KM+Lab+Notes

=Lab Notes= toc

STEM/Climate/CS Aff
Ethan Dash Casey Emily

Military Recruitment Aff
Reena Tyler Grace

Courts Aff
Alysa Dash Christian

Planless Aff
Anthony Mia

Notes 7/11
Lab Notes 1. Remove NCLB mandate (public health/consent) a. 2012/APHA, Needs Fx/Compare 2. Hs/k-12 key States Advantages Das Cps K Other Neg arguments 1. 2. 3. Things Courts Aff Solvency Advocate
 * 1) Court cases w/states
 * 2) Same as others
 * 1) Militarism (war on terror starts at home) - answers CMR Da
 * 2) Low income/ people of color, public health
 * 3) Privacy rights
 * 4) Change the 1st amendment- certain people not allowed in certain places
 * 1) Poverty Da-- poverty outweighs militarism
 * 2) Military Da/Heg Da/CMR
 * 3) Reverse Spending Da
 * 4) 1st amendment
 * 1) A counter recruit
 * 2) JROTC
 * 3) Non-k-12 CP
 * 1) Agamben-esque K
 * 2) Home vs. abroad K -- have impact turns/K
 * 3) State bad
 * 4) Neoliberalism K
 * 1) More solvency advocate
 * 2) Make sure state's cards or good
 * 3) Make sure there are internal links for advantages
 * 4) Internal links for Das
 * 5) Links of recruiters to advantages, and Das

1. Liu 06/08

a. If the court (congress) can clarify education as a positive right it will lead to benefits

i. 14th amendment AT States a. Turn to fism AT States advantage Da >> people to court to find resolution- the court as flypaper is people waiting and hoping that the court will solve problems- hope turns out to be hollow because courts cannot solve all their problems >> like overrule a case like rodriguez it loses legitimacy as a nonpolitical actor >> because people think it had political motives >> court to go away
 * 1) Overturning Rodriguez
 * 2) Government baseline
 * 3) Rule on Geneva convention/CROC
 * 1) funding
 * 2) Amendment
 * 3) Right in education now
 * 4) Give states more rights less likely to discriminate
 * 1) spillover advantages to things states can’t do
 * 2) “Positive welfare rights”
 * 1) Federal link up DA
 * 2) Education bad
 * 3) Federalism (edu, 14th)
 * 4) Courts Da
 * 5) Clog-- clog up the courts, opens the floodgates of litigation
 * 6) Hollow Hope- FLYPAPER- when court takes a big action in social arena attracts
 * 1) Court Capitol
 * 2) Legitimacy - decisions are supposed to be a political, when court does something
 * 1) Judicial activism
 * 2) Court stripping- congress hates the plan so much as a result they will tell the

Advantages

1. Educational issues a. Makes us smarter b. Competitiveness

2. Educational inequality/democracy a. Plan makes education equal Counterplans 1. courts/congress
 * 1) International standards/HR
 * 2) Spillover (Welfare rights, positive)

2. 1. 2. 3. Things 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PIC out of amendment > in it might be bad or good but they will keep suing Rights K/Agamben
 * 1) Net benefit is court clog
 * 2) If the aff has vague standards aff could say we don't know what that would result
 * 1) Political stuff...?
 * 2) Advs

Citizenship K

Biopower

to Work On

Solvency advocate

Finish cutting Lu 06/08

Cards for overturn Rodriguez

Figure out how Rule on Geneva makes solvency advocate claim-- relates to international standards More cards on education, and education equality More cards on spillover

Think about Pic K Stem Education Solvency Advocate States Answers > a. Money b. Pressure - Fiat
 * 1) Use FW of CSSA + money
 * 2) Funding of stem
 * 1) Money -- neg will answer this with tax over something
 * 2) Economy of scale

3. THEORY-- prepare to do a lot of theory work in the 2AR, or against a kritik Advantages-- all are education good b. Home security DAs Counterplans 1. “Percing Bill” CP
 * 1) Climate change/ climate tech
 * 2) Innovation
 * 3) Health care-- AI
 * 4) Cybersecurity a. Privacy
 * 1) Arts Da/K
 * 2) AI bad
 * 3) Generic Das obviously

Ks a. Aff says they are threats, causes us to be militaristic, militarism bad 3. Gender K/”rationality” Things Planless
 * 1) PICS (Stem)
 * 2) Visas
 * 3) Job training
 * 1) competitiveness/Cap K (Sean)
 * 2) Security K
 * 1) Education is good
 * 2) States
 * 3) Find CSSA
 * 4) Find stem cards

Solvency Advocate- Spirituality
 * 1) Decolonize self - coloniality-- physical thing
 * 2) Resist
 * 3) Questions of decolonizing
 * 4) Speaking for others?
 * 5) Local key
 * 6) Resist it (all grounded in western knowledge)
 * 7) Spiritual decolonization
 * 8) Western knowledge

Inherency
 * 1) Education mandates curriculum-- subject formation
 * 2) Spiritual Knowledge-- decolonization
 * 3) Related to epistemology (study of knowledge) or ontology (study of being)
 * 4) Alt needs to be a description of this is how we think of or relate to the world

Mistiza Ks Topicality
 * 1) “Living on the border island”
 * 2) Exclusion on the border-- no place of identity
 * 3) Critique of topic that stems from the scholarship
 * 4) Chicana--(identity)
 * 1) Spiritual resistance
 * 2) Tuck/Yang
 * 3) Native Knowledge
 * 4) Noble Savar
 * 5) T essential identity

To Answer 3. We must not have this relationship to the resolution-- not content bad but forcing us to understand it or relate to it that way is bad Topical Version of AFF > section as library What SHOULD debate be?
 * 1) We meet
 * 2) Counter interpretation/prefer our interpretation
 * 1) You could talk about this without the affirmative
 * 2) When they say this discussion is not, they say no it is because you still end in same
 * 1) Not a topical version of aff because it doesn’t fit within resolution

1. Topicality answers this so does theory Case Debates What is the affirmatives goal in debating the case? What are the affirmatives steps? > the 1NC in refuting them >> the common objectives made in negative by 1NC
 * 1) Outweigh the negatives case
 * 2) Refute the things the negative has said are untrue about the aff
 * 3) Make is such than the aff outweighs the arguments presented by the negative
 * 4) What is the argument aff doesn’t have to outweigh?
 * 1) When you're answering arguments on the 2AC on the case you need to go in order of
 * 1) Provide a warrant as to why the negative is wrong
 * 2) Hopefully in evidence that is already in the 1AC you have a card that answers all
 * 1) 1NC evidence you wanna extend and explain

b. Refute the negatives evidence and argument > a. In the 2AC you are still telling a story Goals of Negative in 1NC? >> of something else that is relevant to that aspect of the uniqueness advantage 2NC debating the case >
 * 1) Indicate specific things about evidence, and warrants a. Evidence quality and reason that that matters
 * 2) Comparative
 * 3) Recent
 * 4) Qualified
 * 1) Read more cards on that issue
 * 2) Tell a story -- the 1AC is a story
 * 1) To have defense on parts of case that are hard for them to win
 * 2) A diversity of answers to the case
 * 3) Dont just read impact cards
 * 4) Give yourself options to be able to make choices
 * 5) Your internal link to that impact is flawed and unlikely-- the link itself is incorrect
 * 6) Prove that the aff is incorrect about the likelihood of something happening now bc
 * 1) Split up block and figure who will debate the case
 * 1) Choose which arguments from 1NC to extend
 * 2) Explain those arguments
 * 1) Respond to the things that the 2AC said
 * 2) Read more cards if you want to

Military Aff
Privacy Adv Militarism Adv Rights of the Child Discrimination
 * Military access in schools violates privacy
 * Ethical imperative to uphold privacy/autonomy
 * Violates family autonomy
 * Ethical imperative to uphold privacy
 * Outweighs all else (must defend util is good)
 * Deontology—ethical prior to commitments
 * Consequentialism and Utilitarianism—greatest good for greatest amount of people
 * Answer argument of ethics
 * Home and Abroad—util calculus is wrong
 * Recruiter are product of and produces militarism
 * Recruiters cause unique violence/teach people to be aggressive
 * Grooming
 * Militarism is problematic
 * Solvency: Challenging military recruitment is a way to challenge militarism (Key)
 * Action method epistemology (how we ought to think about things)
 * Have answers to military good
 * Here is support on how we know these things
 * EX: Trump wants to invade, so we say the way we think about these things is bad, war on terror starts at home, until you prove militarism thesis is wrong, you can’t get your stuff
 * K-12 specific is important
 * Military targets low income communities and people of color
 * Being in military is bad
 * Form of slow violence
 * Slow racial violence that outweighs
 * We can solve this, not structural

Version 1 Version 2
 * Military is evil
 * Adv1: privacy
 * Adv2: RTC
 * 2AC Link turn

STEM and Courts Aff
Right to EDU/stem—similar to the courts aff Courts/congress—right to stem education (mechanism to answer issues, 2 advantages) Impacts and Solvency Mechanism UQ—stem low now Money for stem increase stem education and participation Link and internal link increase stem solves the impacts above Point of this hybrid aff is court doges state cp and stem gets the impacts
 * 10th amendment
 * 14th amendment
 * Spillover (need cards)
 * Inequality
 * Relates to 14 amendment
 * International Law/Human Rights
 * Helps with inequality
 * Lack of right to education violates international treaty
 * Right to education brings us into line, solves above
 * Climate Change—green tech,
 * Less fossil fuel and More renewables (need cards)
 * Sequester—taking greenhouse gases out of the air (need cards)
 * Positive feedback—builds up on each other, ice caps melt,
 * Trees absorb carbon but eventually over flow
 * X degrees tipping point
 * Health Care
 * Economy
 * Increase innovation which increases tech sector
 * Decrease stem hurts
 * Increase stem solves
 * Increase stem leads to AI (needs cards)
 * Women inequality
 * Increases women in stem
 * Lower gender gap
 * Cyber Security?
 * Cyber Security?

Mestiza Aff
People in the Borderlands Turtle and mourning
 * 1) Identity is imposed
 * 2) Excluded is not subject
 * 3) Mourning expresses understanding
 * 4) Speak positionality
 * 5) Inability to care of self

Counter interp of US—US is constructed, cannot begin dialogue until
 * 1) Prior Question

Language Borders Nation state Gender and rationality—understanding of relationship to knowledge is problematic

7/13
Highlighting Rules Military Ban AFF -- Militarism Advantage Improvements 1. Get rid of first inherency card because it’s irrelevant a. Unless its the only one that answers states- if it is move to the end of the advantage and re tag it 2. The last line of the last card--
 * 1) “It” must have an underlying reference
 * 2) Cut paragraph before + After the card
 * 3) identify/ cite quoted person

a. Explain aff broader than just plan but don’t say that the aff accesses engaging marginalized communities in the debate about school reform is good for new agenda i. Take out part that says the plan is not enough

3. Nguyen card is so over highlighted- what we want to get out of that and what we do does not line up

Privacy advantage improvements 1. More human rights-- privacy feeds into this Discrimination advantage improvements 1. Lots of really short cards from the same place a. Make it one long card 2. Feels like choppy story-- not super cohesive/linear progression-- to choppy of a story a. Slightly longer and fewer cards fix this a. Not a question of intellect it’s a question of available resources Debating Disads What is a disad?
 * 1) Claims to make in this advantage
 * 2) Military recruiters target Minorities + low income schools
 * 3) Outcome of that recruitment is bad (personal testimony(ayers))
 * 4) After return, people have a really hard time (including employment)
 * 5) Plan (s)
 * 1) Argument-- recruiters are bad, people who are being recruited shouldn’t be manipulated in this way

1. Argument that the aff happening has a negative impact a. A reason that the aff shouldn’t happen Parts
 * 1) Offensive argument for negative
 * 2) The “plan is bad” is a disad

1. Uniqueness a. Status quo- about what is happening right now 2. Link a. The plan changes the status quo 3. Internal Link a. Connection between link and impact or relationship between link happening and impact happening 4. Impact
 * 1) Things are good now-- certain set of impacts are not happening now
 * 2) Brink is good

a. Bad thing that happens 5. Breaking point > Here is the construction of a DA in drawing form
 * 1) How close we are from the impacts being triggered/link
 * 2) It wont happen now but it could

> Impact -- Dan is dead > Brinking point-- edge of the cliff > > > Uniqueness > > 1. Impact Uniqueness Internal link-- falling in water means getting eaten by a shark Impact -- Dan is dead > > Brinking point-- edge of the clif a. Whether the impact is likely to happen now 2. Link uniqueness > a. Whether the link is likely now Spending DA Court Clog DA  a. Key to solvency of climate change prevents extinction > How Does the AFF answer a DA (Defensive arguments)? >> of wind there is no way he can get back
 * 1) Uniqueness -- Dan -- Chillen
 * 2) Link -- Wind pushes Dan off cliff
 * 3)  Internal link-- falling in water means getting eaten by a shark
 * 1) Says the plan spends a lot of money and if the US spends to much it collapses the economy and leads to nuclear war
 * 2) Link uniqueness- we are not spending a lot now
 * 3) Impact uniqueness - is the economy is good now
 * 1) Right now the federal circuit court doesn't have a lot to deal with and has enough judges to deal with all of their cases
 * 2) link -- the plan (by establishing constitutional right to education) leads to a bunch of people suing in the federal circuit court leading to a lot of cases
 * 3) Internal link-- overloading the federal circuit court means there is uncertainty in intellectual property right decisions
 * 4) Impact-- certainty IPR solves innovation
 * 1) Non Unique-- Neg says things are good now, but AFF says they are bad now
 * 2) Uniqueness overwhelms the link-- Dan is so far back on the cliff there is no way any type
 * 1) Link non unique-- link is inevitable/will already happen
 * 2) Impact is non unique-- impact will happen now
 * 3) No Internal Link
 * 4) The link won't trigger the impact
 * 5) Alt cause-- other things will cause the impact
 * 1) No impact
 * 2) Empirically denied -- should of already happened or read a history book
 * 3) Impact not that bad

>> a. The link won't happen >> >> b. In Dan's case-- no wind, no predictive evidence as to when the wind will come is >> an argument to why there is no link How Does the AFF answer a DA (offensive arguments)? > 1. Link Turn
 * 1) No Link
 * 1) Non unique, link turn, denial of basic link claim
 * 2) The opposite of the link is true
 * 3) Uniqueness is opposite + link is opposite

a. The internal link solves the impact rather than causing it 4. Double turn
 * 1) You have to win uniqueness goes the other way, and that the original link is also invalid
 * 2) Just because you have a link turn doesnt mean you have answered their link
 * 3) Impact
 * 4) You say something is bad, I say it is good
 * 5) Requires an argument about why the original impact is untrue
 * 6) Deny thesis of impact as well
 * 1) Internal link turn

a. Link turning and impact turning at the same time General Answering DA

1. You want a range of answers. You don’t want just one type of argument you want a lot so you can pick and choose later on a. Both offense and defense 2. Include defensive arguments

Applying these arguments to Court Clause DA (Arguments you would make as AFF) > to deal with IPR How to Kick The DIsad > link turn a. In these scenario kicking the DA doesn’t get you out of offensive Straight turning a DA > Disad No Link and Impact Turn vs Link Turn and impact turn
 * 1) Non uniqueness-- The federal circuit courts are overloaded right now
 * 2) No link -- plan does not equal overload
 * 3) No internal link-- certainty in IPR law is not key to innovation
 * 4) Uniqueness overwhelms- courts have no cases
 * 5) Link is non unique-- immigration cases overwhelm
 * 6) Impact turn-- climate change is good
 * 7) Impact Uniqueness-- climate change is already happening
 * 8) Link turn-- the uniqueness is backwards- court already overload, the plan frees up court
 * 1) Link tern-- certainty in IPR is bad
 * 1) You concede arguments that cannot hurt you
 * 2) The aff only said no link, link turn, non unique, and it was a no link that doesn’t effect the
 * 1) You can only kick DA when you can get rid of offensive
 * 2) Only kick when you answer an AFF link turn
 * 1) Where the sum total of aff arguments create offense that is straight turning
 * 2) AFF is basically saying the DA is an advantage without saying anything bad about the
 * 1) Aff doesn't solve for impact turn
 * 2) Do not say the plan is bad
 * 3) DONT MAKE A DOUBLE TURN WHEN AFF BECAUSE IT SAYS PLAN IS A BAD IDEA
 * 4) No link and impact turn

a. Is a problem unless you have non unique i. Makes it an offensive argument
 * 1) No link to whether DAN is in water
 * 2) Dan in water is good
 * 3) Dont need impact turn

7/14
Review of Arguments you can make on DA 1. Straight turn a. Set of arguments that, taken together only offensive

i. “Straight” link turn-- non unique, no link, link turn b. Impact turn

i. Non unique No impact, impact turn c. Internal link turn

i. Internal link turn, internal link takeout d. Double turn (bad)

i. Impact turn and link turn Kicking out of/Conceding

1. Cleanest way to concede something is to concede internal link defense

Notes 7/15
2NC/1NR Structure offcase arguments a. Indicts aff arguments/evidence
 * 1) 2AC sets order for offcase. 1NC sets order for case
 * 2) Follows 2AC order -- identifying which argument your answering
 * 3) Answered the 2AC arguments - starts with extending relevant 1NC evidence
 * 4) Compare evidence

i. Tell the judge why your card/author is better b. Make strong comparisons between cards i. Compare the implications a. 2x+1 = number of arguments on an issue How to give a 1AR offcase? 1. Need to extend 2AC arguments in the order of the 2AC a. Don’t extend every 2AC arguments > Generic Group Arguments Federalism DA a. Encroaches on states authority
 * 1) Make both analytic and card evidence
 * 2) Reads more cards
 * 3) Every Time 2AC makes an argument you want 2-3 responses to it
 * 1) Don’t respond to everything it’s impossible
 * 2) Was there anything said by negative that needs a response?
 * 3) 1AR picks what to extend and what to continue
 * 4)  On case you have to answer everything and grouping becomes useful
 * 1) (Education) federalism is high now under the trump administration
 * 2) Plan decreases federalism by increasing regulation on education

3. Internal link-- other countries model US federalism a. We are not modeling other countries 4. Impact is successionism which leads to war a. Russia, iraq, china, pakistan 5. Kurds impact scenario 50 States Counterplan
 * 1) 50 states do the plan
 * 2) Devolution - refers to devolving authority
 * 3) Something the gov has authority over, the gov can say we are our you're in charge now
 * 4) Lopez counterplan -- devolution

a. The states have courts 5. Net benefit = federalism Courts DA 1. Court
 * 1) If aff involves spending money-- states fund ex: legalize marijuana and taxing it, legalizing online gambling and taxing it
 * 2) For courts affs - state courts counterplan

a. Change something through courts, courts will get clogged up-- IPR- innovation -- 3. Courts stripping/case turn Courts Counterplans a. Says instead of court saying they will overrule case, they will clarify that something is different the case does not apply Topicality
 * 1) The plan upsets congress
 * 2) That makes congress take away rights from the court
 * 3) That collapses democracy
 * 1) Congress counterplan -- Congress does the plan
 * 2) The distinguish counterplan
 * 1) Violations -- regulation
 * 2) Can’t be courts
 * 3) Prohibition is not regulation

Economy Spending Generic >> companies are good for economy #capitalism a. Plan- deficit spending causes default crash economy shutdown Critical Race Theory Deschooling
 * 1) Violation -- secondary does not equal Middle school
 * 2) Violation-- funding has to be on education -- functionally only curriculum
 * 3) Violation-- you can’t do curriculum because it’s not substantial
 * 1) Spending DA
 * 2) Spending is low now
 * 3) Plan causes gov spending
 * 4) Increased gov spending is bad for economy
 * 5) Money in private sector is being moved to public which is bad because private
 * 1) Deficit DA
 * 1) Curriculum is eurocentric which makes people sad
 * 2) Alt- introduce new forms of curriculum that incorporates new culture

1. Autonomia -- refusal of work i. Shut down schools > a. Telos Neoliberalism > Anatomy of the debate-- what to do during each speech While the 1AC is going..
 * 1) Work is bad
 * 2) People refuse to back
 * 3) Alt-- an exodus from schools
 * 1) Studying critique
 * 2) We should study instead of going to school
 * 3) Research own interests instead of taking it
 * 1) K of endpoints
 * 1) Social imaginary
 * 2) School system is all about competition
 * 3)  Alt is teach students to be democratic citizens instead of consumers
 * 1) 2AC- preflowing/back flowing 1AC
 * 2) 1nc- 1nc prep
 * 3) 2NC-- ensure 1NC is prepped, flow 1AC, reading the 1AC (think of cross ex)
 * 4) Read non highlighted part
 * 5) Cross ex questions

Cross Ex of 1AC 1. 1NC- prep, but listen to cross ex for smart arguments- incorporate cross ex moments or arguments that are explicit in questions into the 1NC a. Send out the 1NC 1NC Cross Ex of the 1NC 2AC Block Prep -- neg figure out who is doing what in block Cross Ex of the 2AC 2NC Prep
 * 1) 2NC- ask questions
 * 2) 2AC- should have flow for both 1A and 2A
 * 1) 2NC- flowing + back flowing the 1NC
 * 2) 1AC- flowing + reading 1NC for cross ex
 * 3) 2AC- flowing - 2AC construction
 * 1) 2AC - creating the 2AC, listen to cross ex
 * 2) 2NC - listening, finish backflowing 1NC, think
 * 1) 1AC- flowing and backflowing 2AC
 * 2) 1N- flowing
 * 3) 2N- flowing
 * 1) 1AC-- backflowing
 * 2) 2N- preparing for the block

2NC Cross Ex of 2NC 1NR 1AR Prep > figure out where there are holes, talking about strategy, prioritizing 1AR i. Make it necessary, interrupting takes up time-- this is why communication during prep is so important 2NR prep 2NR a. Make sure they're not dropping stuff 2AR
 * 1) 1N-2N prep
 * 2) 2A/1A - BF chat
 * 3) 2A tells 1A “best” arguments
 * 1) 1NC -- prepping - not flowing
 * 2) Debate from the flow, the computer is merely an accessory
 * 3) 2A/1A are flowing - don’t rely on computer
 * 1) 1A- Prep
 * 2) 1N- prepping for 1NR - if they're done preparing send out speech
 * 1) 2NR- flowing
 * 2) 1A- flowing
 * 3) 2A- flowing
 * 1) It’s okay if prepping for 1AR is more than 2-3 minutes
 * 2) 2A- talking to the 1A about what arguments will be in it- reading over ev read by neg to
 * 1) 1N/2N - relap
 * 1) Everyone else flows
 * 2) 2A -- watch time for 1A and flow
 * 3) Give them signal
 * 4) Minimize intervention but nudge them when necessary
 * 1) 1N is prepping based off what 2N wants
 * 2) 1A/2A getting ready for 2A - talking to each other
 * 1) Everyone is flowing
 * 2) 1N-- having a complete flow is good for later comprehension

1. Everyone flows Post Debate Time
 * 1) Good to understand judges decision
 * 2) Check judges decision
 * 3) Want to be able to give redoes
 * 4) Want to check your strategy

1. Write an RFD for why you lost a. See how you could of lost

2. Think about debate so you can see if you were on same page

Decision > a. Respectfully b. Ask politely if they can explain something Intra Debates
 * 1) Go to bathroom, water ext, but only one person can leave on your team at a time
 * 2) Presence after debate -- it shows if you care or not
 * 1) At least one person is there preferable two
 * 2) Write down the RFD
 * 3) Ask the judge questions about the decision
 * - DAs
 * - CPs
 * - Case
 * - Stem
 * - Military

Notes 7/18
Writing a Case Neg Steps 1. Obtain the 1AC a. Put 1AC in dropbox Lab Notes 2. Read

a. Read the footnotes/references the 1AC articles to figure out the context 3. What

a. Answers to advantages i. 1NC frontlines-- that cover each one of the arguments you want to make in the 1NC 1. Argument diversity-- different types of arguments Right to Education Affirmative 1. Version one > they are constitutional
 * 1) 2NC extensions
 * 2) Cards that you think are the best
 * 3) Solvency take out-- reason affs do not solve a set of impacts
 * 1) Impact defense
 * 2) You want answers to different parts of the case
 * 3) Links for offensive position (have links to the aff)
 * 4) Figure out what links or solvency cards are the best those go in 1NC
 * 5) Decide if the aff is topical
 * 6) Find cards for generics
 * 1) Strict scrutiny advantage-- legal doctrine that applies to regulations and whether
 * 1) Spillover-- we will disagree to this spillover
 * 2) we should apply strict scrutiny to undue burden

i. Abortion law= super complicated
 * 1) Abortion advantage

1. Planned parenthood vs. Casey a. States can limit abortion rights, unless the regulation will cause an “undue burden” on the women 2. Roe vs Wade

a. Right to privacy means you can have a right to abortion c. Offensive on strict scrutiny being bad > do anything about strict scrutiny 1. To win on neg on cp you have to win cp is better than plan, and that cp and plan together is worse than the cp
 * 1) We can say the spill over also happens in another area (ex. military)
 * 2) Federalism -- concept of strict scrutiny is bad for federalism
 * 3) Combine with counterplan that solves all of the aff and says we shouldn't

2. The net benefit of the cp can be a case turn
 * 1) Version two
 * 2) Courts or courts + congress
 * 3) Reorganize school districts to ensure funding is equitable
 * 4) Global democracy/liberalism/
 * 5) competitiveness
 * 6) Economic rights and human rights equality
 * 1) Off case arguments that link
 * 2) Congress CP
 * 3) Courts DA
 * 4) Clog
 * 5) Legitimacy
 * 6) Stripping


 * 1) State courts CP
 * 2) Distinguish CP

i. If they overrule rodriguez Zero Tolerance AFF
 * 1) Spending DA
 * 2) Federalism DA
 * 3) T - doing plan through courts is not regulation
 * 4) Neoliberalism K
 * 5) Deschooling K
 * 6) Competitiveness K (only applies to 2nd version)
 * 7) CRT

1. Zero tolerance - a strict set of regulations that are enforced with escalating strict policies a. Ex: someone says a bad word once and they get detention, instead of a warning a. School - prison pipeline is bad
 * 1) Federal law-- zero tolerance for guns in schools
 * 2) Version one -- AS Lab

i. Sending students to schools directly > because the things they are taught and influenced by in schools influences the construction themselves making them more likely to behave in ways that will send them to prison\ b. Reproductive rights 4. Version two -ST lab >> zero tolerance
 * 1) Directly contributes to young people going to school
 * 2) Children think they should be in prison and then act like that
 * 1) Restorative justice
 * 2) One alternative to system of incarceration by which we lock people up
 * 3) Idea that the people affected should be the center of justice
 * 4) Lets figure out what went wrong and how to move forward as opposed to

> a. T- regulation > > i. What zero tolerance is and is not in a regulation
 * 1) Due process/youth rights
 * 2)  c. School prison pipeline 5. Answers to this aff
 * 1) T- funding and increase
 * 2) Increase funding is actually increasing funding vs removing a barrier
 * 3) Need cards contextualizing 0 tolerance

i. May or may not apply g. Court Clog DA (if available) > Natives Aff > > 1. ST-indigenous education “change federal funding formula and or support federally > responsive education” > > a. Educational cultural sovereignty > i. Indigenous-- people or things relating to a place > > 1. US- Native Americans -- people who live here before Christopher > Columbus > > 2. HK- USFG enables control of Native American Education Funding i. When one steal land that’s not theirs and make it theirs 3. Research > a. Are their federal laws that mandate Native Americans have to go to certain schools > 4. We can respond with criticism of language of Aff i. If they use this term we can use this as a link
 * 1) Ev on zero tolerance being good for somethings
 * 2) Restorative justice failing
 * 3) Possible states CP
 * 4) Deschooling K
 * 1) Forcing native americans into charter schools is settler colonialism and cultural genocide
 * 2) Settler colonialism-- when you settle on land that's not yours and colonize land that's not yours and live over it
 * 1) Native education vs indigenous knowledge
 * 2) Settler colonialism
 * 1) If they say “ban natives from charter schools”
 * 2) We say it’s good for the to go
 * 3) Us telling them what not to do is just as bad as us telling them what to od
 * 4) Right to equal access
 * 5) Consult the tribal leaders CP
 * 6) Leave it to them to do whatever they want


 * 1) Offcase
 * 2) T- its
 * 3) Spending Da

i. If they give money


 * 1)  c. Counterplan that has another party give money
 * 2) 50 states and all relevant territories
 * 3) Plan = find N.A.Ed

1. CP= Fund N.A.Ed by taxing weed >> their language i. Marx K > Stem
 * 1) CRT?
 * 2) We shouldn’t say “natives” or “indigenous” we should say there are problems with
 * 1) Historical Materialism
 * 1) Probably competitive grants
 * 2) US competitiveness
 * 3) US premacy is good


 * 1) Neg Strategies
 * 2) States CP
 * 3) Other countries CP (China)
 * 4) Spending DA
 * 5) Federalism DA
 * 6) Neoliberalism K
 * 7) Deschooling K
 * 8) Pic out of any part of stem
 * 9) Counterplan to improve stem at workforce level

Milliken v. Bradley AFF
 * 1) We should reverse decision because of racism
 * 2) Segregation is bad Advantage
 * 3) Neg strategy
 * 4) Spending DA
 * 5) Courts DA
 * 6) Courts everything
 * 7) Federalism= mandate bussing
 * 8) CRT-- integration is bad
 * 9) Bussing is bad
 * 10) Fossil fuels
 * 11) Environment
 * 12) Wastes time + increases car accidents + costs money


 * 1) Equal opportunity housing stuff
 * 2) Deschooling K
 * 3) Assume schools are good
 * 4) Schools wont be segregated if there are no schools


 * 1) Neoliberalism K

i. Nothing to do w race, just rich vs poor people > F Visas Aff > > 1. Student visas > >
 * 1) Competitiveness advantage
 * 2) Tech stuff advantage
 * 3) US-China relations advantage?
 * 4) Let more students into country and pay for them to go to highschool and give them

money 6. Neg > a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. for their tuition > Neoliberalism K Brain Drain DA Security K/Borders K Deschooling K > Visas K > > Visas hurt people > > Wages DA > > Spending DA > > T/Extra T argument depending on what they do w visas Funding Pic/have someone else pay happens post school? 7. What Foreign Language AFF > > 1. Passes parts of the NSLA k-12 bill > a. National security language act
 * 1) Either they stay in country-- good for competitiveness but leads to brain drain da
 * 2) If they leave - bad for competitiveness but doesn’t lead to brain drain da
 * 1) Trade/econ advantage
 * 2) Terrorism advantage
 * 3) Neg
 * 4) Security K/ War on terror starts at home stuff from militarism
 * 5) Spending DA
 * 6) On case-- there are no teachers
 * 7) Stem DA/CP
 * 8) Case- terrorism not real
 * 9) Neoliberalism K
 * 10) Deschooling K
 * 11) States CP
 * 12) Federalism DA
 * 13) Solvency-- people don’t want to study
 * 14) CP - Visas, Israel, Saudi Arabia
 * 15) Learning another language does not solve

i. People won’t go into the field Ability/Assessment a. Unfair- disabled, poor, disability > 3. Neg
 * 1) Bill that lets parents opt out of assessment/standardized test
 * 2) Testing is flawed

Decolonization aff --HK
 * 1) Inherency?
 * 2) States CP/Federalism DA
 * 3) College DA
 * 4) Different Test CP?
 * 5) Test Prep CP
 * 6) Stem DA/CP
 * 7) T-decrease
 * 8) Spending DA
 * 9) Testing Good DA
 * 1) Advantage- existing system is colonial-- crowds out non western knowledge
 * 2) Afrocentric knowledge is good
 * 3) If you look back at before slavery how the tribes and groups in Africa produced knowledge-- don’t know if that is actually what it is
 * 4) Teach it
 * 1) Neg
 * 2) Competitiveness DA
 * 3) T-- USFG if community aff
 * 4) Essentialism K/some people don’t like i
 * 5) Spending DA
 * 6) Federalism DA/States CP

Federalism DA general notes > disrupts that with the federal gov-- sets a bad model because other countries who copy us will increase strong federal control
 * 1) Federalism -- balance of power between central gov and the states
 * 2) DA says there is a lot of state power now and states are taking lead on education, aff

Notes 7/19
Natives HK 1. Neg Lab Notes Case Neg Work
 * 1) States
 * 2) Funding
 * 3) Doesn’t solve
 * 4) Consult the native CP
 * 5) Criticize language of plan tex
 * 6) Cards to find
 * 7) States can pay for it
 * 8) State funding would resolve issues
 * 1) Advantages
 * 2) Culture
 * 3) Solvency

Natives TS 1. Neg > are wrong with these bills i. Bill wants to encourage school interior facilities 1. Not topical c. Consult the natives CP d. Criticize language of plan text
 * 1) No evidence that says the states can’t do it
 * 2) There is a specific bill the plan says they will solve -- we need to find things that

2. We need to figure out what the bill does Accessibility 1. Neg i. When students opt out its not enjoyable
 * 1) Opting out means you're not taking standardized test which has bad implications
 * 2) Giving the people the opportunity to opt out isn't a useful plan
 * 3) CP-- different types of tests
 * 4) Argue-- testing is key, not letting people opt out

1. Good stigma (opt out) “standardized testing” i. Say its bad
 * 1) People would not choose to opt out
 * 2) Google banking model of education
 * 1) Cut reasons for veto
 * 2) States CP
 * 3) T - deregulation

i. Find card that says this thing is a regulation j. Deschooling K 2. Banking model of education

a. The student passively gets knowledge from teacher and then regurgitates it 3. Opportunity cost

a. Idea that doing one thing forecloses the possibility of doing another thing Foreign language NSLA 1. Neg i. Curriculum requirements i. Gives visas to people Stem
 * 1) Spending DA
 * 2) States CP
 * 3) Federalism DA links
 * 1) Deschooling K
 * 2) Neoliberalism K
 * 3) Cut a ton of uniqueness cards that foreign language is up now
 * 4) Visas CP

1. Neg i. Federalism DA
 * 1) CP-- other countries can do the plan
 * 2) States CP

c. Case offense- liberal arts key to innovation 2. Advantages
 * 1) People won't join after school because people are doing other d=things
 * 2) Trade-off with afterschool activities

a. Competitiveness b. Industries -- pharmaceutical and chemicals

i. Chemical industry innovation is key to solving extinction Right to Education 1. Neg a. Specific Links to Generics (except deschooling K) 2. Advantages Decolonization 1. Neg 2. Solvency mechanism
 * 1) Human Rights
 * 2) Impact Framing
 * 1) Impact Framing
 * 1) CRT
 * 2) Neoliberalism K
 * T

a. Black panther party

b. Black panther movement c. Decolonization

3. Root cause = impact argument Zero Tolerance Aff 1. Neg i. States like 0 tolerance policy Foreign Visas 1. Neg Milliken vs. Bradley 1. Advantage a. Educational inequality 2. Neg i. Congress CP
 * 1) Guns in schools are bad
 * 2) Zero tolerance for guns is necessary to stop gun violence
 * 3) Federalism DA
 * 1) Brain Drain
 * 2) Politics?
 * 3) Trumps tax cut plan
 * 4) Trump political capital
 * 1) CRT
 * 2) Court legitimacy

3. Aff says right now there are lots of segregated neighborhoods, as a result public schools are segregated, court ruled if you can’t prove that was done randomly it’s not segregation, aff says it is and we need to challenge it Kritiks General > we think about the world is correct
 * 1) Disagree with assumptions or premises of affirmatives
 * 2) These implicated whether the effect is good, but links often talk about whether the way
 * 1) Epistemology - study of knowledge
 * 2) Ontology- study of being

Structure of Kritik

1. The aff starts with x set of assumptions a. Neoliberalism example - markets are good a. The alt
 * 1) Here is why that assumption is problematic
 * 2) Instead of that we should start from a different assumption

i. Here is our new way of thinking about the world 4. The point of competition for Kritiks is at the level assumptions > 5. Make arguments about representation or the way you have chosen to describe something or represent something in a debate > a. The representation is attached to some knowledge of a thing i. Knowledge or description is problematic > b. Discourse-- word + meaning > > 6. The outcome of the plan is acknowledged by the knowledge of the affirmative > a. You can never say something is good until you can justify what good is 7. The alternative > a. An explanation of how else we could assume the world works > b. Instead How to Respond with Aff a. We shouldn’t have to debate about our assumptions > Neoliberalism K >>> (shared link w foreign education) a. People to come here to help US economy 5. Link Standardized Testing does not link > a. Link idea-- idea of allowing people to opt out leads to choice 6. Link School-Prison pipeline > a. Messed up to lock kids who are under 18 up 7. Link: Right to education > a. Right to education entails need to produce more capital from each individual i. End goal is to have individuals be productive citizens
 * 1) Disagree about how we ought to think about these things
 * 2) Should the affirmatives assumption be included or not
 * 3) i. Not necessarily concerned with plan, but even if it is the plan is not primary question
 * 1) That’s not the assumption we have made
 * 2) Alt no saolves
 * 3) Perm
 * 4) Defend the assumption
 * 5) Framework (it has issues tho)
 * 1) The aff is defending a system that assumes that people are things that produce capitol
 * 2) Links to competitiveness
 * 3) Link to STEM
 * 4) Lots of job opportunities in the workforce
 * 5) STEM education is important to produce people who can go into workforce
 * 1) Links to Visas

Notes 7/20

 * Note: Advantage CP-solves the impacts of the Aff’s advantages

Millikan Affirmative Plan – Emily

 * States CP
 * Congress CP
 * Deschooling is definitely possible
 * Advantage CP:
 * Resolves the two advantages
 * DA to read with:
 * Politics DA
 * Spending DA
 * Brain Drain DA
 * Timeframe argument
 * Research VISA policy and why H1 VISAS are needed
 * On Case Cards to Find:
 * Not closely related to military hot spots they claim to solve
 * Relations with China are improving
 * Relations don’t solve
 * No spillover
 * Inherency- relations have already been solved
 * Search “Educational and Culture Engagements”

Natives Affirmative Plan – Kacie

 * T argument on elementary and secondary education
 * Spending DA – how much the Aff would cost and if it would push over the threshold
 * Figure out which version of the Spending DA you would like to use
 * Spending DA is more generic but if the Aff doesn’t spend a lot of money, there is no link
 * Debt Limit DA- any amount of money can trgger it (good and bad)
 * What bill does:
 * Creates a constest
 * Consults with Indian Tribes
 * Mostly about colleges and Universities
 * Teaches the Native American language
 * Spends money
 * Already Cut Cards:
 * Restorative Justice doesn’t work
 * Zero Tolerance is beneficial and needed – in response to Social Justice advantage
 * Texas wants Zero Tolerance for Marijuana – linked to generic federalism DA
 * Portland spends millions of dollars for restorative justice by increasing violence – Spending DA
 * PIC CP – eliminate zero tolerance except for this thing
 * Write the CP text
 * DA to getting rid of zero tolerance on sexual assault is bad
 * Net benefit-zero tolerance policy is necessary for reducing sexual assault
 * Already Cut Cards:
 * Zero Tolerance started off good but schools started to limit too many things using Zero Tolerance
 * CP- keep some zero tolerance policies
 * Federalism DA link
 * T- decrease in regulation – deregulation isn’t regulation
 * Find cards saying the states could do it – net benefit of federalism
 * Find cards saying states want authority over zero tolerance policies – they want it to be their choice

Decolonization – Anthony

 * Looking at the State-phobia K
 * External impacts – extinction and climate change
 * Link to Aff – their Mignolo ’09 -
 * Deschooling – find a card on Afrocentric education
 * This form of education is within a larger form of education that is problematic
 * Afrocentric education assumption that Africa is a single unit is problematic
 * Write up a block that identifies three link arguments based on things the 1AC says
 * What assumptions about decolonization are made and why are they bad?
 * Have link specific cards and try to find how they link to 1AC cards
 * Possible Fem Ks
 * Still need to find the link cards
 * Already found alt cards
 * After School PE trade off DA:
 * Increase of academic topics take away from physical activity programs
 * Impact- leads of obesity
 * Impact – obesity kills Heg
 * Find card that says if people join STEM or after school educational opportunities takes away from physical activity
 * Competitiveness
 * Find card that says doing STEM during school solves
 * States CP
 * Federalism DA
 * Find Learning STEM after school doesn’t solve
 * Find Uniqueness card
 * Liberal Arts Case Turn
 * Liberal Arts lead to innovation
 * Deschooling Link – they assume that schooling kids is key to fight the WOT – the aff uses education as the means to an end to stop terrorism
 * Find cards saying that it is racist
 * Have K links
 * Use of foreign language training in educational context for the purpose of WOT – someone would be critizing the way that we think about the purposes and uses of education is problematic when it is for purposes that are about protecting the nation state
 * Links to Security K – criticism of the way we talk about threats to ourselves or the world
 * Neolib – neoliberal foeirgn language school
 * Visas CP
 * STEM da cp
 * States cp
 * Advocacy Statement
 * They have cards saying the government is bad
 * Right now the education system (standardized testing specifically) creates segregation and widens the achievement gap
 * Topicality arguments
 * Possibly run a K because they have used the language of the “first step”
 * State phobia – if the USFG does it, there will still be racism – link card in their 1AC
 * Look through state phobia K and find three places in their 1AC where they link
 * Use of Critical Race Theory ought not be regulated
 * Deployment is a weird metaphor/word to use
 * Find Deschooling cards
 * Write out the parts of the 1AC that we disagree with
 * Cut Cards
 * Standardized testing good
 * Found three cards – allows us to study the achievement gap, shows the inequality in our system, and enforces a more structured curriculum
 * Found cards saying opting out doesn’t solve
 * Also found card saying the states can solve it
 * Find cards saying opting out worsens inequality

Native – Renna

 * Spending DA – Aff spends $450 million
 * Read the Deficit Spending DA
 * Solvency in aff is funding the DIE schools but the problem is that even the curriculum is still Eurocentric so they don’t solve
 * States CP
 * Every website goes to federal government website
 * Will be hard to link because the natives are very closely related to the federal government
 * Net benefit – tribes are different so we should consult the tribal leaders to better fit their cultures
 * Standards are good but the assessments are bad – this is in their aff – funding the BIE schools won’t fix this – doesn’t solve
 * CRT - link card flows aff so we can’t do this
 * Looking up cards on strict scrutiny
 * Find cards saying strict scrutiny won’t spill over into abortion laws

Notes 7/21
Topicality - comparison of aff and negs models of debate or what debate should look like 1NC shell

1. Interpretation -- lays out the negatives vision of what a word or phrase in the resolution means i. Legal dictionary
 * 1) Grounded in evidence (card)
 * 2) interpretation evidence sources:

1. Make arguments about the meaning of words for the purpose of establishing something in law ii. Legal code (laws, and court decisions) 1. When people make decisions in courts they will often have to say for the purpose of this decision I had to decide what x,y,z mean’t iii. Contextual usage

1. Department of education a. People in relevant fields talking about meaning of terms or phrases in the resolution 2. Literature reviews > plan) why that falls outside of the negative vision of the word or phrase from the resolution > for why the judge should prefer the negs interpretation >> that debate itself is a good game to play
 * 1) Violation-- explains why the affirmative and specifically the plan (unless aff doesn't read
 * 1) Don’t want typicalities on advantages, just on what they plan to “fiat”
 * 2) If no plan- use advocacy statement to run typicalities on
 * 1) Reason to vote neg/reason our interpretation is good/standards-- describe the argument
 * 1) Disadvantages to any interp that would allow the aff
 * 2) Impacts to reasons to prefer interpretation, have to be connected to the reason
 * 1) What values does your interp maximize
 * 2) What values does aff interp minimize
 * 3) Why is your interp valuable

>> topic(limits)
 * 1) Different standards
 * 2) Value in maximizing the depth in which we research and talk about the
 * 1) Depth > breath
 * 2) Better/more focused debates that clash with one another


 * 1) Ground -- the ways the negative can engage the aff
 * 2) Some people say there is always ground because there’s always something to disagree on
 * 3) Predictable Ground -- ground you came into the debate having prepared

>> >>> which affs are topical because you can tell which affs spend money and which don’t >>>> exclusive (say what’s excluded in the topic)
 * 1) Limits
 * 1) Strict side debate-- you can basically read aff on neg
 * 2) Bright line-- you can obviously tell if something spends money or not--you can tell
 * 1) If there is a bright line it makes it more predictable
 * 2) Best topicality cards are included (say what's included in topic) and

>>> qualifications 5. Voting issue i. Vote neg because it’s more fair, or more educational, or maximize x,yx value >> 6. Values to forcing affs to be topical >> >> a. Agonism- we should argue without feeling strongly about it, benefits come >> through disagreement >> >> i. Opposite of antagonistic relationship >> b. Switch side argument >> >> i. Educational argument how to determine how to defend both sides of an >> issue c. Limits >> i. Standard of why an interpretation is good, impact of why that must be a voting issue is because if debate is not fair than the impact is not good >> d. Public speaking skills >> >> i. If you don’t have anything topical to say, you don’t learn skills of debate >> and you can’t engage with those things e. Abuse = problematic metaphor >> i. Abuse is a loaded term prefer squirly >> Topicality >>> be Aff responses (2AC) >> >> 1. We meet -- aff falls within Negs definition of the word or phrase >> a. Don’t always need evidence-- don’t read a purely inclusive definition to establish “we meet” >> 2. Provide a counter interpretation -- provides a proposed interp of word or phrase that includes the affirmative >> a. Need evidence
 * 1) Qualifications -- comparison of authors- authors have specific and credible
 * 1) Specificity - evidence is more specific about topic
 * 1) Topicality is a voting issue because of the standards
 * 2) You have to win your standards - reason to win your interpretation
 * 1) You are proposing an argument of what debate ought to look like, and what it ought to
 * 1) Not saying that because you vote neg you decide aff isn’t topical
 * 2) Competing models or competing


 * 1)  b. The aff must meet their counter interpretation- don’t read counter interp that the aff clearly does not meet
 * 2) We meet our counter interpretation
 * 3) Reasons to prefer our interpretation
 * 4) The flipside of what we said on the neg
 * 5) Advantages to affs interp of resolution and disadvantages to the negs

i. Point out both of these things >> >> c. Reasons to prefer do not require evidence but there may be evidence sometimes >> that people might read >> >> d. Most of standards are same
 * 1) Only standard that changes from aff to neg a. Limit
 * 2) Aff says that negs interp makes it too easy for negative
 * 3) “Over limiting is bad”
 * 4) Aff needs to win that having more affs is better for debate for these reasons xyz..
 * 5) What value does it maximize to have more affs (including yours)

>>> harder for the neg a. Suggests judge should determine whether aff meets a reasonable interp of topic >> i. Neg has to win that our model of debate is sooo bad that it is impossible to debate, not just that neg has interp that is a little bit better >> 7. Specific Arguments the aff might make (specific to the aff these aren't generic) Answering affs Topic is bad arguments-- neg answers >>> about parameter for what aff defends, not how it does it a. The neg in order to win should have to win the practice of being topical, not that >> thte topic in itself is good i. Includes USFG >>>> >>>> that in 50 percent of your debates you get to talk about why the USFG is bad >>>> i. Saying anything is bad is negative ground >>>>> unethical
 * 1) Reasonability -- do not vote against the aff just because the aff made debate a little bit
 * 1) Productivity bad
 * 2) Do not tell me what to do
 * 3) Our things should be done in secret so predictability is bad
 * 4) Any aff can have different reasons why different standards/limits are bad
 * 1) Many ways to affirm the topic that do allow you to talk about identity/other stuff
 * 2) They say t is bad bc it excludes certain things but that is not the case topicality talks
 * 1) If aff offense is usfg is bad, instinct is to say the USFG is good but it draws you into a debate you don't have to win-- you have already said the aff has won if you are trying to say USFG is good
 * 2) Predictable plan of stasis
 * 3) When aff says USFG is bad thus no topical plan
 * 4) Reading a topical plan is not the same as defending the USFG -its saying they should do something, that thing can be a radical shift away from current process
 * 5) Not responsive to the argument that the aff should be topical
 * 6) No requirement that the aff defend goodness of USFG in reading a topical plan
 * 7)  Such a lovely coincidence
 * 1) If aff doesn’t have to fall within topic their aff can be US is
 * 1) If aff does this neg has to say US is ethical which aff is saying is

impossible >>>> >>>> 6. When aff says education/education policy is bad a. b. c. d. >>>> 7. Why is a. >>>> b. Any criticism you have is a good neg strat >>>> >>>> Don’t force neg to say something you say is super unethical/impossible >>>> >>>> No relationship between voting aff and aff being good idea >>>> >>>> The arguments we have made demonstrates neg came to debate with no ability to test whether the aff is a good idea >>>> i. Not a testable proposition if we have no idea how to debate it because it is not topical >>>> 1. Means aff has showed up and expects you to vote on it with no one saying their ev is wrong >>>> T bad (aff argument)?-- how do respond to this as neg >>>> >>>> What is debate if we can’t tell you what and what we can’t talk about Limits bad answer >>>> i. Debate is a game- we are not telling you what to do in life, we are only saying you need to affirm the topic >>>> 1. Games need rules in order to function
 * 1) Aff gives ground for how neg can respond
 * 2) Aff tells neg what to do
 * 3) Aff limits too much ground


 * 1) Aff is telling neg what they have to do by saying they have to disagree

Notes 7/22
T continued... How to respond to Aff “Fairness” argument when you are neg > the debate those things should be mitigated again by procedural fairness How to convince judge that the case outweighs, or T and Case are separate things > a. Unfair for the neg to respond to case because they would never anticipated debating the aff because it’s not under the resolution a. Why is it important that the aff be debated in response to research, and to a prepared uphomen
 * 1) Lots of inequalities (some people have more resources/advantages) but once you're in
 * 1) Rules of game create competitive equity
 * 1) Even if aff doesn’t fall within resolution it does not mean its a bad idea
 * 1) If the judge decides the aff is good without any neg research that can’t contest it \

i. You cannot verify the truth claims of the affirmative if they are not contrast with a prepared opponent that is researched > about 3. Evaluate T- we shouldn’t evaluate the affs case because you do not know if they are true because the neg cannot contest them
 * 1) Every aff could be true if no one gets the chance to respond
 * 2) Competitive incentive to say things the other team knows nothing

Spending DA 1NC Components > default a. Reserve currency status-- currency in which global transactions are paid 4. Impact-- -dollar decline kills US hegemony- great power wars/instability Impact Comparison Impact
 * 1) Uniqueness -- budget cuts now-- fiscal discipline -- economic growth
 * 2) Link- plan spends $ -- undermines budget cuts/undermines fiscal discipline -- debt
 * 1) Internal link -- debt default -- causes dollar to lose reserve currency status
 * 1) Value of what you're paying is determined by the dollar
 * 2) The dollar sets up a base to determine what other currencies are worth
 * 1) Why judge should be more concerned with your impact than at the other teams impact
 * 2) Assume each team is winning the equivalent risk of their offense
 * 3) When debating terminal impact assume they are winning same risk as you are of your offense
 * 4) Aff and disad are roughly equally likely -- why should the judge prefer to air against the thing you avoid as opposed to the thing the aff solves?
 * 5) Do it on part of debate where it makes sense as opposed to disconnected overview


 * 1) Make them on part of flow where they make sense as opposed to disconnected overview

a. Don’t think of it as a checklist >>> probable
 * 1) Magnitude
 * 2) Probability
 * 3) Time frame
 * 4) Figure out where your impact is strongest and talk about the way your impact is the strongest is the most important
 * 5) Make your impact access the other sides impact
 * 6) Your impact leading to other sides impact
 * 7) If your impact solves the other sides impact
 * 8) If yours is US growth that solves a number of conflicts, or risk of biodiversity collapse
 * 9) Useful to have a card
 * 1) Do it as low on the internal link chain as possible
 * 2) Link turns case-- internal link turnes case-- impact turns the case
 * 3) Turns case should be further up the ladder because it makes them more

1. Have an argument that the link turns case, internal link turns case, and impact turns case 6. DA Solves the case vs turns the case i. Turn the ability to solve or turn their impact
 * 1) Turns-- by passing the plan instead of solving impacts it hurts the impacts
 * 2) The DA solves-- the status quo solves
 * 3) Turns the case

1. Solvency is better (further up on chain which is better) Ways where impacts can outweigh one another

1. Magnitude- larger in scope than the other sides impact -- body count (how many people die or how many people are affected)

a. Our impact is inclusive of yours

b. Extinction - largest impact because everyone dies

c. Talk about how an impact reaches extinction-- don’t let other team get away with that

d. War impacts i. Escalation-- which conflict is more likely to bring in larger powers 1. Which is more likely to include nuclear weapons > risk of drawing in larger countries 2. Time frame-- Refers to idea some impacts happen more quickly than others a. Systemic impacts-- happen recur over time > 1. Racism > > b. Events based impact-- particular scenario based off chain of consequences > i. Quicker than systemic because it happens all at once and happens at a short period time, accumulative effect of systemic impact takes a very long time to total up > c. Make time frame arguments about terminal impact as opposed to the link >> longer term impact
 * 1) Countries involved
 * 2) Alliances- countries with alliances will be larger because there is a higher
 * 1) Basis for all life- biodiversity or other environment based impact
 * 1) Happening right now- already happening
 * 2) Examples
 * 1)  2. Sexism
 * 1) Easier to win DA turns case if the DA happens first-- your impact implicates the
 * 1) Idea of intervening actors
 * 2) The longer term the impact the more likely something happens that an actor will intervene and prevent the impact from being that bad
 * 3) Answer to this argument- at a certain point we pass the point of return

1. Look at time frame of that point as opposed to time frame of when everyone does because past that point its inevitable everyone will > die > > f. Linearity-- refers to idea of an impact that progresses and becomes more and > more over time > > i. Works similar to a systemic impact but everyday that passes it gets worse > 1. Cumulative > 2. View impact over a time frame 3. probability -- likelihood of a particular impact >> it’s human caused and happening Don’t use any of the buzzwords they do not mean anything > What has to be true for the 1AC to include impact assessment > > 1. If you are positive you will win magnitude, time frame, or probability but not others start > early so you know where your debate is going to go > > a. If you have an impact where you could go for either do not compare as much > early wait to see how they respond > Categories
 * 1) Systemic impacts- already happening- certainty that is is true because it is already occurring
 * 2) The scenario in which other team has no defense- you can be certain that this impact is very bad because they have no contest that
 * 3) Give a standard to which you define probability
 * 4) Climate change-- consensus climate change is bad and full consensus that say
 * 1) Magnitude
 * 2) Time frame
 * 3) Probability
 * 4) turns/solves the case

Notes 7/27
Aff

How to answer questions about aff (military recruitment) What is a militarized practice? > > > > > reference evidence- two of largest things are military recruiters and allowing school activities like the JROTC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Should we teach about 9/11 > > Questions/Use arguments about discourse > What is our argument about discourse?
 * 1)  JROTC
 * 1)  Surveillance
 * 1)  Recruitment
 * 1)  Posters
 * 1)  Our evidence says there are a lot of things that are included in militaristic practices-
 * 1)  Our ev also points out there are a bunch of things schools do that are militarized practices-- here are some of the ones that our evidence includes
 * 2)  0 tolerance policies
 * 1)  Cameras in rooms
 * 1)  History classes
 * 1)  We teach xyz
 * 1)  Curriculum
 * 1)  Includes certain things- obviously there are other ones that are included
 * 1)  We should but in a way that does not make US look like it’s the best country ever
 * 1)  We should change the way we walk about the military

1. An important portion of the debate is the assumptions we make and way we think about the world, and the plan text is an example of what that leads to a. We ought to think about the world in a non militaristic way >> >> interact with the world >> > > gov-- we can say that these assumptions are bad > a. When we assume other countries are a threat - making assumptions- it leads to  the US making a set of conclusions that are bad
 * 1)  We should assume US should not be militaristic
 * 2)  The united states should stop teaching militarized practices
 * 1)  We should make are arguments about this set of assumptions, and use that to
 * 1)  The debate is more important than just the plan text
 * 1)  Federalism DA makes assumptions that US is key and other countries model western

5. Advantage of our aff is we have made this set of assumptions are good Alt Causes on Case

How does discourse effect this? > > are less militaristic - plan on vacuum means I am only thinking about plan not the > discourse centered around it > > a. We have a president who loves wars because we have people who love wars vote for a president who votes wars 4. There are other bad things is not a reason not to vote for the aff
 * 1)  It’s not just the plan it’s the discourse of the 1AC
 * 1)  The discourse that is justifying the plan means we will take things differently in ways that
 * 1)  The plan of military practices in schools shape these other things

a. We should still do the aff because the logic that there are other things so we shouldn't do the aff is what perpetuates the bad discourse/policies Discourse vs rhetoric > >> >> > > strategy is saying militarism is inevitable > a. Self fulfilling prophecy- countries will always be threats so we have to attack is  part of whole discourse we are rejecting How to use the 1AC on other pieces of paper General > (reference your evidence) > > > Blocks 1. 2. 3. 4. a. Have analytical argument that crites the DA with 1AC evidence
 * 1)  Rhetoric = words we say to do something
 * 1)  Discourse = words and what philosophical ideas they are connected to
 * 2)  Part of tradition of knowledge
 * 1)  Words have more weight than just the word itself
 * 1)  Nguyen card is making argument about the way we think about the world is important
 * 1)  Assumption that those things are inevitable is part of military discourse-part of whole
 * 1)  Explain argument made by the relevant 1AC arguments and give author and date
 * 1)  Don’t read new cards in 2AC unless something very significant is brought up
 * 1)  When they read DA use militaristic arguments on it

i. Coupled with here's what the 1AC said about the same discourse we were just talking about b. Counterplans i. Solvency deficit argument on discourse > > because they are making a whole different set of assumptions > What is our answer to alt causes specifically- pre typed out things we are going to read Block that is impact extinction
 * 1)  CP made a different set of assumptions about the world
 * 1)  Any CP there making - one other reason they are advocating is

Discourse is important extention

A2: alt causes Kritiks What is the assumption we have made that they say is bad? 1. Militarism is bad > > > > problem with the government- only assumptions they can disagree with > Deschooling > >> >> > productive is good or you make schools look better > > > which means the permutation should solve > > will use military in schools (so we link turn) > a. If Kritik has to disagree with assumption of 1AC either they disagree so alt has to  say this is bad
 * 1)  We should not have it in schools
 * 1)  Doing things to fix that is good
 * 1)  Talking about is what matters
 * 1)  This means either kritiks says why are you focused on schools, or its you try to solve a
 * 1)  Cross Ex question: What is the assumption that the 1AC that you think is wrong?
 * 1)  Answers (debating Kritiks should not be hard)
 * 2)  We didn’t make that assumption
 * 1)  Our assumption is good
 * 1)  Deschooling assumption-- we have said schools are good- teaching people to be
 * 1)  What part of the 1AC is incompatible with the alternative?
 * 1)  Autonomic communities-- PERM -- aff does not fundamentally disagree with these things
 * 1)  Either the alt assumes all the assumptions in 1AC (perm do both) or the alt disagrees we

i. Therefore it’s not we should remove military people from schools 1. Us saying we should remove military from schools is offense on the alt ii. If they say we should also do a bunch of things, that means they agree with 1AC and do other things so just perm do both > > i. Here is no link and reason that if we don’t do the plan the alternative will fail
 * 1)  Make the argument that’s like- what is your way of getting people out of schools - military will show up in your autonomic communities
 * 1)  If you go for perm

7. Charity cannibalism-- > > Settler Colonialism > settlers/colonist have a set of rights and those who have been colonized do not > > and by doing that they assumed people who were there did not matter- killed native > people and established America > > right to take those actions >
 * 1)  We are not attempting to create legitimacy from the school- militaristic ideals are bad
 * 1)  Neg has to disagree with you so does alternative--answer: we don’t cover bad things, do the plan feel bad about it who cares
 * 1)  Argument that says- foundation of the United States is based on the idea that
 * 1)  Europeans came over to the US and were like we can establish government and laws,
 * 1)  Before we take any actions- or the gov takes any actions we must assume we have the

a. Ex; have right to tax people because gov thinks they are entitled to land-- everything we do happens on stolen land > > a. Not everyone is either a settler or colonized
 * 1)  Simple version of this: 1, plan takes place on native land 2, give back the land
 * 1)  Answers

i. Large population came over as neither- they were slaves, critical race theory people hate settler colonialism >> >> > schools >> >> government cannot even restrict its own authority >> > a. Neg can’t do that it’s unfair > > b. Proves the permutation is a good idea > > c. If we prove assumption that we disagree about it actually good the PIK is still bad d. Usually people say it in the 2NC because there hoping you drop it > Kritiks in line with aff
 * 1)  This K only links to natives
 * 2)  Aff assumes the federal gov giving money to native populations is a good idea- neg says we really disagree federal government should do that thing
 * 1)  The K directly answer the aff
 * 1)  Best version of link- you assume government has authority to remove themselves from
 * 1)  We respond saying- the gov should take authority away from themselves
 * 1)  K disagrees with none of the 1AC- their version of this is so absurd its saying the
 * 1)  When neg says: The alt results in the aff

1. Remember impact card you read- that is aff impact we can agree that seeing threats internationally is terrible > > everything they have said > Framework
 * 1)  Neg just said all other DAs are wrong
 * 1)  You can concede the impact to the argument - here is why in essence against

1. Aff argument- neg has to prove the aff is bad, not specific to kritik just our argument about everything - implicit in concept of debating

a. We said something you have to agree or we win Conditional = advocacies are conditional or not DOD CP, and what part of US we use What branch of USFG do we use? > > should be done > Blocks 1. Add a block to aspec Answers to DOD CP 1. Perm do the CP- CP is an example of how aff could be done - this proves the aff is a good idea
 * 1)  The affirmative does not have to specify- the most likely way we do this is x
 * 1)  We shouldn't have debate about the actor, we should have debate about whether this

2. Agent counterplans are bad - and propose a different model of debate

a. They have to prove the USFG should not do the plan

b. Bad for education- skirts the topic education- we don’t actually debate anything educational

c. Neg gets structural advantage- means the 1AC time was wasted

d. Neg leads to a world of debate where there are no good affs

e. Undermines clash if this is what the debate is about- clash is an intrinsic value

f. Kills research because you're only researching 3 branches of the government

g. Solvency deficit - you think this is a good idea bc it resolves CMR- DISCOURSE- civilians ought to default to what makes civilians happy

h. Some things plan does that DOD cannot do - change curriculum (DOD can’t do that, look at solvency cards) CMR DA Answer

1. Making people not like the military is good a. Congratulations you have read something we agree with lol 2. If link is we shouldn’t do plan because it makes military sad a. We should stop listening to military on what we do- we disagree with this on a thesis level 3. Impact: military telling people what to do helps us solve natural disasters a. Not a military role- when it becomes one they do military things >> >> >> > a. Neg answer: US CMR is key to way we interact with that country- makes us act less aggressive toward them internationally i. Aff answer: we solve that much better > > i. Our answer is: CMR is bad and modeling CMR is bad > > > (discourse argument) > Topicality > Topicality- Regulation (can’t prohibit things)
 * 1)  Impact: nuclear war
 * 2)  This is backwards
 * 1)  We should train people not to launch nuclear weapons because its militaristic
 * 1)  We get public to not approve of military using nuclear weapons through demilitarization in schools
 * 1)  Impact: African instability
 * 1)  Aff says: we shouldn't act aggressively
 * 1)  Neg has modeling internal link-
 * 1)  Bad model for debate
 * 1)  Other countries do not model US stability
 * 1)  If we assume there is a threat it perpetuates war on terror

1. All regulations are prohibitions on something- we are regulating that non military things can occur

> > DA is inevitable, there interpretation doesn’t solve their impacts > >> >> topical >> >> i. Leads to worse affirmatives and worse debates- you can’t change anything, functionally makes that part of the topic useless > > > why our interpretation is bad applies to the negatives as well because it is just a > different version of the same stuff > 5. In 1AR - not pick and choose extend all components - unless you really meet and your 100% you meet T- Education > > > textbooks > > a bunch of things besides just the curriculum > > a. States can beat all of them
 * 1)  Prohibition affs easier to debate
 * 1)  There limits DA- there interp allows regulation of that same set of activities, there limits
 * 1)  Ask them what an example of a regulation is in cross ex
 * 2)  Make it clear what their affirmatives are
 * 1)  Find out what they think a regulation does look like- what could the aff do to be
 * 1)  Interp doesn’t solve limits or help neg ground
 * 1)  Their interpretation of what debate ought to look like would still be a version of what prohibition looks like in schools
 * 1)  Resolves the fact they don’t have negative ground
 * 1)  If you change your aff every round that is much harder to debate- any reason
 * 1)  Make two distinct we meet arguments
 * 1)  Counter Interpretation - anything taught on school grounds are topical
 * 1)  No brightline- how do you distinguish what is taught on campus vs what is taught in
 * 1)  Our counter interpretation is more qualified - legal interpretations are good, NCLB affects
 * 1)  What are issues with curriculum affs?

6. Negatives interpretation and case list has to be filtered through the lense of the states cp, functional limit on the topic that prevents the vast majority of their examples a. Answers to spending da, federalism da, Ks, states CP > >> >> Extra Topicality (another way to say its not topical) > > > > a. Negs burden to prove these things Solvency Advocate to be topical > > >> >> >> >> should have a broader understanding of the literature >> Answer PICs 1. 2. > Basics 1. > 2. 3. > 4. 5. > 6. 7. 8. When neg says we agree with most of what the plan said but do it every way except this one > > Things to say against them > a. They don’t solve- the part of the aff they don’t do is super important > > b. Discourse argument - marching bands make people smarter, academic > achievement is hegemony- reject this discourse c. CP is not fair it steals the aff > > d. PICS are bad > 2AR > Pick few things you think you are right about in depth, explain why if your right you win, explain argument identify cards -- if we win argument we win debate because ... (off case positions) extend 1-2 arguments and win them > > Talk about why your evidence is better and should be prefered > Case - just like other aff speeches, answer everything, impact calculous on case say if you think that we are right about any of this it outweighs their offense > > Lie, cheat, steal > > Go slower you do not need to cover a lot because you just need to win 1-2 things on each flow- even if they win x argument, we win on x > Biggest advantage is you know what they went for, but they do not know what you will do > > Use all speech time, but if you might actually run out of things to say - there are no more mysteries, only have to win 2-4 things in order to win the debate > Remind everyone how we got here- defend 1AR say you did not mess up - 2NR are all new, sneak in cheating and lying in a story > Negative > > K Aff- identity What to do when you against K aff and you scared you will be offensive? >> on it >> >> a. Historically problematic > b. Do not further stereotypes > > 3. Don’t be scared for the sake of being scared > Going for a Kritik > What is a Kritik? >> >> What is framework for a K > > 1. Debate should be about assumptions because assumptions are super important > How to go for K >> >> >> >> States CP >> Theory >> therefore you cannot fiat it -- you can’t fiat that the schools are good or going to become good >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Block > > a. Conditionality is good block-- need a bigger block than the affirmative - 2NC 4. Block > > a. Conditionality is bad > Answering race to bottom, or states don’t have authority >> >> >> a. Native lands are relative territories > Answering devolving can’t change constitution 1. Fiat > Impacts Federalism > If CP solves case >> >> a. If they get impact turned be comfortable debating them in the 1AR > General > > If the other team is too fast >> >> tell them you missed it and asked >> >> >> looking at text of card do not look at your computer Assignments >> 1. Visas neg on case (Tyler) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> schools >> >> >> >>
 * 1)  School lunches aff ext. Would lose to states every time
 * 1)  Need to be solvency advocates for negs case list
 * 2)  Functional limits
 * 1)  Way that a big topic could be good
 * 1)  Fix plan to say in the United States at the end
 * 1)  Not a reason to reject the team
 * 1)  Widens neg ground- giving them more things to say
 * 1)  Something is either topical or not- its either topical or not
 * 1)  We have a solvency advocate
 * 1)  This has nothing to do with Topicality
 * 1)  Artificial standard you created
 * 1)  Artificial standard you created
 * 1)  What is good enough to be a solvency advocate
 * 1)  We do have a card that uses every word in plan text
 * 1)  If they win we don’t have one requiring one is bad because it limits creativity and we
 * 1)  Think of reason not to say it, or you can’t and you say it and then someone calls you out
 * 1)  Say it unless you can actively identify a problem with it
 * 1)  Says an assumption that the 1AC makes is problematic
 * 1)  Alternative - instead of their assumptions we should make a different set of assumptions
 * 1)  These are assumptions they made
 * 1)  This is why they are problematic
 * 1)  This is how we look at world differently
 * 1)  Point out the assumptions they made that are bad- not always in the plan
 * 1)  Object fiat -- nonsensical argument- argument says that CP fiats object of resolution/plan
 * 1)  Aff- no we just have to prove that the plan is better than the CP
 * 1)  No warrant for USFG
 * 1)  If we don’t get states CP than all curriculum affs are good
 * 2)  No good DAs so we should get a good CP to make it fair
 * 1)  Key to functional limits on the topic
 * 1)  Care more about negative ground than affirmative ground
 * 1)  We fiat
 * 1)  Fiat that all the states do the plan to respond to race to bottom, or states don’t have authority
 * 1)  How to answer states can’t do things on native studies
 * 1)  Impact doesn’t matter
 * 1)  Impact only matters if you're going for the DA alone
 * 1)  Only make arguments you really need to win, do not read new cards just be analytic
 * 1)  Do not look at computers - if you miss an argument mark it and than in cross ex or prep
 * 1)  Don’t forget judge they might not get the argument
 * 1)  Do not rely on computer to tell you what is happening during speech - if you are not
 * 1)  BIE on case vs HK (Dash)
 * 1)  New offcase vs Bie (K essentialism) (Reena)
 * 1)  Spending DA cards that answer we get funding from somewhere else
 * 1)  Answers to democracy advantage to RIE (Christian)
 * 1)  Readable federalism impact (Kascie)
 * 1)  Answer to the marching bands pic (Mia)
 * 1)  Answer to reforms CP (Grace)
 * 1)  How aff interacts with private schools (Mia) -- find card that says we ban them at private
 * 1)  Cards that say discourse matters (militarism) (Emily)
 * 1)  State funding cards (Ethan)
 * 1)  Humanitarian aid critiques (Anthony)