Dirty K Tricks to Avoid

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 By Adam Symonds

*THE Alt always solves better

I. Alternatives a. Shifty Alternatives- there is a mix-match between their alternative and their alternative evidence. *on every K, you should make the argument that the negative is limited to the text of their alternative. And make reciprocity arguments. They should be bound to their alt text. The alternative makes the negative a moving target which makes it impossible to make strategic offense against the K, and being a moving target severely hinders the Affs education on the K bc there is no clash. b. Rejection Alternatives- the second most frequent abuse of the alternative. Neg says to reject, but no text says to reject. * say that rejection alts dont solve anything at all. Rejection alternatives justify intrinsic permutations of the plan and the alternative that the evidence talks about. c. Utopian Alternatives- they essentially say heres a bad system, lets use this one instead. They are so expansive that the Aff cannot defeat the argument. * always PERM utopian alternatives, putting the plan together with the alternative it eliminates all the impacts the negative can win onso Aff wins . If the alternative is good enough to solve what they are criticizing, and the plan is bound together, the problem in the SQ has been removed. d. WTF Alternatives- alternatives that you nor them know what the hell the 1NC is talkin about. *ask in CX about what it is, what it does, whats the relationship between the alt and the plan. Read their evidence and point out the discrepancies between their alt text and their alt evidence. e. Floating PICs- the negative basically adopts the AFF plan with exceptions of certain parts. f. No Status Quo- the negative is basically saying that the Affs SQ is wrong and non-existence. *If the negative is allowed to advocate a no SQ then it makes your plan look like nothingIt makes the AFF impossible to compare themselves to the status quo. II. Impacts a. Pre-Fiat Impacts-

b. No Value to Life / Ontology Impacts- you need to jump on that immediately. They say that there is no value to life and that people are just numbers. *you can make some ontology bad arguments to counter those arguments, and that we should focus on ethics first. c. Root Cause- the Neg says the object being critiqued is the root cause of the problems and the AFF must immediately answer. d. Epistemology Impacts- the way you came to understand and put together your affirmative is suspect and is based on a flawed subject of the world. *just say that your authors are highly qualified and they know their shit. e. Methodology Impacts f. Representation Impactsg. Discursive Impacts h. Language K Impacts III. Miscellany a. Non-Unique Das-they will read non-unique DA and make them links to the K b. Embedded Ks