Kalva,+Praneeth

Praneeth Kalva Jesuit Dallas 2016

I view topicality through competing interpretations weighing offense vs defence unless you present a viable alternative. I think 2ACs in general should have counter-interpretations that are both justifications of their aff as well as offense against the negative interp. Case lists are very useful to help demonstrate what the topic under each interp looks like and are underutilised. Standards need to be described realistically and with depth as to how it affects education, competition, etc. I think case-specific counterplans that solve one or more aff advantage can be very effective in the negative strategy as well as counterplans that go through a different actor to avoid a DA. 2ACs should use solvency deficits as offense against the CP and should also make a clear distinction between the effects of the CP vs the plan for every relevant argument on the flow i.e. CP links to the DA. Theory on CPs is fine and 2ACs should probably have at least one theory argument. I think reading general disadvantages like politics with a multitude of case-specific links based on the advantages and also the solvency mechanism is a very effective strategy especially when combined with a CP that solves part of the case. Impact debate is very important and the DA needs to compared on every level to the case and the status quo. Having a variety of convincing links is equally important since the impact debate is evaluated through the presupposition that there is a reasonable risk of the link. Affirmatives should use the offense in the 1AC as well as regular DA answers. Many DAs are logically inconsistent, contradictory, or extremely unlikely so affirmative arguments that explain this are very convincing. Also many internal links in DAs are not inherent. I don’t have a lot of experience with critical literature so teams that rely on this strategy will have to explain some of the buzzwords used. While I prefer policy arguments, I do think kritiks that have specific links and viable alternatives can be effective. Most negative teams however are not specific enough on what the alternative is in reality or how it solves. I don’t think winning a link is enough to vote negative, there needs to be a compelling reason why the aff is uniquely worse than the status quo in the context of the K. The entirety of the K impact is not granted on the basis of a link either (an aff that expands the market for green tech doesn’t result in the entirety of the impact to capitalism) but rather, the extent of the impact is directly tied to the extent of the link. Also, please do not have massive overviews – just make the argument on the line by line. Framework is very important in these debates and teams need to have offensive reasons with impacts as to why their framework is better. Using framework arguments to support the permutation is also a good idea. I think affs should have plan texts but I will of course listen to anything and it is the burden of the negative to prove why the aff should lose for not reading a plan text. If you are not reading a plan text based aff, I think you still need to defend some sort of action (which can be in round) and defend the consequences of that action. Reading framework or Ks against these affs is fine but I think topicality arguments about words in the advocacy statement other than USFG can be very strategic. Most advocacy statements still link to DAs since the aff advocates for something with hypothetical consequences so I think reading DAs in conjunction with T/framework is a good idea. Flash or give your opponent the cards read in the speech in some way. Clarity and quality of arguments trump speed. Debate the line by line. CX can be used very effectively to set up arguments and demonstrate logical inconsistencies but it is often wasted. Be aggressive but not malignant.
 * Topicality**
 * Counterplans**
 * Disadvantages**
 * Kritiks**
 * Affirmatives**
 * Miscellaneous**