Facing the Prepout 1.) The prep out a.

They find the case 45 minutes before, not that great 2.) Facing the prep out a. Dont fear it, dont be afraid b. Good arguments are good arguments c. Get the best argument, embrace the challenge d. Need to want to prep out 3.) WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IN CASE CONSTRUCTION MOTHERFUCKER a. NARROW IT DOWN TO EXCLUDE THERE PUSSY ASS ARGUMENTS AND SHIT ON THEIR WOMEN b. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THERE WEAK ARGUMENTS c. Put in pre emptive weighing d. Framework level want to exclude e. Need to be prepared on the link level to weigh i. Must explain why your links are the strongest f. Make arguments in the AC multi functional g. Need deep warrants and comparison h. Multiple independent reasons for each claim i. HOLY SHIT 4.) What you should be doing in cross ex a. Start your CX by pointing out a stupid argument i. Allows you to quickly assist in rebuttal ii. Frames their strategy as a stupid quick prep out b. Clarify if necessary, function is important i. Goal is to have net offense c. Aim to always set up the tensions between arguments on the flow, always going to be a double turn or some sort of contradiction i. Start with the first argument, take a proactive approach ii. Go onto another train of questioning, give them a red herring iii. At the end, get a simple qualification on the other part of the double turn 5.) Choose a strategy a. Goal is net offense not coverage b. Introduce a new layer that will come before anything else on the flow i. If your going for that layer, should only be going for that layer ii. Dont want to split up your time, if you win that layer, everything else is going to be true iii. Adopt one of the layers they created and go for a lot of offense on it, collapse on the disadvantage if its the most important etc. iv. Exploit the contradictory function of the argument 1. Not usually all in unless its a straight double turn and you do a lot of weighing c. The conventional method i. There might not be other layers to collapse on ii. Clarify the standards debate, need to dismiss it iii. Then extend a justification for your standard

Facing the Prepout iv. If they introduce a new level, need to take it out 1. If an argument doesnt link to X standard, than it is irrelevant, dont let them fabricate new links v. Then make the winning extension 1. Start with offense 2. Make sure its relevant in all decisions calculi in the round and weigh it vi. Then make at least one offensive response to your opponents case vii. Then need to cover the rest as best as you can 1. Grouping, or accept a common premise 2. Group arguments based upon that premise 3. Take advantage of their defense to take out their offense 4. Never be spending too long on any different part of the flow 6.) The second rebuttal a. Begin with an overview of the decision calculus of the round i. Step above the round and direct the judge ii. Only go for arguments that are necessary to make a voter iii. Make sure you are only going for offense iv. Be wary of new arguments and new extrapolations v. Good debaters will preempt the strategy 1. Own the strategy they predict 2. They know its coming and they know there going to lose 7.) What to expect a. No matter what type of position, people are going to try and throw theory in it i. So just dont be abusive b. If running a positional consequentiality case i. Expect a deontology NC, have lots of link turns on the AC ii. And Disadvantages c. If running a deontology AC i. A consequentalist dump on the framework and some weird link turns ii. Be prepared to run your case under another framework d. Case with a different focus of evalutation i. Expect an assertive CX strategy, accompanied with a press on the decision calculus with theory e. Need to do speed drills to get quick to answer the prep out 8.) Drills a. Rebuttal re-dos b. Gayness blip spreads c. Execution squad d. Doing a round backwards 9.) Biggest tip a. Sleep 10.) Conclusion

Facing the Prepout a. Dont listen to them being stupid b. Need the mentality that you dont fear the prepout