FW 1. framework- an argument outlining both a. what arguments are allowed within the debate space and 2.

what arguments the judge should pirioritze and how she should evaluate those arguments (Role of the ballot). a. interp: the affirmative must defend the topical implementation of a plan text and the neg team can defend the squo or a competitive policy option. b. interp: the role of the ballot is to evaluate the consequences of both teams advocacies. 3. specificity- interps and counter interps should be as spec as possible. STANDARDS 1. justification for your interpretation of debate - fairness/education are internal links to impacts (participation etc) 2. Types of standards - rules based (1)- your interpretation is bad for fairness because is destroys a fair division of ground - method based (2)- your interpretation ignores consequentialist thought or utilitarianism and therefor will lead to flawed advocacies.

AT LINKS 1. link turn (offense)- the method used in the affirmative solves the mindset that is being kritiked a. pair with critical advantage b. time suck 2. No link (Defense)- the affirmative does not engage in the discourse or methodology that is being kritiked. a. not a stand alone strategy b. forces MO collapse c. solvency for permutation AT IMPACTS Have one from each category a. impact defense- the k is incapable of solving the impacts - inevitability: biopower is inevitable - No internal link: Capitalism objectification of workers (internal link) does not cause dehumanization (terminal impact)

b. Impact turns: the impacts that the alternative solves for are actually good - Turn: biopower is good because it stops traffic accidents - Impact turn has to outweigh the original ipact (dehum>traffic accidents) - Value to life impacts bad- kritik it up c. parallel impact turnALT a. counter alt solvency claims (defense) b. Components of alt solvency (cap k example) - solves the links (doesnt use the word poverty) -solves the k impact (stops the objectification of the worker) - solves the root cause (deconstructions cap) c. Alternatives generally have two planks a. rejection b. a method of rethinking d. many ks only use rejection. d. Example alt: Vote negative to reject the objectification of the worker and instead endorse a historical materialist perspective - Generic rejection fails blocks can be run against most ks - no spill over - rejection lacks specificity e. Specific solvency indicts should be read why against the method of rethinking that the specific k uses - Historical materialism fails - US off the planet fails l. alt turns has to outweigh the impact to the k f. Alt turns implicate the link to the k and root cause solvency o. Consequence Turns (parallel turns) an unexpected effect of the alt: RORTY 98 BOGGS 2K EXAMPLES 1. turns to generic ks (ie rejection) - cede the political -social movements exclusion -ideological totalitarianism (Arendt, on Totalitarianism) 2. Turns to specific alternative methods -Psychoanalysis is exclusionary because it assumes the male body is universal -Nietzsche philosophies causes cultural homogenization because it is written from the epistemic standpoint of the intellectual elite and only takes into account the experiences of the elite.

Permutations 1. mutual exclusivity L are methods and actions mutually exclusive? -severence perms: can you sever a method? -intrinsic perms: specificity of the kritik alternative 2. Net Benefits (NB) Paradigm: Does the risk of a link outweigh the net benefit to the perm? Case as NB External NB 3. THEORY a. conditionality0 argument irresponsibility b. performative contradiction c. Alt vagueness d. Need to have an alternative 4. Read no solvency arguments that explain why a lack of alternative does not solve 5. read turns as to why not endorsing a method is bad 6. Perm the idea of the alternative instead of the text (make sure to justify with theory).