions in spikes (they go away b/c I can't deal with two conflicting args, and even if you don't buy
that I will choose one for you" and spikes that use the same warrant
Group args - indicate which args
Possible strat - screw the spikes and go for substance (I meet everything)
One spike is not illegit, but having multiple is abusive - many spikes will contradcit either each other or the
Substantive spikes =/ theory spikes responses
If you control presumption, then you can ignore presumption triggers
Or arguing that permissibility triggers presumption
Triggers + A Priori
8:25 AM
Framework arg that when answered > presumption or permiss trigger

When neg answers y, but they don't answer x, skep is triggered
1. Hijack - I still meet the requirements
2. They don't meet their own criterion ex v Gotye"contracts aren't actually binding"
3. Attack the requirement, its not actually a requirement
Also gets rid of metaethic and their framework
Also requires a better understanding of philosophy
4. Concede everything go to contention
A Priori
A. Concede that there are no a priori
B. They may bait you into running theory
Drop the arg and 6 point it
Gotye - motivational ______determinism?
Responding to Theory
If your counterinterp is not competitive, you auto lose theory

11:04 AM
What to do
Counter interp are similar to plan and counter plan
However, interp and counterinterp are 'worlds of debate'
There must be competion
The counterinterp must do the same thing
But there are fancy ones "debaters can run plans only if ____
The counter interp has the same parts of the interp, except
Voters: voters can be the same, you want to link to the weaker voter and weigh
Prove that your counterinterp is a better rule than the interp (offense)
Not always necessary to read standards with counter interps
Just make turns on the interp with the same standards
"I meet" is a response to the violation

Terminal defense for the vast majority of judges
They have misinterpretated my arg etc
Wide spectrum of I meets
1. impact turn: shep affirms
2. skep isn't offense b/c its defense to their fw
3. skep isn't offense b/c I still have to win why it negates
A. Args that are offense for 1 debater must be link and impact turnable for the other debater
Counter Interp:
args offense for 1 can be either link or impact turn able
Adv: solves reciprocity / ground claims
- non unique: every arg can be turned only one way
OR args offense for 1 debater can must be link and impact turnable if clarified in cx
Cx check counterinterps are gen defensive Stratskew : " x answers would have solved"
Seems to mitigate every standard
OR args may be unturnable
Benefits and Disadvantages
Artificial sufficiency - arg against interps that "if you ask me in

cx to make my case sufficient, I would have done it to solve the
abuse"
Arti suff makes defense into offense
Potential abuse - abuse that does not happen in this instance - the abuse you're talking about did not occur
Actual abuse - has already occurred in the situation
Structural abuse
Reasonability (parallel with competiting interps)

The one who wins the theory debate means that some
amount of abuse has occurred (like a gut check)
Standards: Good is good enough (any reason)
Brightline
Actual, not potential abuse
Ex. Arg: actual abuse weighs harder b/c it has occurred in this round
OR the judge's obligation is to adjudicate this round
We can't control what happens in other rounds
4. skep was arti suffi

Arti sufficiency bad is common strat
Text of the interp - value I meets if through grammatical imeets
Spirit of the interp - contextual
Two Rules for debate - interp/counter interp

The person who wins theory is the one who wins the interp
Generic K args before Theory

3:07 PM
Elijah Smith policy - arg on escaping hard arguments

If you run away from theory and avoiding the substantive args in those
Abstractions are also bad b/c they detract from the details of oppression
Fairness is a rule, under the mask of objectivity
One rule to everyone without know who they are and what their background is
Aff role of the ballot choice > bad b/c you won't concede to the roll of the ballot
Entrance barriers to debate - privileged , more rules means more privilege
Vinson - brief weekly - performance is always attached to the body
We don't want to run args that we don't agree with
Explains why we don't want to assiumilate
Timmons
-abstractions bad
Objectivity
Vincent vbriefly article
Color blindness is a way to sustain whiteness
Why white people want colorblindness b/c sustains their
privilige b/c you do not recognize race when you
prescribe rules
Idk what this page is for

Wednesday, August 05, 2015
8:06 AM
Ideal vs Non ideal theory (rawls)

Bad people in utopian
International Relations
Argument interaction
Beating Ks
Beating Larp without engaging util
Kant and Korsgaard
Permissibility
How to win in ___ vs outrounds
Identity Politics
Ben Laufer - Prefiat voters
Reading and respsonding to spikes
Non- T / Semi - T affs
Camp Tourney Stuff Lab Photo

8:18 AM
Performance usually Non-T

- Disrupt common assumptions / structures of the round
Use resolution as starting point for discussion
Other aspects of resolution not talked about
- Semi - T is not traditionally T
- Identity Politics (modern and post modern conception)
Modern - stable
Post modern - always two aspects: political and fluid
Oppression
- Micropolitical
Interactions with others always have implications
Cases that affect change in the community
"you should vote aff b/c it will make more people talk"
Criticisms of cap, race, fem, small v big schools, etc
Responses:
Ask, "How do I engage in this position without marginalizing discussion."
You need to have substantive args

Theory
Going Left strategies: critical strats to beat orther critical strats
Counter Ks and Methods DA
Counter Ks can
1. Criticize a description of a problem - its a description that excludes
other things ex. Wilderson excludes females or queer black bodies
> Converations about intersectionality + essentialism
2. Criticize their solution - common sense args
Become familiar with Cap vs Race Ks
Camp Prep
8:39 AM
Aff
Neg
Fem Aff
Essentialism K
+ Offense
Plans
Education
Logical Ought
Polls
Virtue Ethics
Testimony
Oppression
Orientalism - SPECIFIC TO AFF

"" for Imperialism
Sov NC
Levinas
Skep
Polls
Backlash
Coercion
Theory
Must Spec
Frontline these if plan
Topicality
Be prep to defend aff
Prewritten "I meets"
ROB
1. Root Cause args
Cap fuels racism
2. Starting point args
Even if cap caused racism, solving for racism is a good
starting point
3. Comparing the methods of the ROB
Answering T and Reading T

9:12 AM
Reasonability can be a fast answer in some circumstances

No offense necessary like in a counter interp
Cons: People argue really well against reasonability
Answering T
- Carded def
- Don't leave it around
- Without spec def, use a broad def on res
Add some more details in the counterinterp
- Carded standards
- Reasonability Strat
The harm outweighs the benefit of using their definition
"I wasn't so bad to justify dropping me"
If I have a carded definition, or some evidence its in the
topic lit, thats a reasonable justification
- CX check , it would have linked
Reading T
As reading topic lit, find definitions
Reasons why that def is going to exclude
Creatively apply definitions
Don't be repetitive in your standards
Ground - why types of args am I losing, and why is that good for me
"I lose unicorns" isn't essential to the topic
Identify a brightline and why that brightline matters
Common warrants:
Inround abuse, Structural skew (nibs)
Reading Ks
9:28 AM
Pre emptive in ROB

Reading multiple links is very important
Ex. Make impacts shorter
Go into the aff and generate links rather than cards
Or use both
ROB that is intersectional so you can engage on ROB debate
Gets out of essentialism args
Framing what counts as offense - more strategic to have things more narrow
Don't recycle impact cards
Know the evidence well so you can extend it b/c you are more preped than theory
Write out the overviews until they get memorize
For If the aff dumps on theory etc.
Establishes perceptual dominance and tailors to the scenario
ROB defines what it means to vote as a debater
Standard is minimizing oppression
Social Contract Nozick/Locke/Hobbes
Gotye is "neo-hobbesian"

9:07 AM
Different conceptions of "state of nature"

(before society hypothetically)
In order to define the purpose of
government
Locke Hobbes Rousseau

Locke
Hobbes
- Humans have natural rights given

by god
- Optimistic about humans
- Tragedy of Commons
- State defends property rights
- Right to revolution
- Sovereign can do anything

- People are nasty
- Liberty can't be infringed by coercion
- Dictatorship > Oligarchy etc
- People enter gov via self interest
- No right to revolution
- No freedom of religionm
Nozick
Locke:
Tragedy of the Commons - with no constraints
on resources, everyone exploits, so no one
protects, so resources deplete for everyone
Owning Property Justification: Mixing a labor
with a natural resource
- must balance between two evils - justifies a minimalist states

Balance in consent to be governed > min state ( sounds like libertarianism)
Util treats the state as an instrument - don't bully the state :(
Moral philosophy is kinda like political
Property rights - you mix your labor with resources
Nozick's Chamberlain theory (where he argues that taxes is stealing)
Contrast between moral and political philosophy - Nozick
Nozick hates util
Rawls also hates util
Liberalism in America / Europe/ Intl politics is all really different
Spec FW Page 32
Anti-taxation
Benefiting everyone (net benefits)
Thomas Pogge (rawlsian) leftist bent

About the injustice of the initial
John Rawls
2:28 PM
Nozick wrote his book as a response to The Theory of Justice.

Justice as fairness > The Veil of Ignorance
Seperation of your own self from the "hypothetical position"
Protect the least well off b/c you might be the least well off
Inequality in society are justifiable if they serve the interest of the ____
"Capitalism is the best way to help the least well off compared to communism,
even though there are inequalities that result"
Tolerance (kinda like John Stuart Mills) set up the world that everything is ok
Result: Modern liberal state, healthcare, redistribute wealth etc
He is a critic of the wealfare state where they create a permanent welfare
state
On IntL Affairs
Ideal (people who act good) Theory / Nonideal (people bad)
Probs use nonideal theory
Sort of veil of ignorance for intl affairs
Democratic promotion is bad (for some sort of reason)
The Laws of Peoples is late so its just a sketch
Rawls - Civil rights act is always right Nozick - they aren't justified in enforcing
discrimination policies
Spec FW Page 33
Answer rawls :
Self interested people don't necessarily want an egalitarian society
Hijack the veil of ignorance that way
Ripstein
Ripstein - liberal state

2:42 PM
Writes about The Metaphysics of Morals - Kant and on Domestic Policy

He is not talking about Kant's moral philosophy
Doctrine of Right
Not moral phil, political
Ripstein is probs an NC on this topic
Force and Freedom - Book
Allow to hinder an hinderance (an interp of Kant)
Stop someone from limiting someone elses freedom is an obligation (not just permissible)
Hijack - Take their framework to twist

it in a direction they don't want it to go
Answers to Ripstein:
a. Little diversity in different parts of the case
Fairly predictable case
1. Freedom matters
2. Always a justify an intention/foresight distinction
3. Need freedom for it to be freedom
4. Hindering hindrance good
5. Contention
a. And the reasons why freedom matters
Kant debaters try to make exclusionary arguments
Innate right - since we can make choices, every human has the ability to choose so they all
have freedom >> The three defects in the state of nature
The state therefore has to be created to protect the innate rights of everyone
So in the system of equal freedoms, everyone has a right to freedom is its always ___
Freedom is relational
Domination/coercion - someone substituting their will for your own
b. "you can never ever violate someone's freedom"

c. Crush the intention/foresight distinction
Not part of Ripstein's ideology, but in the debate space
But people take it from action theory sooo
d. Generic AT Kant for freedom matters
a. Or generic answers to categorical imperative
Omnilateral will
Idosyncratic view on property rights - no property in state of nature, so it is created by the

state >> obligation to not have people in poverty b/c can't submit to omnilateral will >
redistribution of wealth
A government that is not acting as an omnilateral will is a justification for revolution
Spec FW Page 34
e.
f.
g.
h.
Collapse to util args

"What consistutes a violation of freedom?
He writes a lot, so he hijacks (you can run multiple hijacks
The case needs to win 4 links, so hit those links and extend what they
don't cover
i. If you hit.. ______________________ then .. >>>
The government has to take steps to protect other individuals
"lightning"
Rule Utilitarianism - Pseudo Lay Round

3:11 PM
There is a set of rules

- They are derived from the consequences of generally following rules
- Excludes impacts
- General consequences of a rule in most cases are promoting utility
Ex. There is a rule that says "promote democracy"
In gen, promoting demo will increase utility
It still means that in general, it will increase utility even if
there is a small case where it doesn't.
- Rule collapses to act
- Rule util collapses to act util during an extinction scenario (ex. The avg
of each aggregate step is negative infinity if any step is extinction)
- Intuitionism + Hooker (card)
- Rule Util is hard to defend, but its also justified b/c the rules have
good consequences
- Or Act Util frameworks but with Rule Util solvency
Chappell 05 (from a blog "philosophyetcetera.net"
Spec FW Page 35
Intrinsic Perm
Rekts disad link with some policy
option
Abusive
Used with consequentialist positions, while avoiding extinction impacts

Rule Util in debate is a big time waste -- deal with it, then link in impacts
or do probability weighing.
Aristotle Virtue Ethics
What do the virtues say? (multiple conceptions from

multiple people (Confucianism and Daoism, islam,
buddhism, catholic)

6:13 PM
Deont theories all have the

first premise: Morality means rules
Second Premise: Rules are x
C: Morality means rules
MacIntyre
Foot
Consequentialism:
Morality is consequences
The relevant ones are x
Morality is x
Hursthouse - author of SAP article (application of

virtue ethics)
Boyle and Labin
Anscombe - independent reasons why

virtue reason is
Virtue Ethics
P1 : Do what the virtues say
P2: The virtues say x
C: Do X
Do what a virtuous person would do
"WWTPD?" (What would the pope do)
Virtuous people live a good life/person
Arg: The resolution is something a virtuous
person would do.
true
Neo- Aristotelian - give a traditiona def of virture

Most religions also have a virtue ethics sectio
Aristotle Says:
Telos is the final stage toward which we are directed
Every lifeform is directed toward the Telos
If there is no interruption then it reaches its Telos >
Teleology
Etc. Acorn's Telos is tree
Sort of a little scientific
Disputes over Telos > scientific realm (animal health
looks like.what animals typicall look like)
Aristotle's Nicomachian ethics

Slaves, women, foreigners, _____ links well so
don't do that
Good and bad are inherent with telos

Human telos is unclear, but to aristotle it is solved
Artifacts created by humans have a telos of what they
were made for
Robber's telos different from a human's telos
Spec FW Page 36
Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shifts (not debate relevant)

MacIntyre - pluralism in virtue ethics is really bad
Once you reach telos, you become virtuous

You practice the virtues to get to that point
"fake it till you make it"
In the end you get a happiness for all time
(( we need education to help practice virtue
Master virtue ( in debate space and anachronistic term )

defines virtue
(Democratic participation)
Functional ought
K Lit
Monday, August 03, 2015
8:14 AM
Ethics Of Care
Baudrillard
Wilderson
Foucault
Nietzsche
Feminism
Butler
Heidegger
Agamben
Quadre / queer theory
Capitalism
Anthro
Ableism
Tuck and Yang
Spec FW Page 37
Wilderson (Red, White, Black) and Mills

8:17 AM
Without history, we are ontologically dead. So

after the middle passage, the slaves are severed.
More lit: Look! A White

Recognize the whiteness
Afro Optimism
- Sure, heres what we can do (Plan)
Another author: Moten
Afropessimism
- Possibly discouraged in debate
- The alt is usually "burn civil society down"
- Strong against policy making etc
- Links to many affs
- Lots of ROB type args
George Yancy (well respected afro pess
unlike wild)
Spec FW Page 38
Response:
Why the premise leads to afro-opt
DA on afro-pess
Many counter K's - Clinical K (pessimism > suicide)
Binary K / Intersectionality K
Model Minority
Starts with Reagan
Model minority vs Problem minority (jap v black)
Psychoanalysis K (tool of whiteness to explain whiteness is self defeating)
Charles Mills - racial contract, social contract excludes black people
Args against rawls etc
Also: "Kant is a racist"
David mills k's Kant's writing on anthropology
Arg: neoKant =/ kant
Boxer and Allen Wood say "You can still argue kant if he's a racist" google
Tangentially philosophy
Foucault - Nietzche
8:42 AM
Epistemology
Order of Things
History of Sexuality
Madness and Civilization
Discipline and Punish (penal systems)
Probably most relevant usually
"Panopticon" as a form of power
Very good interviews to card
Biopower - gov has control over people's lives
Ex. TSA check, you must raise hands
Responses:
Cherry picking in history
Criticism of Methodology
Mostly descriptive rather than normative claims
Nietzche (Knee-cha) - Critical of western conceptions of morality

- will to power
Morality is about willing power over people
Power controls the way we think about morality
Warning : Anti-semitic
- Ubermensch the person who expresses themselves inplace of morality
- Slave morality - the weak people construct a morality that restrict strong people
Strong people should overcome that
Hates Christianity for many reasons
The Gay Science - Kind of a parable
Critique of enlightenment
Live your life to the fullest potential
Katsafanas (modern day Nietzche)
Spec FW Page 39
Heidegger is Nazi
8:58 AM
Functionality Affs
Hard to understand- new language for his philosophy
Being and Time
Anti Semtic black books pro holocaust
Anthro K's
Constant obsession with problem solving
Nuke war impacts
Spec FW Page 40
Capitalism intersects with Race, ableism, etc

Communism, marxist, etc are not bad words in academia
Capitalism - supes common

9:03 AM
Capitalism fueled slavery b/c demand for labor
Neo-Lit LIberalism
Why politics is intertwined with capitalism
Even if we break it down, would racism not exist?
"if all the race was porportionate etc in class structure, society would still be funky"
Consensus Solution - set of economic solutions that help

developing countries > eco dereg for exploitations
IMF
Impacts could use improvement
Marxism - framework that osounds like a K

IN LD, marx is unclear if util is a constructed "ideology
(specialized marx term)" or if its his advocate
Sometimes naturlist type claims
Work is replaced with money so virtue ethics/naturalism
conflicts with Capitalism
Communist Manifesto is not really debatable
Capital - massive book but good
Spec FW Page 41
Frankfurt school - Kind of not really synonymous with K theory

Went to Yale during WWII
Qustion: Why hasn't the marxist rev happened yet?
K theory, marxist ideas
Looking at ads is a reflection of mass culture
Options, consumption, satisfactions conditions you to desire cap
Feminism
9:14 AM
3 Waves
1. Women w/ independence
2. Assuming a stricter binary than 3
Less intersectional
White upperclass
Pro-choice
3. Fluidity
Butler Public intetellectual (bad philosophical writing)
Gender is a performance, not a hard fast distinction
Ways that undermine trad gender roles good
Ways that undermine cap
"gender trouble"
bellhooks - do not capitalize
"Insurgent Black Intellectual Life"
What happens in academia may have an impact in the real world
Role of the ballot arg
Spec FW Page 42
Post 9/11
Ward Churchill - weighing mechanism for util
Native american scholar
Agamben
9:28 AM
His args apply to any topic where the US is a state actor

Identity as a possibility,organ donation topic
Idea - State of acception

Latin word for "excluded man"
Interested in people who have been exiled from society
Not protected from the government
Takes out rights and gov gives you your rights
Spec FW Page 43
Baudrillard
Mostly relevant in film, not really philosophy

5:12 PM
Look to Film theory or comparative literature for stuff
Media guy
Simulacra and Simulation
Everything we experience is a simulation from the media
Simulacra, media representatinos of the world around us
We probs can't break out of this
Suicide bombers break out of simulacra and simulation by ripping out the modern order
Baudrillard K - the aff was a suicide bomb aff
Spec FW Page 44
Ethics of Care
5:19 PM
Related to virtue ethics (some versions of ethics of care)

Non stock + lots of possible nuance
But easy to link into contentions (kinda util)
Related to communitarianism
Usually written as an aff, not a K
Responses:
Women k the ethics of care
Response to analytic philosophers on women interests and women etc
Spec FW Page 45
Religious cases exist
Anthropocentrism
5:23 PM
Not a K, but an idea

We are violent toward animals which creates the conditions that we are violent to other peoples
Runs against extinction affs
"Give whales a living wage" - where you let them go
Retribution for Dolphins b/c they rape things PICs
Spec FW Page 46
Tuck and Yang + D&G

5:28 PM
Policy arg
Criticism of method (unlike race and anthro)
Narrative and seperating that from academia is bad
Performance
Spec FW Page 47
Anti- Oedipus
Guattari and Gilles Deleuze
Some knowledge is important than orthers
When we have an arboreal view, then it creates oppression
We instead need ribosomal view
No linear arg
Funky warrants
Paragraph Theory is LD
5:28 PM
Spec FW Page 48
Derrida
5:32 PM
>Deconstructionism
Hard to read
Never read by good debaters
Literary Theorist
Texts can be deconstructed for hidden subliminal oppression
"reading Derrida's moral skepticisms"
Derrida K's exist
Spec FW Page 49
Queer theory
5:37 PM
Quare
Queer theory - for LGBT studies, but without a specific category

Impacts along the lines of
Rejecting the social norms within the state
Not very intersectional
Assumes a white subject, afro authors assume straight subject
Quare theory > becomes intersectional and have a hard time responding to it
Kweer theory is a thing I think.
Ballroom
Spec FW Page 50
Levinas
8:40 AM
Every sort of relationship is contextualized in an ethical way

My existence in the world is free
When we meet the Other who create the scruple - a need to be good
So our relationships are always ethical b/c other people
(( We should be infinitely giving - do not impose restrictions on them
Totalization occurs when a preset set of assumptions are imposed on the Other
Which is bad
Used in Imperialism K off or Sov K offense
Spec FW Page 51
Contractarianism / Contractualism
12:34 PM
Contractarianism - you self sacrifice to enter the contract (we all have different conecption of morality
and self interest) and t
Contractualism - we take actions that aren't reasonably rejectionable - the individual compares their
suffering to others
Something is wrong if its performance is disallowed
Reasons are justifiable - individuals as agents
The objection would have to be a distinct harm - the fact that it impacts you negatively isn't
sufficient enough
To reasonably reject it, you must know how it affects others
Spec FW Page 52
Intent - Foresight
12:51 PM
Often conceptualized wrong

"Living wage means that employers will fire people"
When you pass the living wage, it is a necessary step for the action, that employers will fire people
Intention
OR using your car is necessary to go to the grocery store, literally no otherway, there is a vehicular toll
bridge
Foreseen: bird goes under the windshield - its not something that needs to happen
Spec FW Page 53
Value K - D&G Drill

1:46 PM
Always ask any K you don't get: How do I generate offense? How is linking me to the K bad in the first
place? In this case, linking me to the K sounds like a normative judgment.
If hyperreal is bad, does that mean D+G don't care about post fiat? What about prefiat args? What does
D+G mean for fiat?
The Link - the act of valuing

Delous and guitarro (and the rest of this fw)
Live in the actual not the past/future
Look to the past/future commitment defeats the purpose of the present
Hyperreal (what could happen) is a threat, that controls
Don't be afraid of what could happen
Agency sets your ends. Morality binds agency and closes off the ability to
determine agency
Limiting in that way is bad / facist
Existence is a depository of possible that are already already given
We don't know how your being will develop, saying it should be x way is bad
It cannot be otherwise b/c .
Ethics is resisting temptation to create an ethical framework that limits life
ALT: Do nomadic thinking
What if I break down the boundries that I set up?
"If freedom is the US, what if the us didn't exist?" "What if the concept of the
us didn't exist?" the feelling of the concept?" the doing of the feeling? The
being doing the feeling of the conept of the us?" this best captures the
essence of existing better than anything else
Spec FW Page 54
R: Assumes that we restrict life in the first place

How do we know that there is a one true ethical theory
That every life form adheres to?
If we do not discuss then how can we find that theory if it exists at all?
One use of shell:

Identifying a post or pre fiat distinction is bad
Post fiat doesn't care about past and goes to future
Pre fiat doesn't care about future but before the res
Phil Hat Trick (Language of Thought)

"Picture a man not wearing a hat. Now picture a man"
Something weird about the idea of negation that demands language
Language changes thought
If thought is being, then language changes being
Nietzsche
2:44 PM
Q: Does everyone have the capacity to will to power? Are some's will stronger than others? For what
reason.
6 sentence drill: You should be able to explain why you're winning in six
sentences. If you can't see your outs and explain them
Us ought to guarantee universal healthcare:
DOES NOT SAY SUFFERING GOOD

Suffering however, is desirable
Human empowerment - accept that being overcomes suffering
Recognizing that suffering exists is a form of empowerment
Cane 3
Hw: Practice Round:

Make sure some sort of f/w overview and comparison in overview hw
Comparison, Preclusion, Reconceptualization, Weighing
In 1A or 2N
Overview
"As an overview, the aff says, the neg says, so they interact in this way
___. This means _____"
Stating the strat outright
I will also pay attention to Time usage
Spec FW Page 55
Drills
1:52 PM
Drills Page 56
Drill Flow
11:49 AM
AC Linear probability miles

Poverty rate 12 per reducton
Lowest wage workers low reductions poverty
Do not control enforcement
They do not control adequately for enforcement
Employment effects conceptualy identical of adams and newmark but negates

Do not receive wwage increases
Neumarc and wascher - many different employment effects >
meta analysis not useful for min wage
Instead prefer narrative review
2nr
Empircal studies are required - inherent benefits
Don't say dates - neumarc et al 2012, 2011
All theoretical analysis no statistical analysis
Professional economists can think __ but its not qutie relevan
Specify numbers
Newmarc evidence covers dates throughout the card
Drills Page 57
Does not take into account economic down turn or war time economy in our post
2009
"No evidence of missing living wage laws not adequate"
NC Ineffieicnet use due to unemployment

Accounting to those hleped, avg decrease in income levels with living wage
Low wage workers experience wage gains, but decrase ___
Total effects indicate up to 1.1 experience declines
6 per declines in ______
The wage gains conservative , hurt by min wage increases
1. Newmarc card does not prove causation, no link from living wage to poverty line
a. Instead prefer kobal b/c it provides logical explanation for min wage is
harmful
b. Both ofhis studies in newmarc aren't dated unlike neg's yr 2000 dates
Post dating is important

Weigh Kobal arguments against >> prefer economist studies over statistical studies
Good job comparing methodological concerns
Can do weighing impact while reading acards
Drill Flow 2
12:10 PM
Empirics literature review

Past decade goes aff
F1995 2001
One long uunion reduces poverty rate _____
Living wgae helps bring familys above the poverty line
Lowest wage workers increase, modest increases in study
Do not control enforcement research flows aff
Negative impacts questions cannot detect urban leve limpacts
Study of negative employment effects
Adams families do increase living wage increases
Prefer to meta analysis , traditional anlysis
Estimation of literature
No assesment of evidence
No causation
Good warrant for why post dating is important
(Economic down turn in 2009)
Same author, later date goes my way - another thing with post-dating
Evidence says that 12.4% reductions

Ldetectable numbers above pov
Living wage laws reductions of poverty
Prefer professional economists to aff speculation

Redistribution economy
Reduction in the rate of economic growth
Lester 11
Urban level
Implements effects
Wage increases
Neumarc and wa > quality of research
Meta analysis not useful when
Narrative reviews more useful
Accounting to those helped by living wage laws,

Stronger effects later
Low wage workers
The total effects, those below 1.1x income declines
Expected effects 6% decline, hours reduction, much sharper, wage gains considerably weaker
Neumark 12 card - poverty rate sample of families
Larger sample set in neumarc 2k card dropping in workforce
Which means more people are pushed under
Older studies - 2005 1991, not relevant
Neumarc has statistical evidence + methodology in 2k

2k no methodology
Inaddition can't reject old evidence
Neumarc 12 extra decade of studies that suggest living
wage increases
Drills Page 58
Perm Drill
12:39 PM
The us ought to promote demo in central asia

The US does not have the resources to participate in the asia as well
Perm:
Elay perm, will not prep in central asia until us leaves afghanistan
Reduce strain on resources and avoid imperialism
Severance perm, will promote in asia but not in kahzakahstan b/c previous soviet influence and borders russia
bPromote democracy in both me and central asia at the same time
Third: promote democracy in central asia by sending catholic missionary groups
Perm, promote democracy in both me and central asia b/c the more democracy the merrier except in kyrgystan b/c it
borders russia
CP: The un ought to promote democracy in the middle east
Perm, un and us already have peace keeping forces so do both
Perm, the us should withdraw while the un goes in to reduce us expenditure
Perm, the un should go in after the us has finished the war on terror
Perm, the the un should promote democracy except in the palestine because of jurisdiciton issues
observing member
Perm, do borth but also go to the central asia b/c more democracy is better
Drills Page 59
Perm, do both except don't send troops to palestine

Perm do both except don't send troops to egypt as well
Perm do both but send troops to palestine anyway
Perm do both but send troops to palestine after
democracy is established the neighboring countries
Affirm 1
1:45 PM
Egoism guides moral action

Chief incentive
Egoism comes first - thing thing occurs from the ego
Nothing is more important to an individual
Standard: Egoism
Locke: Enforcement of good and evil to determine will >> Punishment
Obligations are hypothetical
The states ability to act as a normative agent
The US is egoist
Democracy protects US interests and see those benefits
Spreading demo will advance by avoiding war
Cume write: Demo cratic states no war against each other
If we have an authoritarian gov, war happens anytime,
(( Demo has people in the mind
Jones 2 writes, serve american interests by removing political sources
1994 us haiti demo reduces refugee problemo
3rd Justification"
Egoism
w/o resources, there is not justification or burden
No warrants or plans - there is sever discord w/ western beliefs coercive
# refugees that will enter the us

2. 1994 isn't current, going for refugees isn't egoist b/c how do refugees benefit
Presume aff b/c 6/74/6/3 timeskew + can't extend twice
NO such thing as ___ time skew
Without egoism, no offense can exist

Deontology collapses to egoism
Egoism decides from justice desire to experience
Categorical imperativve, universiality applies to the invidiual
Virtue ethics collapses to egoism
Drills Page 60
More Responding to Frameworks
Contractualism doesn't answer conflicting contracts

8:14 AM
John Marco response

Korsgaard/ no body matters more than any one else > Util everyone has equal value
Responding to cards you don't know

Group similar ones together
Utilize overviews and general ideas
Ripstein - respecting one contract no warrant for denying person hood why are contracts linked
To make a good warrant arg

"This is what you need to say to prove ____ warrant
Ripstein would need to explain why ___- gives value to ___"?
Responding to frameworks comparatively - provides additional
warrants for your framework on the same card
Always respond to their comparative args, those are dangerous to

leave unchecked
Reams and sandell/ no ones to give value to people

without contracts
2. Util comoes first b/c cgovernments

contracts go into util
Wallace - we can't resolve issues with coercive or conflicting contracts
Arjun's response
Korsgaard / if all people are equal, deon no wegihing args
2.
3.
4.
5.
Moral worth undermined b/c contracts don't respect worth

Deon collapse into util b/c ??
Deon leads to bad decision making, deontologies kill patient zero - lack of brightline
Coercion
Tif
1. No context to determine
2. Gov can't use contracts as an ethical framework to determine policies
3. Individual consent takes away altruism
Drills Page 61
Contractualism diff from Contractarianism

8:53 AM
Gotye (reason) /
JP's response
Gotye 1 - non binding, no reason you're bounded
No way to guide action
Mutual restraint Consequence of contracts

^noah
Appealing to an external standard - possibly an implicit utilitarian design
Gotye 2 - self interest binds with moral interest contradict

Desire to do something
4. Is -ought fallacy
5. No reason why self interest is the justified principle
Jenn
Contradictory claims
Circular logic
Binding, no violation
Mutual constraint is coercive
Standard - no way to justify conflicting contracts

No way to resolve claims
rachel
No real contract
Gotye/ role of each person has different benefits > util
Shaina
Contracts are made between individuals of equal value
Contracts can be abusive, under util, some individuals don't necessarily mean benefit
Jason
We all have equal value in contractarianism
Gotye 3/ not a benefit to both parties
Drills Page 62
2. Collapses to util goes to the smallest point

Extinction arg
3. What will the contract be, everyone will have infinite regresssive contracts
Gotye 3 - 2. contracts are hypothetical so we're all equal thats where we get
the contract
3. Theory fails in this specific application - we can still have morality
Impact Turns
11:59 AM
First prefer pederson

because he establishes
that the economy is able
to handle the CBO's
predicted 2.9 gdp collapse
while helbing
The economy can adjust acc

ped
Therefore, econ collapse is
actually good for our
environment. My cards give
scientific evidence while
yours are provide weak
speculative links.
But even in the case that

econ collapse does
Environmental colllapse is
happen, turn, econ
collapse is good according more important, it precludes
the extinction argument
to Hood's scientific data
because
The impact of
environmental collapse is
creating an inhabital earth
which precludes the econ
collapse argument. The
There is no link
to the helbing
07 card, at what
point does sever
shock lead to
collapse, it
would have to
explain how a
2.9 decrease in
gdp would lead
to collapse
Not necessarily lead to extinction, nuke war in seeral regions or different regions
Econ collapse, russias economy may collapse as well
USE WEIGHING BUZZ WORDS
Econ wrecks econ

Global shock - rip investors
Us largest econ
Us us financial market > extinction
If you don't buy

that the
trigger's
probability is so
low...
Foreign policy challenges

We run the risk fre fall of the russian stock market
Rip china
Last straw
Slippery slope
While, the
world
economies are
interconnected,
there is no
warrant that we
will fall to
extinction,
rather than to a
global
depression
scenario
Drills Page 63
Economic collapse is happening anyway

Positive impacts outweight neg impact
Scope - global warming hits extinction vs nuke war

Stop global warming, than economy takes precedenct
Reversability, of econ collapse, non of econ
Econ collapse is non unique

Henderson et al
LEVERAGE SPECIFIC
ARGUMENTS
AND REVERSIBILITY CLAIMS
EVEN IF WE KNOW ___ WE
CAN REVERSE
OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE
Maybe nuke was is regional
but not worldwide
Econ collapse is not that bad
we'e had worse therefore no
nuke war
Even so, we hae no way to

aoid the fiscal cliff
Specific author comparison

1:38 PM
JP in TOC
Individual sacrfice government for protection
Mine
Util aff global warming advantage
Nc
Badness of state of nature
Forfeit some rights to solve problems
More and more rights > minimalist rathe
Maintain freedom to some extent or else state stops ends

Checks in government
Moniskew
Beron / it is there only when there is no power
Checked power
Government's purpose is to promote

util
If the government infringes on rights,
then it does not promote
(( it is good to check power
Shaina's
Given all the rights to the
government in self interests
Its ok to give all your rights to
the gov to avoid coercion
State power > abuse (no warrant why abuse is bad)
There is no public good which can sacrifice indvid rights

Nosic - there are key individ people
Using people doesnt' not respect them as an end
(( neutral between citizens or else there is no moral outweigh
Inconsistent with notion that violate some people
You deny rights if you can sac some people for others
A contradiction > incoherent
B permissible in some cirs
Must value human worth

You Do not aggregate
Contractarian arg: (tangent) if you're a self
interested individ, you'd never enter a government
contract
It is not using people or disrespect

when using them as an end,
utilitarianism helps determine impact
No alternative so to how evaluate

individuals
If you cannot deny rights y
JP's Interp
Minimalist state
Sacrifice leads to the

protection of self interest
Violation permissible
Net benefit - means default to Analytic version of Kamm
util
Contradictory to Violate some for others
Moral philosophy is the foundation of political
philosophy
Nosac 2 . Moral prohibitions state legitimacy

Criterion checks on governments
Environmental protection violates rights
Direct prohibition on _____
Personal Property
Arubin environmental protection
Arruda/ environmental protection requires direct

control of people's property (secret T arg)
Able to say the aff is nontopical if not talking
about "regulated industry"
Resource conservation is
Environmentalism at odds with prop rights
Addler/ landownership - yield ecological
Not just notions of prop rights
Adler/ the ideology of environmental protection is

anti-property
Private property rights

Sakeing the good of one for ___Individual public sphere not other
Private property is a check on government power
Property rights helps autonomy
Property rights - you cannot

have environment without
property rights j
So negate
Nosic is close to Locke
Drills Page 64
4 reasons why property rights outweigh

Impacts
a. By regulating property, we are doing it for the
over all good
b. Personal property is private
c. If I have property, it leverages Property checks
the government
d. Property rights are foundational
Drill Framework - Ripstein

2:14 PM
freedom is a presupposition
Util arg
Lewis/ governed by laws a

Naturalism is not right b/c its a system of thought
Impossible to guard thoughts as real
Equally Worthless > naturalism is worthless
A PRIORI freedom is non-obersvational
Where reasoning fails, its impractical to pursue contradictions

Independence from the choice of others
Outer freedoms make the end capable, free from others choice
Inherently contradictory
Ripstein 1/Sovereignty , outer freedom is an innate right

Already moral capacity
One innate right - freedom > coexistence only known original right
Structure of rational beings
Ripstein 2 interaction of violence in a system of outer freedoms
Clashes in freedom set purposes, one's purpose cannot
Dominate anothers
((Omnilateral will
Ripstein 3/ subject to my purposes, systematic incentives
2. There will be no violator rights b/c they gain noting
3. Omnilateral will is a prereq for having rights
Ripstein 4/ enforces strength in private judgement
Enforcing imipartially preserved independence
People can't live in equal free dom
Also, inconsistent with outerfreedoms if ____ (irrelevant)
Drills Page 65
Ripstein "is not action guiding" unlike

util
In a system of equal freedom, things
that don't coexist
Arg against util only happen in a
hypothetical situation4
Ripstein doesn't cover
AT intention/foresight distinction
1. We must hold people accountable for the
results of their actions. IWe must deter
from everypossible risk thats irl why we
sentence people for manslaughter as well
as for murder
2. Its impossible to determine intention, so
the only observable determination is
foresight
Kam/
Ripstein 2 - someone's outerfreedoms clash you

don't have to worry about those clashes in util
Ripstein 4 - people don't follow omnilateral will >
thus government but government fulfills its own
purpose
Relative freedoms?
Ripstein says that we cannot dominate

others
Not that we have to remove violent
people
Flowing other groups

5:18 PM
JP:
Util is a side constraint

Defaulted to util in each of their warrants
Conflicting freedoms
No way that it actually exists In the real world
Coercive, extinction outweighs the omnilateral rule
Ripstein contradicts himself

It can't be innate and also relative
Self contradictory _____
No weighing mechanism
Omnilateral will does not guarantee protection from
violations
Drills Page 66
Omnilateral will is a hypothetical will that enforces just laws

It Is often justified b/c its not coercive b/c it its hypothetically accepted
Everyone agrees b/c its the rational thing to do
"defines agency"
The government is justified b/c it act consistently with the omnilateral will
Conclusions about what the omnilateral will is are encouraged
If jp justified util, and then said the gov should do that , thats an example
Distinction between a moral obligation or an obligation is unclear, whats the difference

Theory, weird b/c predictability arg becomes clash arg but clash is not a separate standard
You ccan concede to generic DA args
Say why clash, DA, CP ground matters,
Theory: its "better for him" sure but why is that abusive that affects you (to the ac)
John Marco v Tiffany

1:51 PM
2ac
Ought promote increase definition
Peer review articles
1. Democracy - institution choose leader
2. Compete for support
3. Us is actor
The NC links into these justifications,

form morality in a community, forming
government obligations, prereq b/c we
first know the community we live in
"winning
framework
debate so
contentions
win"
Default the ac b/c gov are

justified through morality
No reason why ought =
morality
Consistency with political realism

- principal actors in the arena, nat interest, reject the
possibility of moral judgement
Moral agency, intentionality does not apply
Action whichh she is unaware, therefore she cannot be
Key to the existence of states , anarchy
More overall good, instability, restrict themselves to the
matter of practical negotiation, pursue own national interest
to protect from other nations
Self sacrifice is not good
No Plan text
Duty of government is realism
1. Democratization historically has increased national sec
interest b/c the us military
2. Democracy reduces the risk of war in the middle east
a. Liberal states only wage war when principels of
liberalism
b. Democratic leaders are checked in a democracy
Increase in chances of war vote neg

We must overecome this barrier to let
the ME become more liberalizes
Extend, increase the

chances of war
longer term, b/c
demo bad become
conceded by her
c. Risk of war makes the us safer, (( in self interest
3. Promoting democracy Act of increase american dominance

abroad and us interests
Organizations of consensual mechanism that gie the us more
legitmacy and its hegemony
Us best interests that rely on the
Thayer/ Allies rely on the us hegemony
Us protects pakistan required
Crack down on taliban leaders/ al qaeda
and regain legitiamcy while also increasing us hegyemony
Thus its consistent with us self interest
Drills Page 67
Contention 2 - fudning in the us

best interests
Outs are good for the us b/c we
provide security this outweighs the
war because by allowing demo, we
gain influence, decreasing war
Influence to the democratization
efforts
And other nations toward stability
Only speculation
bad methodology
(( outweighs on
probability than
nukewar
Red is Carolyn
NC Marco-John/Tiffany
2:06 PM
DA, Theory
Morality, humans are not capable of moarality outside of society
Etzioni - thus the community of individuals
State soverignty is necessary
The state opposed
Soverignty = authority
Roth / are moral actors

She fails to address this
She fails to address that the state
is composed with individuals
Conssitency with state authority

Emphasizing self determination, intrusion of other doemestic affaris
Foregin intervention is bad
Theory:
No plan text. No plan debate. Neg defends the status quo
1. Education
2. Moving target, bs everytime there
Staable advocacy
3. Resolvability, you need logical conclusions but ME is a generic area
4. Voters, vote on fairness
a. Strategic
b. b;slkfja;ldfkj
c.
d. Reasonability
5. Aff doesn't get RVI's
DA's
Bradley et al11 - arab spring, sectarian tensions, inflamement between
sunni/shiites
She concedes the da, you

don't want to prioritize the
long term good, get the
short term good b/c
extinction arg
Get to the short term safely
Link: the aff plan increases democracy adding the number of democracies
Mansfield and Snyder : democratic states go to war more, statisfically provides
more evidence
C. Russell 09, ME instability escalates to nuclear war 6 warrants
1. Assymetric
2. Non state acotrs
3. Incompatible assumptions
4. Perceptions by israel military action
5. Iran's escalation
6. Lack of communications
In the first ten years after a new country

democratizes, going to war (waste of cx time)
Serbia, Croatia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
Extend the impact
Outweigh on probability b/c

stability of pakistan
On magnitude b/c nuke war
B/c theory
b/c da
b/c turns
Lomo vote on everything
Plurality
Increased chance of war at home
Drills Page 68
A group can't be self aware,

extend ought so morality
does not matter in place of
self interest
Theory Shell Tiff

2:23 PM
Counter interp theory shell

Key to clash, b/c its an unpredictable standpoint, two ships
passing in the night
Education
If I spec a country, I will have more prep time, fairness is
necessarly for debate
Debate function in real world
Drop the theory shell, b/c it would be unfair for the ac to run a
plan
Predictability, nc gets net loss

Plans are extremely predictable, there are not an infinite
# of people
Plans are super predictable
Fairness arg are outweighed by moving target
Changing advocacy is possible
Educational to have that
Strats q, key to education
Extend fairness, drop the debater, b/c context
Otherwise, the aff has a strategic advantage so vote neg
Drills Page 69
Half assed explanation predictability is key to clash

Without clash, we can't have educational rounds
So (( predictability is better than any of his standaards
Voter on education
JP's Response to Constituitivism vs Corrective Justice

3:35 PM
Ought fight - if ought is an obligation, the nc framework simply tells you what the moral obligation is
"Why is this definition the right definition?" - hammer that home (direct clash)
Framework debate turns into
Constiuitism metaethical principle, why does it specifically apply to the NC "the aff framework is not
anything special"
Contention level debate = aff does have some solvency
Neg flow - permissibility
Needs more clear clash on framework
Backlash argument for contention 1
Something that links to all the aff frameworks
How do deal with metaethics stuff
Everyone has implicit metaethics so to explain that : basic framework debate ( more consistent with
everyday life, intuitition is necessary before we can decide form) or just defensive arguments
Weinarb card - structure of private law is basded on a principal of restorative justice. "US is a legal
entity, structure of us law is based on idea of corrective justice, so part of the purpose
CX: Pretty straightforward - no pressing comments
Try being more evasive, waste more cx time
Be able to explain the framework warrants in CX to establish dominance ---- more clear explanations
Drills Page 70
JP's critique on Rightful Honor

4:22 PM
Adovacting for ceasing action is kinda strategic

Careful tho AC is effects topical
CP debate it advocates for UN
The un isn't a governing body so it can't really be evaluated by Rightful honor
Non governmental actors have a different set of ethics rightful honor doesn't work
Debate frameworks are generally over limited
Aff perms need to be more explained in general
"stop us action in afghanistan keep un everywhere else" needs explaining as well
Drills Page 71
Theory Drill
12:17 PM
Standards can be very similar

Make violation very specific
Come up with interp and standard

The aff ran a plan - us should promote demo only in iran
Theory Interp and standard
1. The aff cannot run specific plans that limit an entire region to just one country.
2. Standards:
Ground Skew By arbitrarily specifiying the resolution, the plan ignores many
impacts of negative cases avoiding neg impacts in the resolution
Predictability - while I can predict he is going to spec, I can't predict which
country he will spec to
Links to education (I can't prep, I can't engage) and fairness ( I can't
prep)
3. Voters:
Education - removing large negative impacts reduces clash and
Fairness - without clash, we cannot determine which debater can better
turn the opponent's case and establish offense within the round. It also
prevents the negative from engaging the aff.
1. The aff cannot the aff multiple burdens
2. Standard - reciprocity
the neg has multiple burdens placed on it. It must attempt to link turn the
harms of the plan or establish impact turn the net benefits. The aff has no
burdens when running a plan by reducing the scope of the resolution..
Fairness no prep means that determining the best debater is obscured by the
absence of equal ground
Education - reduces clash, b/c I can't prep spec args
Drills Page 72
A. is the interp, not increase harms

B. only promoting democracy in one place. Increasing discrim in one place
increasing harms
C.
A. spec country in the middle east

C. - one middle eastern country, as long as he's prepared to defend in Iran
Research burden and Predictability
"Breadth is more important to depth b/c _____"

The interp - the aff must defend for all me nations
1. real world education , creates narrow mindset
2. breadth - better for policy making
3. predictability a. disclosure does not solve, b/c depth
b. they must first focus on finding info to the country
4. impact to fairness and education b/c no engagement
Theory Drill 2
12:37 PM
New Scenario:
The negative says, instead of the res, the aff must promote democracy in (all the
countries)
Neg runs k, ME is an offensive term
He can't defend it b/c that can't be the negative's advocacy
A is the interpretation, the negative 's k on the discourse cannot be an offensive reason to vote
neg.
B. is the violation, the neg's k co-opts my offence with the added net benefit of using a different
word
C. is the standard
a. Prep skew - The k can be run against any plan while co-opting their offense with
minimal effort
b. the k forces me to cover all of the countries which is inherently impossible due to
their differing circumstances
b. depth - the depth of the opponent's k is very wide, but they do not provide solvency
for an alternative to the k, and how their term covers the same depth of the resolution in
a less offensive matter. The "middle eastern" grouping of countries inherently refers to
some rather than others.
c. groundskew - by krtiking the most common term used to describe a group of countries
in the topic literature, the affirmative is unable to find substance literature without
running into the term even if it may refer to the countries in a historical context
D. is the voters > RVI
a. Education, by co opt in any aff offense, the negative needs no prep and provides no
clash for the debate
b. Fairness, by reducing clash, we cannot successfully determine the better debater
It places the burden on the affirmative to do extensive prep on the topic when
comparedto the negative
Drills Page 73
Ari's
A is the interp: prohibition as a general princ
B. just general wording
C. groundskew - all my advocacy is bad, (( no tern
2. topic clash - encourages no line by line debate
Encourages debaters not to clash on topic
Reciprocity - All waysability to coopt my offense
Attack:
1. Coopt all of aff ground, all of the offense for aff becomes offense for
neg
The interp should be, defends a diff action not a wording
Also unreciprocal: the neg defends wording while the aff defends
action
K Drill
2:43 PM
Imperialism K
Policy of demo promotion in geo politically sensitive regions
Stunkel writes
Western demo > control coercive means
Within system where us stratified leader
Objective democracy in saudi arabia
Under guise of demo, its own eco political gain
Fischer / democracy predominate way to market its oil
Strategic development of militaristic ventures
Fischer/ limited democracy > more autonomous movements
The use of demo promotion molds political strucutre of neo liberalism
My aff, is not imperialistic at all

The military genocides of British in
India or America in the Phillipines
does not apply because the US has
no process of political control No demo, we will find another way
DA - Demo is the best alternative
Neg offense on fischer
Impacts:
desire for democracy makes us more secure
Illicit universal resistance
Imp makes illigitmacy > genocide
/ wide social processes which contrasts with excluded groups
The process of exclusion
Colonialization = genocide
Not subsistent of vaccuum
Belief in demo is bad
Stunkel/ these convictions in us is bad, recreation of own image
Alt: questioning and reveal the objectives allows us to resist
Fischer/ neo liberal global capitalism, behind the image of capitalism
Crucial mechanisms of neo capitlist norms
F/w: ideology, colonialism is perpetuated with norms
Fischer/ how people perceive themselves, demo promotion internalizes
literature
ROB: best kr of status quo of demo
Warner and Brusch/ students may off CP or phil k on s
Drills Page 74
Desire for democracy precludes b/c

us comes first
But, democracy does not lead to
genocide, more democratic
countries reduce the change of war.
There is no process of exclusion, but
an inclusive exchange of ideas.
1. demo are more peaceful
2. demo stratification will
reduce conflict
Stunkel no warrant
Fischer, talking about democracy
doesn't reveal objectives
The act of talking about democracy
reduce the already low chances for
genocide.
Jen's Aff > Carolyn's K

5:12 PM
All ethical discussion

Regulate action of individ > discussion
Carolyn's K
Not touching the AC
Habermas > identity comes from societal relations

Moral institutions integrity of relations
Fem theory stabilized notion heterosex

Davis/ maleness/femaleness minimize sexuality
Categories
3. debate, oppositeness binaryness
m/f reinforces heterosexuality
Sexuality differs from gender
Moral > only through moral agents

All ethical theories resist opression
Outweighs
Patriarchy is deconstructed, morality can exist
Moral aganecy
Unjust of one who is incapaable
Prereq b/c they allow for oppression, inherent worth
Collapse system of power relations
Equality is most important
Heterosex depends on the hsex matrix

Gender binary exists between men and women
Controls internal link
a. before we solve the patriarchy
b. innate oppressive turns the aff
Silences women and other groups

Fischer / voice becomes power , b/c they don't speak the same
discourse - silence is detriment to standards
One voice of miniority, limitarion of race ideology
Processs of normalization
ROB - vote for the better debater, like women in the debate space
and dominate power structures
Disproportionate, significantly larger engagement of policy
Reverse sexism, reformation
Allows women to liberate themselves in edu space
Squo, domestic violence 87% in me
Rapes violent, unprecedened
Women are punishment for crime
ME work together to promote demo elements
Key component of demo in me
Founddation in the me
1. no demo without women's equal
Response to the ongoing debate, political participation
2. key historic lessons, invisible liberation
3. democracy requires future invisibility to decrease
4. exclusion from demo makes entrenchment of gend ineq
Alt - no compromise, allow trans

Queer should refuse citizenship, not spec legal status,
citizenship nonheterosexual oppositional citizenship
Queer citizens do not require universalization
Refute particpation of production of sexulized citizens
ROB
The alt does not solve, sexuality is a

spectrum,
Not being a citizen does not provide
solvency b/c without citizenship
Perm, do both, advocate for female
and heteronorm , take out
refutation of participation
We minimize oppression by
targeting one class
NO
Jen's defense of K
The first step is not "solving for

patriarchy" because it still defines
us within "us and them," instead,
we ought to elevate those who do
not feel represented
A. extend, solving hetero norm

B. oppression is first
Breaking down oppression is a

prereq
The harms of the K are not able to be

perm'd, the way the aff is framed
K holds internal link to entire framework

We can't have any impacts
Turn AC, women aren't only feminists
Dno link into binary relations
Responses: First
The fem ac does not include everyperson
Cementing the link
Go to perm, activiely exclusive, perm do both falls
Perm then doing - heteronorm comes first to
patriarhcy
Can't perm alt at all, non heteros will not participate
No warrant on habermas
No normative relations
Incorporation of the community
,drop the rest of the framework
Fallacy of origin
Silver
Fischer/ non heteros
2. me same discourse, don't think opp is one
voice
ROB: k controls internal links
UNDP - reinforcement of geneder stereotypes
Young - relying on women, has reactionary effect on
listeners > sep sphere for women - feminism men
have monopolized feminism has the same conseq of
mortal motherhood
Drills Page 75
Promoting democracy is increasing

voice, brinci
If identity comes from society,
Systematically eliminating name, right

Social formation, invisible center primary notions of power
Heteronormativity is invisibile centricism of others
Promoting democracy is im
Identity comes from societal

relations, heterosexuality is result
of
Feminism includes heterosexuality
mortal motherhood
Denial > facism gyno centricism
Even if you buy fem comes first, it doesn't solve
Drills Page 76
Another Theory Drill
Why is your rule the better rule?

11:57 AM
Conditional Counterplans are unfair and uneducational
The affirmative must not sever from the ac framework
Counterplans the neg can run if the aff puts turns on them, they can be picked
The affirmative can sever from the ac framework
A. Is the interpretation. Debaters may not run a conditional counterplan.

The negative can only have one advocacy to defend. Response: "I only have
one advocacy at a time"
A. is the interpretation, aff debaters may sever from the ac framework
B. Is the violation. The nc's conditional counterplan gives them two advocacies
that must be attacked to my one.
C. Is the standard. The NC cannot be a moving target because it is detrimental
to the depth of the debate, I cannot attack either the counterplan or their
alternate advocacy extensively because the counterplan is conditional. This
reduces clash and my ability to respond to arguments in a meaningful manner.
Double bind, I can't make offense or I do make offense and my strategy is
skewed.
Conditional counterplans are not reciprocal because the affirmative can only
have one advocacy and therefore one clear target to attack. The negative has a
clear adv
Reciprocal bc the aff can kick the ac in the 1ar with a reboo
Drills Page 77
C. Is the standard,
First is reciprocity, both nc and ac debaters are allowed to concede their
framework and make turns on the opponent's framework. If the ac must
defend its framework at all times, then it is at a disadvantage compared to the
neg which can drop theirs.
Reasons to sever, rather than not sever
Generic Reasons for drop the debater
Drop the Debater/Arg drill

12:32 PM
Deterrants - deters abusive args in the future

Time skew - I need to fight back and then also win offense to win
Game Theory - just like you can get a red card in soccer, you can drop a debater
Retribution - we need punishment
Getting rid of the argument doesn't rectify how skewed my last speech was
So thus we need to drop the debater, the damage has been done
If we don't drop the debater, the negative can make frivolous args that I must respond to, but
won't give me offense.
There is no strategic way to establish
f we allow for abusive arguments, and we don't drop th
Drills Page 78
Spiked aff drill

8:33 AM
One, presume aff

Neg interp eliminate offense 1ar restart
Presume neg because if everything is possible,

then nothing is obligatory
Ought is not a logical consequence,
Max demo promotion principle

2. default to truth, or else we can't do anything
4. RVI does not abuse
5. drop neg T
a.
b. neg doesn't have to be topical
c. solves
6. negating the resolution
7. unicorns have hair, generalizes terms
SEP/ any combination of true and false is true
a. ought is a logical consequence
A. textuality
Robinson/ ought statements
B. real world
Pre round prep
Drop the debater doesn't matter
Rivis/being able to predict stuff is good for decision making
And infinite roles > incompatible interps normatively impossible
2. higherlevel of desirable standards, one universal rule
3. response for something that will not happen
Implication that anything can happen
Us promoting demo in me
1. endless doppelgangers
Bostrom/ open universe, infinite, regions, repetitions
Green 1 / regions evolve independently > finite configs
b/ every permutation happens many times
Green 2 / many worlds justlike you
Education - if educational in one world, others aren't
Probability wrose
Vayden/ indeterministic mechanisms,
3. us values
Underview
1. I am like can be true or false respectively, also true
Wikipedia/ ought as logical con if the first part is true, sanata clause exists
A is true so it preserves truth of sent
2. neg msut justify alt prop, however trivialism is every assertion
kaybay two/ everything is trivialism
Arg of explosion
Even if trivialism is flawed, no arg against it
a. contradictory statements
b. so the trivialist has no opponent, so the aff wins debate by default
Trivial ism > I meet no theory
Underview 2
Voters subservient to debate, rule following paradox
Millhouser/ abstraction of principles > w/o legal > no meaningful views
Thus the only thing relevant are indeterminant reles
2.
3. one unconditional ROB
a. layer debate
b. clash
4. aff comes first b/c aff shell has responses but neg doesn't
5. meta theory - huge time advantage
We still have substantive debate
Drills Page 79
If everything is possible, we can't make decisions

Infinite roles, interps not possilbe
Interpretation come from probability of x happening
and the circumstances around that
So, B goes to me
Reciprocal
Everything is true
Trivialism is no longer offense,
Not everything is trivial, some thing must be true unconditionally
Like that regions of the aff
Furthermore, if everything is true, we must weigh the impacts, the # of worlds the neg
is flase is much greater than neg is false. So many times the us could not exist
ROB is education, trivialism reduces

clash and layer debate
Annie's Response
9:11 AM
Theory shell
Can turn round
John marco
Neg is reactive, so he must debate on the aff ground better debater
Extend my case advantgge

Key to fairness, inherent skew in his
D fairness if debate isn't fair, you would not debate in the first place
My case is turnable
Thus drop the debater b/c my opp will run this case in other rounds
Go to physics arg
No guarantee that everything exists
2.
3. no way to tell what can happen will happen
4. the number of worlds where the negative is true, the number of worlds
where the aff is true is fewer than aff
Bostrom green green / infinitely expanding world

Anything can happen, that means neg world is just as possible
Therefore we can't automatically affirm
No verification that its happening, so we can only focus on our world
Us doesn't actually promote democracy bc any involvement > backlash

Us supports autocracies in saudi arabia
4. uncertain what will happen in the furture in general
Trivialism/ all statements are true, if aff is true, neg is true so its contradictory
Don't view aff as strictly true
2. non contradictions, we can't resolve who wins,

You can't resolve it if both are true, so you default to presumption
2. everything unintuitive, not everything is true
JP's K push that theory is your offense

Impact thing further , worlds where the us exists
Shell is fine, get access to things in the ac
Voter is succeptible to a fairness dump
Ought implies logical consequence

a. common usage
b. philosophical education is not relevant
Control direction of presumption good
Impossible to show trivialism
Good engagement of offense on why its not going to happen
One infinite set is bigger than another infinite set
Presume neg b/c no way to go to status quo

2.
3. I don't have response to last speech
No warrant to presume aff b/c no warrant

T no warrant to drop T
Group time skew - forcing me to respond to all these spikes
Topicality oblgiation and interpretationt
Violation - promoting democracy is not an obligation

Defining ought as a logical consequence is
Literally choose a definition most consistent with
Aff and neg has equal ground
Textualit y
Ought is consistent with
My def of ought google serach
Voter schools extinction of debate constrains substance

Fairness is a voter b/if unfair it is deterrant
Theory xapp time skew and reactive arg, debaters willl be punished for running
abusive args
Blipy arg, not a meta theory arg b/c it precludes
Aff leads to extinction, neg can run theory
No turn ground
Reciprocity
Ground skew access to all
Clash no room for the neg to clash bc no turn ground
Intuitive
Voters fairness and education voters drop the ebater not the arg, substative debate
The only way t o promte furutre abuse win o n substance bad
Be clear about jumping between flows

Signpost that you're going to a new off
Deal with the contention (good)
First that you resolve the physics
But in this world, we are still going to be promoting demo
Make the case that this is all on the same layer and we weigh the
probability of the theories
The probability that the physics stuff is true so..

Weighing argo
Drop the arg won't prevent
Trivialism all neg systems true circ logic justifies

Contradictions all neg interps are false, so he does not meet theory
Drills Page 80
Contradictions all neg interps are false, so he does not meet theory
Trivialism we dont' know how to evaluate
We don't need to
Drop the debater isture
No way to dtermine how democracy works
So loooking to logical consequences is no way to look logcial consequences
Drills Page 81
Counter Interp Drill

12:16 PM
A. there must be no necessary constraints on an ethc theory that a trigger

will trigg presump
Must be weighable > most important considerations in its favor
Ethical standdards debate
B. violation - triggers skep
C. Stand
Clash. All or nothing to standards always more strategic to debate the
debate on presump
Otherwise, all time is wasted since there is no going back on the
presumption trigger
Args don't work b/c you preside one true
2. only specific to this class
Strat skew - I don't know how much time to devote to the trigger b/c
they may trigger it, unreciprocal b/c I can't trigger presumption
D. Fairness
Drop the debater b/c my paradigm evaluates b/c they can function on
either paradigm but I've spent lots of time on this so I need
compendsation
Counter Interp
There must be no constraints on an ethical theory such that only one debater can
trigger presumption. I meet, because both debaters can trigger presumption
C. Standard
Clash - presumption only adds an extra layer to debate like snoral
1. you do not preside that skep is true, only that you choose to accept ske
and the 'truth' is not able to be determined
2. only specific to this clash, which is ok for a debate round, so its a better
determination of the better debater in the context of any round, its unique
arg that not everyone comes aross
Strat skew - everyone must find their own strategy, just because one debate
cannot decide how much time they devote, doesn't mean the debate is unfair. It is
recriprocal because both debater can trigger presumption and fight for
presumption ground.
D. Fairness
Drop the arg b/c my opponent can devote however much time they require to a
theory shell or directly clash with presumption ground, so clash does exist on a
substantive level and they can also function on both paradigms. Thus, because
both debaters can trigger presumption, the round is fair , and you drop the
argument rather than just the debater.
Counter interp : debaters can make args that if answered can trigger skep
>> may << b/c my counter interp means both debaters can trigger it
Standards : they are only defensive, not that my counter interp is the better interp
They aren't more reciprocal, I need to prove that my theory is better
Drills Page 82
Counter interp drill 2

12:39 PM
The aff must specify actor in the resolution

a. ground - only way to determine which philosophical actor
a. more accurate applicatoin
b. necessary to turn, actors care in util
Ground is necessary for args
2. topical education - more specific makes topics more specific > edu]
Voter for fairness and education b/c its the guiding purpose for debate
Drop the debater b/c they didn't do something
Counter interp, the aff must specify the actor in the resoultio only when running the
plan
a. ground - if the resolution does not determine an actor, than naturally
constituitivism and other theories that care about the actor would not apply.
b. topical education - by making more specific actors, the affirmative interp makes
the resolution more specific and limits the breadth of topical education. This
outweighs because it also negatively affects ground and the possible arguments that
can be made. Prefer the counter interp because spec only occurs when it is
necessary for the arg rather than at an arbitrary time.
Voter for education because the purpose of the debate is to explore different
topical args that specifying an actor will limit. Prefer my interp because actor
specific eth theories are not excluded so there is a net benefit to my interpretation.
Drop the debater for making an abusive argument.
Drills Page 83
F/w Response
12:21 PM
Sunsstein vermule / No act om distinction

Gov regulation no dif
Util treats aeveryone eequallity

Utility determines rights
No, because of buearcrcy

Action requires resources
So, gov action has opp cost
AND stop every problem ever
<Reason why util is good, why deont bad

So it may not apply to your f/w
Why does one individual > me
6. ethiccal theories
All gov theory consent to gov
Citizens adhere , justifciation
Save 3 bad plumbers or Nelson Mandela?

Utility doesn't treat people equallity
Mandela is worht like ten utils
Utility is now equal to ability to make people happy
"You save people not on their fundamental worth but on their future utility"
"infinitely regressive b/c what is future utility? This baby that I save could be
hitler"
Drills Page 84
LARP - Plans
Tetlock - Predictions of intl relations issues 100

The rates of predictions are same as monkeys with arm
--> counter to Bostrom type extinction arguments

11:03 AM
Role play as policy debaters

Plans, counterplans, disads
Basic weighing
Counter Plans
An alternative model to the aff plan
Plans
Plans do not necessarily mean you agree to the entire resolution.
Structure of a Plan
1. Plan Text - specific actions
2. Inherency: The plan is not currently being used in the status quo
What is the status quo like.
a. Establishes uniqueness ( a description of the status quo)
3. Solvency - how do you solve for advantages
4. Advantages - the offense of the plan
the problems that your trying to solve (harms)
Specificity By Country
By action ('promotion' is vague)
Fiat - assuming the plan/cp will be implemented right now
Permametricize
Intrinsic Perm (plan+ new plank)
Perm do both
Delay Perms
Severance Perm
Eliminate parts of the aff plan, while adding with the neg
Theoretically Dubious - Skews neg strat, spends time responding to Egypt
Moving target, removes Egypt plank and moves on
Perms nonunique the CP
Do Perms become advocacy? No, you can throw out multiple perms, arg: "all these
perms are reasons why the neg world is nonunique"
Test of competition - "All these perms show that the CP is not mutually exclusive"
Perms as advocacy - "Lets do both plans now
The neg can now go to Status quo, or go to disagree with the perm, kicking the
cp
If the neg is unconditional, and does not respond to an instrinsic perm, they
probs lose
LARP Page 85
A. Counterplan text
B. Competition - prevent perms
a. mutual exclusivity
i. Textual - the text of both plans are not compatible
ii. Functional - the action is incompatible
b. Competing through net benefits
i. Why risk US involvement when I can do it myself without a disad?
ii. When the CP avoids net harm while hitting the common benefit
iii. The CP has a disad in it that means you can't perm it
C. Solvency - coopts aff offense
D. Net benefit - a reason why its better to implement a the CP over the plan
Types :
Agent Counterplan : The agent changes from the plan
Potentially strategic by stealing Aff offense on timeskew
PIC (Plan Inclusive Counterplan): "Promoting democracy everywhere but Egypt"
Co-OP aff debater, knock them off with country specific data
Generally rephrased as "We do the plan but ____"
PIC is not = plan+
Consult CP - Neg does the Aff plan, but we consult data first - mutually exclusive b/c type
of delay CP
Delay CP - means its not right now, b/c the conditions in mE maybe different and be more
beneficial
Counterfactual CP
Word PIC: Same as the aff, but with a different word ex. "Middle East" Textual
Status: Whether or not you can drop the CP at any point (or just planks)
Conditional - means the neg can kick the CP (wasting aff time)
Unconditional - unkickable, must advocate for the CP
Dispositional - kickable if the Aff does something (ex. If the aff never link turns)
Conditions are set by the debaters. The burden is on the aff to find out the condition.
Otherwise, you can get screwed. If you don't ask, it becomes conditional.
If you lose the CP, you are left with turns to the aff, T and theory shells, and THE STATUS QUO
See: Solvency advocate
Disads (DA's)
12:33 PM
ABC. Structure follow this <<<
A.
B.
C.
D.
Uniqueness
Politics Disad (PTX) (Fiscal cliff disad)

General DA
Spending Tradeoff
Description of the status quo
Link - How the disad is caused when the aff changes Squo
Internal Link
Impacts
Brink
Over the edge "threshold"

Why we are at threshold now
Hits uniqueness
Linear
Progressively worse
Weighing
Nuke war, Econ Collapse
Probability
Magnitude
Scope
Reversability
Timeframe "we're already dead by then"
Empirical claim without empirical warrant

Post dating
Responding to Disads
1. Turn
i. Linear is easy
ii. Brink - must both turn, and talk uniqueness
1) Contest the position of the brink
2) Turn a link AND take out uniqueness
2. Uniqueness overwhelms the link
i. "yeah, you're right the economy is really strong now, so the plan
won't affect the economy all that much.
LARP Page 86
Good Evidence:
Peer Review /scholarly article/unbiased
Methodology
Sample size
Prove causation
Advantage CP + Topicality
Topical Plans

8:41 AM
We can solve crime by rehabilitating criminals, or we can solve crime by removving lab from plan.
Competes, not from nonunique aff advantages but from net benefits (removing lead from
paint is cheaper, + other net benefits.
Advantage CP Parts
1. Removes the plan's uniquenesss
2. Requires Disad to aff --- the aff links to the disad, while you also delink from the disad
Ex. Promoting democracy reduces terrorism + Ending drone strikes will also stop the matyrdom
effect to reduce terroism
Extra Topicality - Res + Extra Element

The plan is topical, but has a plank above the resolution
"The US and Canada promote democracy in the ME"
Are perms extra topical?
FXT (Effects Topicality)
"we ought to remove troops from kuwait, and therefore promote
demo"
It only becomes topical through the impact
It means you can promote any plan that can link to promoting
democracy in the Middle East.
Disad to the plan is net benefit

"Plan + Extra topical advanatage means that the neg must prepare for an
infinite number of plans"
Theoretically questionable
Arg: You could have ran this as a disad but now that its a CP, its mean to me
1. CP links to DA (and they link more, or you delink to the aff)
2. Turn the DA
3. Perms
Aff can abuse Fiat, "if we aren't constrained by the umbrealla of the topic,
then aff can run more plans"
Aff can Fiat the plan, but not other conditions in the world
Ex. "I fiat the plan, and no terrorism ever" aka Utopian fiat
Solvency Advocate - a writer who advocates taking the plan

Otherwise, risk of theory attacking a missing Solvency advocate
ex. Someone who advocates removing lead from paint, not "removing lead
from paint instead of rehab"
LARP Page 87

8:49 PM
Mutual exclusivity - you can't do both , some logical contraint (not enough money)
LARP Page 88
Theory
11:02 AM
The best way to get better, is to write more shells

The best debaters change their interp when they hear the round
Interps have gotten more and more complicated like an arms race over years.
Writing a Theory Shell

- Counter an argument that is deemed "bad for debate"
- Theory is the Referee
Necessary but Insufficient Burden

Something the Aff or neg must do, but is not offensive
Not able to weigh against - on a higher layer
Ex. Ought implies can or Skepticism
Turns on ought implies can on the NC are possible
"it can be impossible to negate otherwise"
Turnable in theory but not in practice
If neg defends prohibition - impossible to negate (weighing)
and the neg defends permissibility - possible to aff +
obligatory
, then the aff must prove its a required action > negate
If neg argues ought implies can, its impossible to affirm,
The aff must then prove, its possible to aff, AND that its
obligatory to affirm.
These two burdens make a structural skew in the
round, > Theory
US ought to
Neg can say :
Permissibility 1. Ok for US to but not obligator
Prohibition
2. US ought not
Theory Page 89
Theory structure MUST be structured.

A. Rule or Interpretation
B. Violation (can be multiple/ short or long)
C. Standards (common sense reasons to prefer your
role)
a. Reciprocity (Fire prevention)
i. Internal link for every standard (why this
is important) ex. Fires kill people
b. Ground skew
c. Predictability
d. Research Burden
D. Voters (impact of the shell ex. Safety)
a. Fairness
b. Education
Link turn: your opponent's advocacy causes the bad impact

which causes the problem.
Impact turm: The "bad" impact is actually good or vice
versa
Meeting burdens typically become

offense
Example Interpretations
1. Debaters must have one burden that
they have to win which is sufficient
for them to win the round
2. All arguments that count as offense
for one side, must be both link and
impact turnable for the opponent.
Example for reciprocity

i. Ex. I have 2 layers to win in order to win
the round and my opp has one
ii. Reducing clash, we don't go in depth on 1
layer, neg doesn't have to respond and
can pick the weaker layer
1) We only get education when we
respond to clash (internal link)
2) Reciprocity is key to fairness to
determine who the better debater
is
Historically, a priori, no neg RVIs, and other args have died out b/c of theory police work
Arg against RVI: Playing fair isn't a reason to vote for you.
"I meet you" bites or "I meet you" violates
RVI's don't really win a debate b/c time skew, don't invests too much
Theory 2 - Voters
11:12 AM
Drop the debater

Cards on theory are a waste of time
Only the warrant matters
If theory doesn't use drop the debater, the disad is timeskew
Generic args (drop the debater) : Responses
Deterrants - deters abusive args in the future
Time skew - I need to fight back and then also win offense to win
Game Theory - just like you can get a red card in soccer, you can drop a debater
Retribution - we need punishment
Getting rid of the argument doesn't rectify how skewed my last speech was
So thus we need to drop the debater, the damage has been done
Drop the argument justifications
Just the plan, or contention was abusive
"Theory or T is a reason you drop the arg, but since thats their entire
advocacy, I win the round"
So drop the arg is useful when strategic
"Drop the debater b/c if you drop the arg, they lose nothing where I lose
all my speech time running theory."
Fun can be a justification
Education is a voter too b/c if we just want competition, we can play
checkers
Theory Page 90
Generic Responses:
Deterrants go too far. They prevent innovation in the debate space.
Time skew is inherent, I spend time reading shells for you to answer in a
proportionate amount of time
The rules of debate are that you can define rules. Games can be assymettrical
Retribution is dumb b/c reciprocity
While the round is skewed, and you undercompensate, it skews the round the
other way.
Drop debater does not deetermine the better debater, just who better debates
abusive args
Dropping the debater for time skew is irrelevant bc you can decide how long
you respond to my arg
It isn't true that you need theory to win. You don't need to use the time to run
theory.
I had to answer theory and strategic args compensates for the time to run
theory
You haveto work on efficiency or work on better theory skills
Time skew does not prove abuse, many things spend your time.
Time allocation is part of debate
Dropping the debater does not help indivviduals change their opinions
Theory does not set norms for multiple rounds, its use is to police this round.
Traditional ROB : Vote for the better debater

Trad Theory : Can't vote for the better debater if abuse
How to make Good Fairness args

2:35 PM
Why theory trumps K's:

Role of the Judge / Judge's Jurisdiction
External Benefit
- Jurisdiction
You can't modify a practice within the practice
Even if it hits critical pedagogy, you can't
change the rules of debate
Constitutive of Role of the Ballot
Fairness constrains ROB debates
If you deny changing the ROB as a debater,
then the ROB debate is up for debate
- Nonsense (Theory helps us think critically,

laws, etc)
- Controls IL (why fairness controls the
critical pedagogy)
Better discussion
People would quit
- Crit education
- Substantive engagement
- Inclusivity
Reccomendation: Don't list out these args

Choose one and develop it when reading theory
JP's reccomendation: Don't allow the k debater to defend every
application of theory - "this particular theory shell violates where?
And where does this one?"
"I am not not responsible for the strict history of _____ I'm simply
responsible for this theory shell and this shell is beneficial"
Standard: Controlling the internal link
Clear way to pick a winner
Resolvability claim may be persuasive
Weighing narratives is hard, how do you tell who's story is more
important
Reject alts bad

Giroux - democracy places specific demands on the
students
Students should be empowered to talk about diff stuff
Students should not disengage spectators - we should
break down oppressive things and that is aware
Giroux has one particular arg that talks about debate

UDLs are something important
Critical Pedagogy (Freire) -
Theory Page 91
Cycle of Praxis
1. Identify Problem
2. Propose solution
3. Test solution
4. analyze reality (go to 1)
Shell against ults Utopian bad
Fiat bad arg
In this instance, my theory shell is always defensible, not that theory

is always defensible
Make your theory nuanced against their K, and you can leverage
your story to why x is unfair
Method DA working into a theory shell Jason - prefered technical debates avoiding K traps
Defense against the Dark Arts - I meet
This is why its probably bad to go all in on theory

11:02 AM
When you want to go to substance from a theory debate.
How do you win decisively on substance?

Dropped trick (presumption)
No layer debate, just weighing on counterinterps
All args become same layers
When you clearly win on substance - DADA makes it hard from them to access theory
Layers to set up:

"I meet" - terminal defense b/c it doesn't matter how true an arg is if it doesn't apply to you
Strategic to generate a number of short "I meets" increases chance that one is dropped
"You violate" args, esp in conjunction with "I meet" and "you violates"
Using only "you violate" is BAD because it continues the theory debate
Counterinterps are about what you're allowed to do, not what you must do.
Advice on coming up with "I meets" - bites into abuse on the standards level
Disads to the warning of the interp
Reasons why the rule doesnt catch you, not why you're not in the abuse story
"You should prefer the text of the interp rather than the spirit of the text"
If the enemy doesn't identify which (spirit or text) then you can say one comes
before the other
"Its unpredictable to go with the spirit of the text so prefer the text of the interp"
Theory Page 92
I meets
No abuse + no abuse is offense
Drop the arg
Not voters
Counter interp to get rid of potential abuse
Side bias as impact turn
Coming with "I meets"

Ideal semantic "I meet"
The word in question creates a distinctive
difference in the meaning
Ex. I meet: "read" vs "extemp"
Or a reinterpretation of a word
Ex. AFC Shells
Theoretically Legitimate
Substantively Jusitified
Bolded words are able to be turned
Its easy to manipulated "necessary but sufficient"
I meet: "Necessary for you and sufficient for me"
I meet: "My necessary burden is proving the
resolution true"
I meet: "I'm not trying to prove it false, I'm trying
to prove it true"
If they ask you to specify, read specification, you meet
If you have unturnable NC,
Read each turn they could have read in response
Hijacks can count as turns
"May not defend a counterplan"
"ok I will just kick it (assuming there is another
advocacy)
No abuse
11:25 AM
Don't line by line their theory

Only engage with the shell if there is a fundamental flaw wiith all their standards
There is no terminal defense on theory
There is no risk of offense - explain to the judge a reason you should win theory debate
Say something about it
Say "no abuse args" are offense on theory not defense - so you have a greater risk of offense
1. They prove that you did nothing unfair/ skews the round to drop me or my args
2. Some risk of offense don't drop me if I have 1% risk b/c the other 99% I'm being dropped for having a fair arg
The judge's decision is no longer fair (greater than 50% chance)
Vs edu voter "It would have been better if there weren't theory so we could get educated" (not impact
turnable)
Not an Rvi b/c its offense within the theory (its not saying they did something unfair, but that the
judge shouldn't vote on their theory arg)
General "no abuse args"
"You can do it too" - its true a largs amount of the time - links only into fairness
Responses: - encourages unfair actions in the first place
Counter Response: its not unfair in the first place b/c reciprocity
Choose the most powerful when they only link to fairness
Get offense on fairness and weigh v edu + preempt this
"I didn't know I could have"
"That not an excuse, you're the worse debater" "The deficit you identify is not abuse, rather it
means I am the better debater."
"not abuse to read offense just b/c the opp doesn't know its offense"
"how can the neg be ignorant of something that I just did"
Reciprocity does not make NIBs/ Apriori fair
In any other round?
Offen's Razor- simplest solution is the right one
No reason why it seems unfair
Complexity is a virtue
"Potential Abuse is not a voter"
1. I didn't go for this so I didn't become actual abuse
The fact that you had a skep trigger changes by strat
Winning the arg is diff from reading the arg
Why potential abuse does not link to fairness
Get read of potential abuse through the way you structure your interp
"Nibs are bad b/c you can have a 30 to 1 advantage" gets solved counter interp 2 to 1
Vs. No need for any potential abuse
Theory Page 93
Cx checks work better as a noabuse

claim than a counter interp, without the
words "I'll answer questions in cx"
In the counter interp, its potential
abuse rather than actual abuse
Responses:
Time skew, should have to waste
time in cx
The alt forces me to use
speech time, to tell where I
stand on every poss interp
High Impact Args

12:01 PM
High impact in theory debate

Save this strat for higher impact rounds
(don't become known for these)
Why Fairness is not a voter (most apply to edu too)

Can be read as preempts to ROB and extended on edu
No argument made in a round can be unfair that it ___
Education
The only justification for imposing a loss for education would be an out of round
impact >>> Jurisdiction args
Jurisdiction
Why might the judge not care about education?
"Vote on education b/c its the reason the school fund debate"
nonsequitur
Instead, the judges role is "to make the world a better place"
Even if education is somewhat harmed, it doesn't make the round direly
uneducational
Claims
Why should the judge prefer types of education?
Debate's educational value comes from the form rather than the content
What makes debate educational is arguing, rather than the substance
Reasons why caring about education - we want ppl to ex. Question dogmas etc.
Second layer of the theory debate
First, rules of any game distinct from _____
Education args > we don't alter the rules to make soccer more educational
Maybe kicking a ball higher is better for your health, but that doesn't mean
kicking above the goal is valid
Finally, education in debate as a practice
We should be able to argue about what makes the better debater
Minimal constitutive ruels - someone has to win, we compare args the round
Its impossible for edu to do all that
"No incentive to do uneducational things" take out the deterrant effect
Any reason why we would not want the judge to decide education is
good, are all arguments about why not constrianing dialogue are the
best ways to constrain a round
Opperate at a lower level, bc its more educational not to do that
in a theory debate
Explain these args really really well.

Its not about the quantity of these args, the quality is way higher than normal voters.
Not techy extensions, but rather a lot of good explanation.
Not a gimmmick, their competing interps do not operate on this layer, I spent a lot of
work articulating in a clear concise way.
Preempt new args for fairness as a voter
b/c its like a framework, you get new justifications b/c you screwed up prev
Not contesting that all cheating is bad, but that this theory shell doesn't actually count
as cheating.
Theory Page 94
Every theory shell explicitly makes a mid round rule change

Our prep is based on the standard rules
Dropping my arg is unfair b/c it doesn't violate any standard rules
Probability warrants - nothing lets to invent rules mid game
Second arg:
My job in debate is to win in debate
So, any abuse story is an attribute of the strenght of my argument
All my args are meant to create some inequality
A theory shell associates abuse and strategy
3. relevant to voters, fairness, and ROB
Debate is about who is the better debater , not a truth seeking activity
You can win on false arguments
Voters on fairness, education, ROB make a standard of proof not present in
the round
If its the judge's ROB to minimize inequality, then after the round, you
should go to library and figure out which args to exclude on that basis
Thats not tab
a. Make decisions arbirtrary b/c it takes the round out of both of our hands
b. their initial arg for the voter undermines itself
Voters suggest some real world truth, but winning on the flow that
you are unfair does not actually mean you are unfair
Why is the judge bound to consider the original voter or ROB just b/c you
made an arg to make that?
Your arg on the voter untethers them from the round. The conclusion
is inconsistent, that the judge does not have to be obligated to
evaluate the flow.
Summary:
The judge evaluates the better debater. Voter/ROB arg claims additional
obligation - "part of judge means evaluate this in debate"
BUT double bind: if the ROB is really that thing, then they should not have
to argue why its that thing ex. " I don't need to give you a warrant for why
you don't listen to new in the two"
BUT if you make args for the ROB, you are conceding the importance of the
flow, so the voter cannot be consistent with that.
4. You can't debate about the debate b/c you can't chagne the constitutive
rules from inside
Tamar Schapiro "Three Conceptions of Action" A practice imposes...
To have a debate, we must know the actual rules of debate before we can
engage. So, when they propose a new rule, to be consistent with other args,
"this is a necessary restriction on debate"
Problem: how can you debate about a necessary rule for debate?
If its a problem, the thing you were doing originally was not a debate b/c it
didn't include the rule. Therefore, its not possible for that rule to be
necessary
A few other things

12:28 PM
To drop theory
Spec theory
Dogma of competing interps - hard to generate offense (even if marginal) its hard to contest
Hard to justify the offense
1. One strat to get rid of the spec shell
Internal warrants - it doesn't matter what the link or spec is
Specific what you mean by competing interps etc
Specify the jargon
Incentive to take the spec shell, say its terminal defense, and the standards justify specificity
Add interp to list
a. neg must read all interps linking to the standards of the shell in the 1n during the 1n
b. they don't violate this as of the 1ar, but if they try in the 2ar, they can't. This controls that
abuse story
Specify all interps justified by the standard
Preempts them from doing the same thing you have done
"I'm going to read a bunch of new interps that are justified from the spec shell that says greater spec is
better. Then I read a bunch of interps. You can concede terminal defense, if you don't, then one of my
shells come first"
You can also weigh in terms of quantity
Pick meta theory for weighing b.c its easier to preempt and weigh
Sophia's Aff in foffice hours

Side bias hits the trick debaters
Hits a philosophical basis
Drop the Arg debates

One situation where you dont want to drop the arg is when you need the arg for substance
Useful when you're not avoiding theory
Specific drop the debater args
Why drop the arg when you're not solving abuse
Drop the debater for you and drop the arg for them
Start with an overview:
Drop the arg is the default. Opp have pos burden that we go to drop the debater
Default b/c the shell determines why something is unfair, its an extra step to say
why unfairness means you lose the round
Biggest mistake - big blocks b/c debate becomes messy
Both debater end up extending graphic args
Predict and frontline every argument
Frequent weighing between your warrants and their warrants
Read a few args from block, but line by line their justifications
Theory Page 95
1. Defense (1 arg)
2. Interps they violate and you don't
3. Explanation of how their standards justify specificity
generally
4. Tell them their options
5. They can't read new interps linking to their standards
If you want to avoid a theory debate
Side bias: (and why it negates)

Definition: Who is at a disad in the round
Many different args and you can predict them
Great position to frontline the args (about ten of them)
If they engage, it becomes a blipstorm that you are prepared for
Laundry list of reasons why
Impact turns their spikes (RVI, drop the arg, presumption, afc,
etc)
Read 17 args why side bias negates b/c it turns their
spikes and co-opting their advantages (on both sides)
Presumption debate, structural skews are actually
substantive reasons, why its harder in round to prove
substantively in my round that I win
Negs often get out of side bias args
Ex. "aff skew args show it is more difficult to be on the aff
side than the neg, so if I prove they have no offense, then
I can prove the point of no offense"
justify aff b/c they prove the aff is more likely true if they
presume off
If its so hard to affirm/negate, then the correct remedy
for abuse claims agsint you is to ignore them! You need to
be abusive. You're abuse claims against them are to drop
them!
1. Weigh why shell specific remedies are better than drop
the debater/drop the arg
2. xapply side bias why you need some level abuse to
compensate
Don't make the side bias args b/c " I needed this to even
playing field (defensive)
Abuse is good b/c I can win off of it (offensive)
If you lose the counter interp, other side bias args function as a
way to ignore the abuse
As an aff, if anticipated, but substantive args in the AC that are
difficult to line byline, to deter that route.
"I know this is annoying but I need to to answer their blippy arg,
they can do it too" See they respond so I did make good arg
Stick random implications to side bias args
What are the factual diff between affirming and negating
Condo Bad - CounterInterpretations

8:09 AM
RVI: If my counterinterp good, then you should pick me up b/c

Specific cnps can also better coopt the interps offense
A. Interpretation: Debaters must not conditionally advocate counterplans.

B. Violation: S/he does.
C. Standards
1. Time skew: The AC is forced to defend against multiple worlds since they get to defend both the
status quo and the CP. This means Im forced to overallocate on both, else they can just go for the
one that I undercovered. They can sever out of any offense I put on the CP by kicking, nullifying
all the time I spent making turns. Equitable time is key to fairness since time is necessary to
generate offense
2. Strat skew: Since they have total discretion over how the CP will function in later speeches, the
CP creates a moving target because any offense I generate will inevitably just be hit or miss.
Strategy skew destroys fairness because I need a coherent understanding of whats going on to
have a chance to win.
3. Clash: Theyll always go for the position I undercover, undermining my ability to create clash.
Clash is key to education because argument comparison is the unique skill we get from debate in
round.
D. Its a voter for fairness, which precedes substance because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your
evaluation of the round towards the unfair debater. Th is an issue of competing interps because
reasonability is arbitrary and inv judge intv. Punish the abusive debater with a loss to deter future abuse.
If debaters know they can just kick the argument and get out of theory or go for an RVI, they will
continue to use abusive strategies for the positive time trade-off on theory. And its key on this shell bc
the ability to kick constitutes the abuse.
Idea of shell is to generate abuse story without wasting too much time
Stratskew/ timeskew are sim
Very quick clash arg at the bottom and internal link to education
But no voter
Generate off against condo bad, identify diff between world of condo
good condo bad
Crtical thinking - aff must critical thinking/ case writing
Leads to Better debater arg
Turns strat skew in to a good thing - under used strat
Perms - blippy perms in the 2AR link to Str/Ti skew
Takes time to respond to
CP requires multiple offense to kick
What about NC f/ws change?
Ability to run an alt f/w
Pasted from <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/14f13218b06e4b0f>
Strategic education voter when opponent goes for fairness
Always able to find args =/ true args - just need rationalization

Going from "is" to and "ought"
Counterinterp is a permission, interps are prohibitive
Arg. "tough luck for aff" warrants can be replaced by attacks on internal links
Ex. CP allows aff to make many perms in fast manner
You can't perm the ac
Condo is not abusive, don't over allocate time, the aff has ways to deal with CP
Time Skew arg for aff : The aff strats must remain valuable after the speech, whatever time
is devoted to the conditional cp becomes must less valuable b/c kick
Strat skew R for neg: The 1N reaction time makes up for the 2AR last speech
RVI args:
Time skew neg must reply to theory and give own offense
Clash, by not engaging in substantive debate - reduces edu
R: substance is only ok if its fair
R: Rvi collapses back in to theory debate rather than substance
Specific counter interps may allow you to get offense

"Debaters may run conditional counterplans"
Allows 10 CPs?
So, make your interp more specific to what you're doing
You dont' want to your counter interp to permit more than you need
Add details from the in round situation
Aff strats that would justify condo?
If the aff runs ____, ( ex Bostrom extinction arg, an arg that can
precede my fw) then the neg can run condo
Or, elements of a neg strat to include, that wouldn't otherwise be poss
Gov action wrong f/w + CP
Why is it good to question both?
Allows contention on all layers of aff w/ best args
Dispositional CP conditions are supposed to solve for some part of the
abuse story, other wise they are conditional
Otherwise, you read the example shell with a changed interp
Pick a counter interp that takes advantage of what going on
Ex. I can run condo if I concede aff f/w so aff will still have offense if I kick
Co-opts aff afcs lol
One offensive reason for a counter interp that I couldn't have made for the gen CNP
Why is does this CNP loops back against the original shell?
Ex. I can run a condo CP if the aff runs nibs
Neg abuse solves aff abuse - time skew is equal on both sides because the neg
must answer the nib as well as generate offense on the CP
The condition in the CNP is justified by reciprocity
Additonally, NIBs reduces strat skew as NIBs must be addressed.
Critical thinking occurs with CPs and decreases with NIBs so prefer CNP
We don't need to concede the aff f/w to say NIBs bad

If you can break the rule without triggering the impact, then the impact is not a
reason the rule is bad.
Theory Page 96
Severance AC's - something you can do with an advocacy

Advocacy is the same, but the offense that links is diff
Ex. I can run condo cp if the aff runs a nib - reciprocity claim
The neg can run a condo cp for every nib the aff has
- Seems fair, spec in cnp is good.
Is your condition concedable outside of the theory debate?
Ex. If the plan has more than one plank, then the neg can condo CP
- "I have offense in both Syria and Jordan or whatever"
Think of something the aff is abusive for your planks.
"Aff abuse justifies neg abuse" in terms of a counter interp NIBs plan
They say condo bad, I say nibs bad, which comes first?
Counter interp is a more nuanced form of "aff abuse justifies neg abuse"
"If they made other choices, we wouldn't have this problem"
Theory Drill
11:51 AM
Competing interps - you aren't being the most fair

Reasonability - I am being fair enough
The paradigm for the theory shell comes after voters
Pre-write reasonability brightlines before round
99% of debates are on competing interps
CNPs - Competing interps
Many lines say "prefer CNP over reasonability"
"The way you justify reasonability devolves to reasonability"
"Reasonability is arbitrary and the brightlines aren't very good and it
collapses to CNP anyway."
For reasonability: My obligation is not to have the most fair ac.
Competing interps are really good against fair affs, so the negative an
uplayer
Theory Page 97
Things that may or may not ever be answered

9:21 AM
Negation theory
Altruistic theory
Bracket Theory
Paragraph Theory
What is an epistemology layer
Theory Page 98
Extemping a Shell
Default to spacing out more

11:58 AM
Write down the "A, B, C, D" down

B. space is for "I meets"
Coming up with a shell are the most difficult parts of extemping
Either write down the exact interp before the speech

Don't write the violation
For standards
"Clash/ etc."
"Pred - inf"
"advo shift" (leave space between)
D. Fairness
Extemp the internal link + know what args you need for standards
Is it strategic to go for 2 voters?

If you know their CNP is probs not fair but can have an edu voter (skep), then it makes
sense to focus.
Or
Read both and then weigh
Or
They concede this standard, while I'm answer theirs so I have a better link to edu than
fairness
Standards are the first thing you think of for shells

Theory File - after its done
Control + F "predictability" to find all the internal links
All the internal links of standards
If all the args I can make under this interp suck, if they can always can be questioned,
"How do we know the uS is a demo," then the quality of my Ground is affected.
Predictability probably clashes with ground
Justify competing interps : why is it worth to give the best rules for debate
Both debaters establish a rule and debate over it
Good b/c
The negative may not advocate that just governments don't exist, if
the aff is link and impact turnable.
Is better than "nibs are bad"
Nibs good shells with many semantic "I meets" in great quanitites
If they don't turn the aff contention, there is an interp,
Resolvability is both standard and voters

the judge's ability to resolve the round is independent voter that preclues
when compared to education or fairness
Make the arg that resolvability is a voter in standard
Theory Page 99
Unwaranted plank in the interp :
Standards :
Recirpocity: the neg has one burden and the aff as two
In this round, the neg must prove just govs don't exist while the aff must
prove they exist and the living wage is an obligation.
Two parts: The abuse and the application in the round
Reading an aff
Good to add an "To clarify clause"

8:07 AM
I aff
Define morality
Meriam webster - subject and rules code
Possible Interps:
Interp: The aff must advocate that governments require employers to pay a
living wage. To clarify, the aff may not advocate that the living wage is
upheld by the government.
Encompasses of democracy contradictory

Continues
All moral action false relationship
Unilateral
Debaters may not defend a minimum wage
Actions associated wit hself

Maximizing moral maxims
Thus moral actions ____
Butler 1/ norms minority, no life death normativeness
Relations to regimes
Question ability to self
Poss of being rec
Regime
Agency ques of moral
Creating norms of recognition
Gov of australia pay living wage
Actu/ fairness and reason rather than
Not defended by employer
Thus/ advocacy, after math system

State govs highest pov
Aboriginal people in poverty
Ab wages
Australia system of political colonial
Turk 5 / idigienous people, containing abor
Cross reconcilliations
Destroying the world
Australia
Multiculturalism
Oppression
Turcot 2 / open dialogue, constructive features we are possessed
Wounds may heal
Race is a
Camine / race systematic abuse
In australia protect a foundation ought
ROB - oppressive norms
Warner and brusky/ opportune , question is our nature
Debate both sides value
Education necessary, systemic opp
Underview/ topicallity
b. reciprocity, minimize my offense
c. I meet topicality, substantive edu debate
2. neg has flexibility behind on time presume aff
Theory Page 100
If they read a plan, they must have a solvency advocate (To clarify, you must
read it in the orinal text or ask in cx) with citations. (friv competing interp
theory)
Standards
Reciprocity - analyzing source bias
The aff must defend a policy that has not been passed
Fiat abuse
Decrease in ground
If this should happen rather than
Debaters reading k fw and a ROB in the AC must offer weighing between
ROB and theory.
Clash
Stratskew
Debaters need an example of comparing offense
Plans bad, the aff must defend res as general principle
Aff cannot claim they get RVIs an I meets and counterinterps (Offensively
worded counterinterp)
Ground arg
Strat skew - blippy I meets are no risk issues
Norm setting - forces the neg to read theory
Time skew
When I prove "you can't read this spike" I need to prove that making
this arg in the AC are abusive
"making the claim in the ac is a strategy, and the strat is unfair"
"the strategy is putting it in the ac for it be conceded, which is bad"
"you can do it very quickly in the ac, and its easy offense when
conceded"
1. Why is the argument false 2. Why they shouldn't be able to claim
this false theory ground for themselves.
T shell "even if I lose, I win" whats the brightline for erring aff on t"
Specifying a brightline without
No spiritual language in tagline

We can assume they are true, but we can't refute that b/c empirics
No refutation ground (R/ ghosts are a metaphor)
Shell writing excercise

9:12 AM
Interp: The aff must advocate that governments require employers to pay a living wage. To clarify, the
plan must defend an action in which a government coerces an employer to pay a living wage. The
government may not itself pay a living wage except to gov employees.
B. Violation: The plan does not defend a coercive gov action against an employer to pay a living wage.
C. Standards
Ground - If governments can pay the living wage, this explodes aff ground because they can choose whether
governments or employers pay the living wage. It also eliminates core neg ground because the aff plan
eliminates the coercive plank. The core controversy in the topic literature is whether governments
are entitled to use coercion to enforce a living wage. The aff plan skirts around this issue entirely.
Equitable ground is key to fairness because bacon is good and nobody listens to this part of the
arg.
Textuality- The most obvious interp of the res suggests a) that the government and the employer
are separate entities AND b) that the action taken by the government coerces employers to pay a
living wage rather than take the action itself. Text is an independent voter because you don't have
jurisdiction to vote on affs outside of the resolution. Moreover, text is key to predictability
because its the only we have access to out of round to bags on. Separate jurisdiction, means an
independent obligation.
D. Vote on education because it's the only reason parents and schools fund debate.
Vote on fairness because fair play is axiomatic of any game
Topic lit, text, debate space - tectuality
Theory Page 101
Offense in Theory
8:16 AM
Incomplete
Structural nonreciprocity - your interp gives me two burdens but you only have one
Time skew
Strat skew
Ground - ability to make arguments
Substantive ground
Real world education - aspect of the real world suggests we must do x in debate
Topical Education
Predictability
Clash
Depth
Breadth
Reciprocity
Critical thinking - impact turn on fairness, weighing
Theory Page 102
Paradigms
Cnp = counterinterp

8:06 AM
In the cnp vs reasonability debate, they have to prove that one of them is more flawed than
doing nothing about abuse.
"Theory debate is the best debate" Turn:Ok well I'll be abusive as possible to promote theory
"Should theory be eval'd through competing interps?

"Should theory be an rvi?"
Competing interps vs Reasonability
CNP: The best rule for debate - comparative
Must win offense back to your interp/cnp
Be specific in rules, better abuse story
Prefer cnp b/c:
reasonability arbitrary
Possible to devolve into cnp debate fight over brightline
The abuse that gets past the brightline is a disad in a cnp debate.
Reasonability is a one time judgment
The fact that an abusive case meets a reasonability brightline doesn't mean
its not abusive.
It undermines the ___ that people engage in
The reasonability brightline doesn't consider all factors, not sufficient
guidance. "its reasonable to exclude textuality in the brightline, your
definitions are wack, but since its reasonable its ok?"
Response to Reason:
"Reasonability is arbitrary and requires judge intervention. Even if theres a
brightline, it still arbitrarily excludes some sort of abuse "
Stock:
1. Judge intervention
2. Devolves to Competing interps
3. Hides abuse
4. Race to the bottom
Even if you thought reasonabiility is good, put it in the aff not the 1AR so
we can check the paradigm and brightline before we go into the theory
debate.
Theory Page 103
Reasonability: Establish a brightline for abuse

The brightline probably draws that line at "some abuse"
"Being fair on this metric doesn't matter (enough)"
Not super defensible, but strategic
Able to win under both cnp and reasonability
Justify Reasonability contextually
Leverage args against the opp running two shells, suggesting
the theory debate will be skewed. Suggest that you should
accept arbitraryness, b/c they have already skewed it.
"Use the brightline unless the aff does x" Co - opt their off unless in
this circumstance.
Prefer reasonability b/c:
Its possible to lose on a small piece of offense in cnp
"I don't care" is it sufficiently large enough to care about
Able to put the ac outside the brightline and present it as a disad
Preserves the substance debate
Response to CNP: Point to weird features that warrant reasonability
There is no norm for the stability of my advocacy in cnp
You can propose an interp (there is no limit on #)
"if you run a plan, you must then concede my cnp" and "if you run a
plan, you must then concede my consequentialist f/w"
Your meta theory offense does not weigh better than the oringal interp
Counterinterp - with meta theory inside of it, coopt offesne with
marginal offense. "I must follow this rule ONLY IF you follow this
meta rule"
Structurally, its probably better to make competing interps
Other Paradigms
9:06 AM
Just convince me that they are being abusive and you win.
Interp doesn't matter, violation are all the reasons you are unfair.
"my standard shows that your being abusive"
Not advantageous b/c judge gut check
Gut check bad b/c it makes the debate a coin toss
Worst impact to fairness for both of us
Drop the Arg

Drop the Debater
RVI
No RVI
ROB
Spirit vs Text
Theory Page 104
RVI - No RVI
(( means therefore

9:15 AM
Generic args, scenario specific args

Justified by: side, or speech, but context of theory debate, or the shell itself
Make theory a no risk issue
Generic: Both sides have links to fairness and to education. All of them do link,
making links explicit makes weighing easy.
Weigh fairness and edu voters against "no rvis" that don't link
For RVIs
- Makes theory a two way street
Otherwise, its a NIB
- Norm setting, under cnp
Vote for the better norm gives incentive for a good debate on norm
- Check on Frivolous theory
- Time skew, 4 min 1AR can't hit both theory and substance
- RVI's enable weighing across shells. W/o RVI's there is no weighing
between an Interp A and CNP B
RVIs preserve theory weighing across shells
Against RVI:
- Chilling effect, deterrent to check abuse and "you can be really abusive
and good at theory"
- "Both debaters have a NIB to be fair" ( takes out recip)
- Non sequiter - you don't win the case for showing up at the courthouse
- RVI's kill substance
Care: Cilling effect and RVI's kill substance contradict
Theory Page 105
Side specific arguments

- 1AR can't deal with multiple layers
Warning: never run only theory on 1ar
- Aff speaks in the dark (eh)
- Aff has burden to make topical interps
- Reading a new interp in the 1AR isn't good (( RVI
- Bidirectional Interps when aff (plans good plans bad)
Neg spec: Find them by rationalizing differences
- 3% aff sidebias stats don't answer the question
- Aff speaks first and last esp on theory debate
- Neg more likely to drop ac from flowing b/c no layers b/c no breaks from offs
- Neg is reliant on judge to point out new args, unlike aff
- Widespread belief in aff skew
- Judges more likely to get distracted durig longer neg speeches
- Greater chance the judge misses an arg b/c longer
Aff only
Neg only
For multiple shells
For metatheory
No rvi After constuctive
Rvi on t
Rvi on 1N theory
When you lose RVI's
Run an OCI in which there is an arg about no RVIs
Run an OCI where they say, may not run x shells
1. Win substance of abuse
2. Prove plank that says you get the vote
By tagging it on the abuse story, you get an RVI functionally
RVI situation args

8:45 AM
Did you know that first and last are rembered so aff bias
Use internal links in RVIs to weigh voters
Also, if you are uplayering, yo ucan give them the rvi and say "ok you get rvis and that solves for the Always read fast args against rvi (if needed) b/c
abuse, so prefer mine"
Also, dont' but rvi args in ac b/c then neg will
respond
OR if you don't care about rvis, you can include it
Aff only rvi

Because of the 67463 timeskew, the aff gets rvis to make theory a two way street
Neg does not because they have sufficient time to run a cnp as well as address susbstance
Otherwise, the you deter running rvis in 1ar
Side bias - the aff's life is hard
Neg rvi only
Key to neg flexibility

Aff needs rvi means aff gets 2ar risk of offense
I need to win both layers
Judges don't out during 6 min 2ar (zone)
The neg needs to be able to go thorough 2 different issues
IF the judge zones out, I can still win another win
Metatheory rvis
Access to top layer of debate making no risk issue + not desirable to continue to uplayer no
more incentive to uplayer
Multiple shells
Too many different theory interps
Rvi necessary check on abuse, to weigh between false and true interps
2. my opponent could have focused on one abuse story
3. responding to every shell under cnp bad, so I need to read my own interps which
reduces theoretical clash
4. forces to make preclusionary args which reduces clash
Rvi's are probably introduced when they have timeskew in their favor
RVI's only occur when its advantageous for them
"even if rvis are beneficial, you don't get the advantage"
RVIs on theory in the 1ar

1. structural advantage of being first, imiportant
2. Knowing that I have the possiblity of winning off this shell changes how I allocate time
They have more time on theory b/c 7 to 6 min skew
3. disincentivize an all theory 1ar b/c rvi > more substance debat
4. theory in the 2nr is new in the two whiel they can run theory in 1ar
5. timeskew - they can make prewritten theory shells and I probably don't have prep against
them
When is it tacctical to run 1ar theory?
If they read a k in the nc
Short shell that you don't depend on to win > several outs / way to delayer
Make 1ar theory a story of the abuse that your suffered
Turn your interp into a story
The neg is afraid b/c the 2ar
Theory Page 106
Topicality is already a game over issue, so its reciprocal to get rivs

2. Ability to wegih is also greatly diminished
3. Friv T is easier than friv theory
4. neg has no obligation to be topical
5. speed up norm settting b/c topic is short
Nor args after constructive (doesn't make sense)

1. unrecip b/c kick case for new args
Either neg gets rvis or neither
Can't make an arg after constructive b/c no new args
"if they could, give it to me too"
Tom: "debaters shouldn't get to weigh before theory b/c prefer shell spec abus
stories"
Any reason why an rvi is good, is probably better early one
Detterants only work before
If the ROB is the central concern of the judge, then your shell should talk about
how that is the central problem.
Counterplans against kritical positions b/c it harms the advocacy skills of the
judge. They can't perm cps against their positon b/c it reduces their ability to
respond. Link to their ROB using it as an education voter
Grab Bag
Friday, August 14, 2015
8:22 AM
Sophia's Favorite thoery

Meta Theory Competing Interps
You can't say "competing interps" without outlining the implications
"Normsetting, etc"
Idea that its consitutive of debate that the aff is affirming
Better if the aff concedes they should be topicla
Need to be abusive b/c the neg is non topical : R: neg theory or T comes first
Non topical: "I would have advocated the same thing, but he gets it b/c aff"
Not necessarily strategic - running alt ROB AND theory shell on specing ROB
The shell:
The ROB is a comprehensive metric for measuring the debate
New Style ROB aren't comprehensive (ROB is to vote for the debater who best undermines ___)
No complete account for how you evaluate the debate.
"Does fw come first? Theory come first? Soley on the flow? Things unspecified in the ROB. Pardigmatically, is
there an obligation to resist oppression"
Theory specific to the K (extremely effective but doesn't happen)
Intersectionallity K and a "meta identity shell where you must spec the additional identities"
The K protects the theory and the theory protects the K.
Theory protects the K by maintaining the link, no shift
The K protects the theory by stoping "this is just a procedural nib" w/ "you're just avoiding my k"
Do the interp 1ar with cnp response. " Follow the interp if the aff is topical"
The cnp is always an improvement on the interp so t comes first. The topicality is always a decisive reason to
determine the validity of the interp, so T scomes first.
Why are Fairness and Education not voters?

Fairness and Voter
In round competitive equity
1. How does an arg I make damage that equity so that a rule
is enforced on me.
Even if fairness is a voter, why establish rules in the middle
of the competition.
Every other competitive activity would find this stupid
How can fairness be about different unknown standards
2. Unfairness in a theory shell is not cheating
Debate is a game based on who did a better job of making
the opps life hard. Taking that away means no way to
adjudicate. Real cheating is stuff like taking speech time
Also read theory to punish them
3. Applies to both Fair and Edu - competitive activity

Does not justify why winning on the flow is better than
who is actually being more fair or educational.
Intervene based on whos actually unfair
Debate is not about truth seeking. Their standard warrants a
standard of proof not possible within the round.
Make a new spikes bad shell

"if the ac specs education or fairneess links then they must ___-"
Or "no spikes in aff" - args with theory implications + exception for t interps
Or "must read spikes at the top" - drop the arg works with time trade off
4. Don't debate about the rules of debate b/c we're inside it.
If we can call what we're doing debating, then we have
already established the rules. If theory establishes the rules,
its not possible for them to be set up within the debate.
Arg about Theory - Theory is more long term

Theory Is a way to check abuse
For education:
1. Need metric to determine what args are good
We have to argue about what is good...not warranted
. 2Juristdiction
3. The rules of the game establish care =/
The long term goal/purpose does not mean it alters the rule
Kicking the ball above the goal
4. What constitues the better debater in round, still have to function
Even if we talk about what debate should be like, those args must function within minimal constitutive
rules of the practice. One debater shouldn't have a route over the other Ex. Both debaters must be able
to link to the ROB. We wouldn't have a debate otherwise.
Why Debate !education
a. Library
b. round is taken out of hands when judges decide what is educational
It doesn't make sense for theory to come before ROB intuitively

If the ROB is only partial, then there are a set of other considerations that aren't addressed
What role does theory play to oppression?
Theoretical objections - whethere that is the proper place or not
Theory Page 107
If the rule were necessary, it would be assumed in the

beginning, if not necessary, it would violate the earlier stuff.
Is fun a side constraint?
Implication: Theory does not link to concern for fairness and
education. Their arguing about theory means that they care
about the flow. I don't have to warrant that judges exclude
new in the two or speech times. The judge will not vote on
education or fairness unless they establish that connection.
Voters of education and fairness suggest the judge should
evaluate outside the flow. So instead prefer substance
Tom on Args about the constitutive features of debate

Something has constitiutive norms, but debate doesn't have those
norms, its rules reflect our judgement of what the rules ought to
be.
Ex. Arg: We shouldn't debate on the constitutive features of the
debate in round. Response to the above fairness and education
args.
Nibs Bad Pre-written shell practice

12:48 PM
A. Interpretation: Debaters cannot advocate for a objective account of morality, (unless they don't
extend?)
B. Violation
C. Standard
Reciprocity - The aff must prove that morality both exists and that we should affirm the resolution
while the neg only has to show that morality does not exist. Therefore, because the aff has two
burdens while the neg only has one, the debate becomes unfair.
Quantity of Ground skew - With no moral view point, then the ability to make framework
arguments .
Predictability
Stable advocacy - The neg can advocate for a moral view point or instead advocate that no
morality exists going in to the debate. Without a stable advocacy, I cannot form a reliable strategy
to engage with either position.
Timeskew and stratskew - Because I cannot devote my argumetns to one advocacy, my arguments
for one
Theory Page 108
Drill: Numbered Spikes

Thursday, August 13, 2015
8:10 AM
Interp:
All aff theoretical arguments must be numbered and appear in one section in english
B. Violation
C. Standard
Reciprocity: The negative must sign post theory which 1. gives debaters a break in the flow, and 2.
clearly determines where the shell starts. Sporadic theory arguments in the aff prevent clear
representation of the number and position of the spikes on the flow. This prevents fairness as the
arguments are hidden and education as the strat relies on espionage rather than clash.
Accessibility - I don't know spanish
Strat skew - harder to answer fully exacerbated by the fact that theory nibs
Time skew - I never have to ask "where is this spike" otherwise
Voters:
Education is what gives value to debate
Fairness determines best debater
Drop the debater - no way to rectify
CNP- theory shells may be placed anywhere in any language
B.
C. standard
Critical thinking - entire 1ar real world strat thinking
Stratskew- I need you to concede certain args to win
Turn/ reciprocity, burden good for critical thinking
2. already have
3. brightline, if jetter at judge can't flow it
Neg can run theory shells
Reciprocity can be solved not structural get better at flowing
CNP - debaters may refrain from number spikes

Turn/ I can layer args in neg, I can do it too, neg is longer
Clash - you can still make turns, they are just in different places in the case
Theory Page 109
Drill: Aff must specify a form of demo

8:29 AM
Goal: Find offense

Best way to find offense is to make it yourself
A. Aff must spec a form of democracy promotion

B. Aff does not spec
C. Predicatabilty/ Stable Advocacy - if no spec they can shift. Key to fairness as we both need to devote time to valuable
strategies that a shifting advoacy whould negate. Miliiion types of democracy promotion
Textuality - what if we spec a type of demo promotion they do not meet
Real world education 0- close to the policy
Ground - specing demo means better turn ground - lose das
Object fiat - allow yourself fiat away from demo promotion
Timeskew - If the aff doesn't spec a demo promotion
Critical thinking - constraint breeds creativity
Reciprocity - I can't run a cp if they don't run a plan (and defend
Debatability (??)
Depth of Education
Topic Lit
Resolvability - if both sides say demo good, demo bad w/o spec there is no critical thinking
Theory Page 110
Drill: AFC
8:41 AM
If aff fw is substantively justified, the neg must concede the aff standard
Timeskew - the aff has less time
Reciprocity - Fw and contention are burdens
Predictability - aff goes first and neg can run whatever fw is strategic afterward
Ground - the
Clash - by establishing one f/w the aff and neg can both engage on contentional level offense and turns
Polls fw
COUNTER INTERP
AFC BAD IS PROBABLY AN INTERP
Topic ed - research into new fws, higher value out of the fw being picked > new creative fws more bang for buck
Afc - better phil ed > how both sides link to offense
Real world doesn't think about philosophical edu - so talk about contetionlevel offense '
Critical thinking - contention level restriction good
Resolvability - the judge can easiliy eval just one layer ( contentions)
Recirpocity - the neg cannot choose, equal route

to ballot
Debatability - easier for lay people to understand debate - key to debate's longevity
Depth of Education - better understanding of real world
Arg quality is better - more incentive to use solvency and topi c
Textuality - what if we spec a type of demo promotion they do not meet
Real world education 0- close to the policy
Rectify structural bias- rectify empircal skew

Diversity of arg - negative needs a broader argumentation to fit under aff fws
Critical education - incentive to uplayer, to move to prefiat
Question of what represents substantive justification - for frameworks
Quality of ground
Interp - the affirmative cannot choose the

framwork
Phil ed- b/c we love alt f/ws tells us what to

value
Why is it important to learn about philosophy
"we better understand how we value
things in the real world"
Turn quality of ground

Critical thinking - need to devise how different
contention level arguments provide offense
under diff fw
Very turn able standard
Clash - more clash in more layers of debate leads
to education and argumentative experience
Also turnable, have to determine the
depth
Prep skew - what about everything that I
prepared, I need value contention debate acc to
my fw, to concede that means the aff gets
inherently better links
Voter: education gives value to debate out of
round fairness determines the better debater
ALWAYS DRAW IT OUT

WHATS ABUSIVE ABOUT THE AFC WORLD
THINK ABOUT WHAT OPPONENT'S STANDARDS
RVI - I HAVE TO WIN THE THEORY SHELL, THEN

ADDRESS THEN TURN THE FW AND THE
CONTENTIONS
Strat/ timeskew so I get rvi
DETER FRIVOLOUS THEORY
Theory Page 111
Drill: PIC Bad

9:26 AM
If neg runs cp, no part of cp advocacy can be a part of the plan
(no pics)
Ground - my ground isn't skewed to be way smaller b/c of the change in the cp
Timeskew - he can't coopt my offense
Topical education - diff plan needed
Phil ed - different fw
Predictability - I can't predict exactly what he would change
Critical - he must change and provide clash
Clash - there must be an engagement and weighing
Diversity of arg - bring diff args in
Substantive engagement - no co opt means weighing of argumentation spec types of demo
Topic lit - go with topic lit, more incentive to fin ex. Middle east pic
Check skew
resolvability
Reciprocity
Focuses on minor stuff
Encourages vague plan writing - or else people would pic out of - decrease depth
Theory Page 112
Drill: Interp CNP

9:50 AM
PIC Bad
(no pics)
Timeskew - he can't coopt my offense need time to respond to the pic
Phil ed - different fw incentive pic
Check skew
resolvability
Reciprocity - I can't pic the neg
VOTER: Fairness debater skill education - gives value to debate
Theory Page 113
PLAY BOGGLE WITH STANDARDS
Layers
1:36 PM
Think through the concepts
Layers
Preclusion, order
The judge must order things in order to vote
They vote how we tell them to vote
Layer creates structure for the judge to vote with
Why and How that happens
Weighing and voters
Know your strategic outs going in to the round.
The affirmative must think before the round, in the 1AC
Perspective of where you want to be in the 2A
What its most likely convincing argument is
Exercise: Write an analytic version of the 2A to give along side the AC to see what can be ditched
in the AC
Helps see the baits (for blocks and front lines). Know what you're attracting
Negating During the 1AC - Think, "what is this and how do I deal with it?"
Realize that your job is to do synthesis rather than analysis
Go into round with multiple neg positions stacked across layers
Pre-prepped args for the 2N, there is no ideal 2N
Have an idea of what args
Super Duper Strats Page 114
Loose order of operations in Layers

Level 1: Things about how debate takes place - out of round impacts
Pre-fiat (ROB and ROJ)
Theory/Metatheory
Topicality
Triggers: Skep, Presumption, Permissibility
Level 2: How we evaluate content
FW: Structuring Offense
- Metaethics, Epistemology
- Metaphysics, Ontology
Permissibility / Skep / Presump.
Topicality
Mechanistic f/w use: Exclusion, Preclusion, etc.
K
"None of the above" fw args (Ask in CX)
If it doesn't seem connected, be suspicious
Usually also found in underviews
Level 3: Offense Prioritization
(Weigh) (Voters) (Turns) (Links) (X-Apps) (Extensions)
How do we manipulate layers, what goes into them etc.
Rules about Rules

1:58 PM
What seperates Theory from Metatheory ?

They both link to:
Fairness, edu impacts
Subs. Engagement
Furthers away from substance, the worse it is
Adovcacy Skills
""
Resolvability
Is Metatheory resolvable for action? Maybe our only option is to
run meta theory
Jurisdiction
If judge can only adjudicate a certain set of things about the fiat
Meta theory probably has no claim that the judge should vote
there
A meta theory shell could be conceded, it shouldn't matter
Lesson: Metatheory can be pushed back
Therefore, theory and meta theory are the same thing
Abuse:
Real abuse v Potential abuse
Structural or substantive abuse
In round or out of round
Theory
We can adjud. If a new rule would punish / fix real abuse
For potential abuse, we adjud if new rules prevent/fixes (unclear)
ROB/ROJ
2:14 PM
Why does pre-fiat debate matter?

ROB and ROJ are probably indistinguishable, the judge is the ballot, functionally the same.
"We're people before we're debaters" why ROJ may be more sig than ROB
The better debating was done by - ROB
"Ignore that the ballot says ___, you have a moral obligation to set norms outlined in the K"
Hence difference in articulation
ROJ args probably over step the purpose of the activity. You can make a beautiful arg about how the
judge should vote x way, but the judge as a choice on whether to accept that. Even if the judge agrees
with you, he or she is under no obligation to vote for you.
ROJ should extend to the purpose of the ROB. Which then goes back to how they are indistinguishable.
K's or Theory?
Is it contradictory for a K debater to run theory?
"I will not run theory, I will not engage in theory"
When people run theory, "I am self limiting myself, and you chose to engage on theory and
avoid clash, so I extend the K b/c it comes before theory."
Theory needs to come before K when K doesn't offer an alt to winning. If K's bring ground, or a
way to be turned, or where ROB can function differently, are probs not abusive
So then running theory before K becomes a timesuck
T Debate and Triggers

2:19 PM
Definitions, context, usage
Triggers:
Why about the triggers controls access to the debate round?
Some people make the arg, T and Theory are the same level with the same
implications
T - drop the arg seems to be level 2.
T - drop the debater seems to imply something about the debate space.
Are T and theory identical?

- Same voters
- Comes before substance in the debate
When T has its own standard of textuality - its the only thing we have access to
before the round.
The resolution is the only thing we can look to adjudicate, same set of limiting
standards.
T or Theory - Drop the debater args are probs same layer

T must explain itself on substance while Theory does not
Procedurally, they don't operate the same way
Use this against lay judges
Skep - Rule following paradox constrains theory

Why does skep naturally affirm or negate?
Wording of the resolution is very concrete but skep contra
Debate resolutions posits a question of action
If there is no action to determine, then there is no skep aff or neg
The only reason it would is relative to the fiat
One take : If we don't know, we don't do anything
Its possible that skep is a substantive level - that there is a degree of uncertainty
post fiat (ME is too volatile for demo promotion so neg)
Presumption - No offense, presume one side or the other

In debateland - You must vote for one side, one side could be harder than the
other (skews, bias) - claims about something structural in debate
"terminal defense negates" -substance level
If identified, know which layer to hit.
Permissibility - kind of a mess
Works hand in hand w/ fw
Works b/c ought or moral obligation
T debate over ought
Level 2 Round Vision

2:41 PM
K's - Does ROB or ROJ have implications outside of K? Probably not.

If they lose access to everything around that, ROB falls apart.
Theory seems more prescriptive while K's are descriptives
K's look to the real world in a way that Theory does not.
Ontology or Epistemology as a structural element?

Epistemological modesty/ignorance/justice (Don't use these args as voters, but as evidence)
EpIg - says that some things won't be known (ex. We won't know how to murder someone)
In debate rounds, types of knowledge to not have
We don't want the gov to gain knowledge to best oppress people
Fog of War K (Don't attack the case b/c it tells the gov our plan of attack)
EpJu - certain voices aren't heard - pre fiat implications about the speakers
Panel of all male judges etc.
EpMod - we don't know whats going to happen next, we have to be modest about what will happen
Implications, if we want to be epmod, we ought to take x,y,z action
Can support util (b/c we don't know what happens, we have to maximize benefits)
Strategic b/c a strong counter claim makes you automatically wrong
EpMod can't be wrong, it can only be "probability that it is wrong" but that can be turned
Ex. Testimony evidence is equalized by EpJu claim to be on the same level as data
Learn how to layer epistemology and metaethics
Hidden args very strong and have really good implications
Democracy paradox can be true, once the true are paired, it can describe any type of action
Ex. Epist Layer + Plan Text

3:01 PM
F/w , Contention + DA
Art to writing cards

Double tagging
First one - sounds like tag
Second one - important, and sets up the first tag
Without the second one , the card looks power tagged
Hijacking and Ref

1:33 PM
In the context of layering and round vision

If you can do deep thinking outside of round...
What do do when the fw is too well warranted

f/ws define what is offense
Link to a f/w, where the fw is the one we use to adjud the round
What matters as a path to the ballot?
Offense is either stuff read, or turns made
Must extend offense
Turns are not the same thing as an external disad
MUST BE CLEAR about what happens after a turn
The amount of argumentation changes on how and when you make the turns
Turning upstream has implications downstream that you must outline
a. which fw do we use
b. pick a fw, then weigh, then determine weighing vs flow
Leads to too much judge intervention otherwise
The flow is not linear but do signpost

On hijacks, think about layers
If you can connect args across layers, and intersperse your layers with theirs,
You can preclude or create side constraints to their fw.
Cut them off at a very high layer
Hit the missing layers - no justifications

Response to oppression reduced by debate:
You want to construct knowledge
But I want to construct the construction of knowledge layer so I preclude
"I'm saying the very act of bringing in evidence excludes some epist like
testimonies so you are biting back into oppression"
Committing yourself to the turn linking to the new layer
Try to insert a higher layer, this constrains what happens below
AND make a fw turn much lower
When debating, make turns low in the fw BUT, even if that doesn't work, go up
the fw and make amendments to the 'missing layers'
Start hijacks high up, start turns low down

Generate offense high and flip offense low lowers the amt of work you
need to do
They don't link to prescriptivism, descriptive fws bad. If everything they read is
descriptive, there is no offense.
There can be layers you need to deal with before you hijack.
Ex. Reading a cp with a fw that doesn't interact with a plan, makes perms hard
However, you must make the arg that your cp doesn't interact with their fw
Insert something new, a new layer, interrogate their fw for missing phil or epist layers
Throws a mediocre fw debater off their game
Look at advocacy text
Make a standard a side constraint to theirs. "You can do yours, you must do
mine first b/c otherwise bad" Side constraints slow people down, they have to
make answers.
This explains a missing plank. Be clear, our fws don't have equal value, but
the two must work in conjunction, we must link back to both
Concede the text of their standard - but uhe words of the standard against them
Minimize inherently means util b/c harms and aggregates. (( minimizing
oppression defaults to util.
BE SERIOUS when using this. Since aggregates actually devolves to util, you
we must look to util. The deont debater now has to go back to language
AND provide off.
Part of Hijacking means conceding an arg or extending it for your opponent
Philosophically Difficult Cases

1:40 PM
(no pics)
(no pics)
Substantive engagement - no co opt means weighing of argumentation
Topic lit - go with topic lit, more incentive to fin
Check skew
resolvability
Reciprocity
Fw Conceptualization
LOOK FOR THE FASTEST ROUTE TO THE BALLOT

1:47 PM
Pick a fw and win it

Are fws same or different - if its not an oppression rob, agree the fw and move on
If your fws are the same:
Read as many turns as possible
make your coverage really good
Answers multi pointed
If different: "Who's winning the fw?"
If them: By how much? A lot? Can I link in?
A little? Contest or concede the fw.
How muddled will this make the round? Is explanation ez or not
Know where your best offense is
Evaluate what offense you're weighing - your turns that link to their fw vs contested offense
If yours: Can they link? Don't forget to link your own offense back to your own framework
If they are winning the fw and you can't link in: Hijack the fw OR curl up and die
Insert layers for them, make implications that they don't want
"Minimizing humans rights violations sounds like util to me"
Have reasons why deontology collapses into util (clearly I was wrong, I'm util, extend goodin for him)
They are winning Econ + Extinction which weighs against human rights
We can adapt to global warming, but we can't adapt to being beaten everytime you leave your house
Don't leave it up to them, change the direction of their speech
Keeps you in procedural control - the definition of having strategy
Time Usage
2:07 PM
The distinction between Short, Mid, Long NCs

Short Neg spends very little time on the NC flow (<3 min)
Mid (3-4 min) fairly well justified position or Short NC + Off
Many affs can quickly answer a single shell (spikes) or pick layers for you
Allows the aff to deicde what happens next
Long invests very heavily in one thing (5+ min of K or all in on theory, substance on ac didn't happen)
Hard for judges to determine flow
Affs vs long neg needs a new layer OR needs to assert that the ac comes prior
Negs with quantity of args is not scary.
Aff needs to talk about its own case. Craft 1A's so that you can't avoid talking about 1A's. Prefiat offense, ROB,ROJ,
theory spikes
1AR against T or Theory + Mid NC
Extend spikes, deal with highest layer as fast as possible OR focus on the highest layer only
The aff is still behind going into the 2N, so establish as many outs as possible in the AC that can extend and
interact on the highest layer.
The goal of the 1A is to deny the fact that the neg even said anything in the first place.
Keep the interps specific to keep offense, but

violations should be vague, to avoid I meets
Shell should be generic, "aff must not read more
than 2 theory interps in the ac, for example they
read _____ 3 shells in ac______"
They respond with "I can run these 3 shells
together" , but you respond with "Ok but what
about the other 3 you didn't address? You don't
justify that combination. I don't know which ones
you'll extend, so potential abuse outweighs actual
abuse."
Phrase as an indexical
Ram prasad tries to get people to violate
"you spec this set of countries, I don't want you to
spec that, will you spec the other set?"
"why?" "doesn't matter" "what am I commiting
myself to?" "if you don't, I'll run theory" "ok, I will
shift my advocacy"
Advocacy shift shell
Violation of some norm of debate.
Conversational Maxims the context of utterances
determine their value
If fairness is a voter, its b/c debate is a competitive
space, if debate is not competitive, fairness is not a
voter
If education is a voter, why does theory exist? All it
does is control access to the ballot. Losing can be
better for education
Judge Paradigms
1:43 PM
Lay vs Circuit Tournaments
One set of Lay Case and One Circuit Tournaments for every topic
Some lay judges in the pool
They don't realize whats abusive and whats not
Lay - write abusive cases - people won't run theory, they won't know what it is
No spikes in the AC
Default to Reasonability
Tech - ability to be technically proficient (spreading, signpost, extensions, turns, manipulating flow, layer)
Prefs and Strikes
Check the field in division and the judges field. Maybe predict an octos bracket (probs 20 people). Meta game boys
Look people up on the wiki, prep them out, sense of who coaches them.
Judging list - Get a sense of who to strike and pref. Maintain a spreadsheet of judges, who you know etc.
1 - Judges that you want to have in a round. Both and Prelims and in panels and deep outrounds.
Win their ballot no matter what type of debate you're in.
2 - Want in outrounds more than you want in prelims. Someone who can vote predictably, who might not give
high speaks.
3 - Eh, no love no hate, ambiguous in outrounds
4 - No
5 - Conflicts, friend in judging pool or teammates, or talking about strats over fb, social relation etc.
In the finals of the TOC, if this person were judging me
Should not be judged by someone who is helping your teammates
6 - Strikes
a. people who only want to see K's don't know how to do fws and you aren't a k debater
b. Loose Cannons
c. Randomly strong opinions, you don't know what will set them off
d. People who don't know how debate works - parents
e. Old debaters (traditional)
Look at paradigms when you do prefs
Many people are spec about things they hate
Never break the 4th wall
Ask judges about their paradigm if unclear
If you know your judge won't vote on skep triggers. If

your opp goes for skep, you can point out "there are
many problems with skep, but, (give reason why they
cite skep bad)"
Before the Round

2:04 PM
An AC that intuitively affirms the topic. A unique way to affirm.

Positional, topical, and multilayers
New angle on core topic ground, something judges would find cool
Should be Doable on this topic
Ex. Turkey on demo promotion (democratic state in ME that has become less demo)
Always Prep T and a Lay version of T
High layer even for lay
Lay T - Stand up and gently remind the judge that it doesn't get to The Real Problem
"The topic is about the middle east, even if you have strong intuitions about ME concern, Afghanistan
is very clearly not part of the region of the middle east. The resolution specs a geopolitical region, this
is a bad for my ground b/c they could have spec'd Russia or China b/c they have a stack in the region."
Have Stock DA's and Spec DA's for policy topics
Ex. Backlash DA on US in the Middle East or spec examples to current events (US - Iran nuke deal)
Dont forget to cut updates
Google News alert for the content of the DA's or funding DA's
Prep Generic Turns for both sides (min 6 diff generic turns)
Econ, Employment (living wage), Terror Talk, Securitization (demo promotion)
Read Cases 6-10 times to get fast and get familiar.
Prewrite Extensions SEXXII
Signpost, Extend, Excavate (uncover your offense), Explicate (repeat the warrant), Impact (to fw),
Implication in the round
Mentioning something does not mean you refute it.
Also for Spikes - allows you to ramp up
Triggers
Ex. Off Contention 2, Extend Smith, they tell you that backlash occurs b/c resentment however, Smith
warrants that backlash will not occur to the same degree b/c it only occurs w/ rich do not get what they
want. So the impact is, the common people are never going to suicide bomb, vote on this b/c something
else is going on beside our assumptions.
In Round Notes
2:26 PM
As you're reading an AC, identify the possible layers

T preempts means baiting T debate or something abusive with T
Hidden roles of the judge or impacts on education and fairness
Ethical implications, constraining prefiat, what does that have to do with ROJ
CX questions come into play during the flow
Aff needs to know what to extend relative to the neg strat
NC has to be reactive to it, which option to go for, as flowing, know what works here
Listening for the highest layer
If you can hijack and insert a higher layer, then do it
CX to not understanding is very dangerous. Ask clarification questions as if you're trying to
gain a concession.
"How does jones interact with the fw"
"Are there any triggers surrounding D+G 2?"
Peg them to something you understand and see if they are coherent.
Recharacterize D + G however you want under the backfile
Call for evidence and look at it, make it say something else
PoMo generator
Aiming for the TOP

2:34 PM
Aiming to Break
Everything counts, don't care about outround panels
4-2 or better, you don't care about the position in bracket
Break + 1 - Bracket Position Matters
Speaks now matter b/c power protection
32 and 16 not very different
Top 16 and Top 8 very big difference
Solid vs Really good
Top 4 and Top 2 not diff
Worry that you're executing strat to the best of your ability
If you're going to drop rounds, drop the first 2 rounds as warmup b/c they are random
Submarine
Win it
Work hard
Hour of debate every day of your life
Have a thought - then do it
Write the entire position
Writing is necessary, write crap before you write well
Whats important is not the time, discipline
Travel days too
Debate camp - Focus on learning skills

Think back to the silliness of debate camp and the wasted time and money
Make a list of authors - Google Scholar - go through books and free articles
However, K lit is stupid b/c full texts are tough.
Anti-Oedipus + Thousand Plateaus full texts
Extemp shells
Do serious thinking about debate
About what debate means
From perspective of both aff and of neg
Issues of resolvability
Think deeply about what debate would look like
Interps for aff and neg - set that list down
Tape record yourself extemping shells
Flow yourself, is this a well warranted argument
Write a counterinterp
OR give up an be a theory debater

Don't be someone who wants to do everything well
Coaches are probably best for tournaments

Prep skew becomes notable
Teammates fulfill that function
Create a turn block file with answers to every framework ever
Epistemology
3:09 PM
hOw do we know what we know

Giroux- political concepts cannot be divorced from the people they made
People that make ideas are probs in position of power, promoting self interests
What about the people without power who also know?
Miranda Fricker - good for episte in general
Source of knowledge > how we treat the knowledge they give
Epistemic injustice - the content of the knowledge may be accurate, no ignorance
But I still doubt the veracity, despite proving the source does know
The quality of the words do not mesh with the source

Three Week Notes PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Three Week Notes PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Table Of Contents

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Feel free to ask for clarification on the notes.

Respond to a plan by:

Offense on the right layers

Aff- make things easier for neg

Topicality is all about the affirmative case

Kritique discourse ks, resolution ks, etc

Framework what matters

RFD decicion mock debate

Topic Analysis - missing (( - therefore

Skepticism - no obligation that triggers permissability (usually negate)

No intervention leads to nuke war

Incoherent policies give innovation

Google news, BBC, Reuters, Lexus Nexus

Prepare: Frontline the common responses (b/c time exists)

How to write a good Aff

A ME (Meta ethic) is Actor specificity

1AR Strats + Resolution

Ought implies a moral obligation

Ben 5th floor

Make the argument that:

Framework: Oppression limits the ability of the

CX is the only time when direct clash can exist

Two Styles of CX:

Meta theory: Which args you can read on theory

You can layer within macro layers.

Less speech time > 2 speeches important

What does negating mean?

Negating starts during CX

2N: 6 min Extension and Crystallize

Hidden arguments that bait a response

"Judge should ignore skep arg b/c unfair

What arguments matter

Util - net impact

- Can't predict consequences

Act Omission Distinction

ARG: If there is no Act - Omission distinction, then

ARG: There is act/omission b/c without it, we are

- Clash between rules

All our values

No reason to have a state gov obligation is prereq

Ought implies obligation

Inappropriate obligation, if the parent makes a chioc, he

People in countries divided by rules

Modern Moral Philosophy Outline

Unjust man is a bad man requires justification > virtue

As a K debater: Emphasize epistemic modesty for offense

Framework: The normative dispute in the round.

The proletariat is a particular class that know injustice, exploitation etc

The Historical breakdown

ULTIMATE Debate Strategy:

To Pursue this strat representative ex - Dropbox

Responding to Theory Shells Warning: Lots of dead ends in logic

"judge you should be embarrassed to vote off this shell"

General offense to a counter interpretations

Take advantage of their theory shells

1. Have to disclose plan on website.

A. Overcompensate, you can prepoint,

Reason fairness is a side contraint on competitive activies

pick this standard b/c its unfair

When writing/drilling theory,

Extra T, Effects T, etc etc