Debating+case+on+the+neg


 * Debating the case on the neg**

Humiliating the affirmative on their own case is one of the sweetest things you can ever do in debate.

//Argument and strategy issues// :
 * 1) Turning the case is just like turning a DA- and you should treat it that way. Harms = DA, Solvency = CP.
 * 2) Think about making them spend a lot of time here. It is always a good idea to invest time in the case. It gives you a better time tradeoff vs. the 2ac than a procedural or a DA because most 2A’s get bogged down.
 * 3) Read args that force them to read cards to answer it.
 * 4) Think strategically before straight turning an advantage—this forces you to go for the turns to the advantage.
 * 5) Think about this in EACH speech. By the end, you may just be going for turns so you don’t need to give them an out.
 * 6) Know the difference between defense that takes out your turns and defense that does not. The latter = you have straight turned the advantage if you read offense.
 * 7) As with turns on a DA, you need to read uniqueness. The aff’s inherency often serves as theirs. Just saying that the aff causes prolif doesn’t constitute a unique turn unless you say prolif’s low now.
 * 8) When cutting a case neg, always cut the aff’s articles. You’ll find the best CP, case takeouts, etc. there. AND, when you debate them, you will know their case better than they do.

__Link turn strategy:__
 * 1) Remember uniqueness: try or die, status quo is bad, only a risk that we solve
 * 2) Do not double turn.
 * 3) Example: “Prolif’s low now,” “plan causes prolif,” “nuclear weapons are stabilizing.”
 * 4) Remember to answer their link- no solvency, alt causes, aff issue is not key
 * 5) Beware of aff tricks: answering your link turns to the adv. with uniqueness, arguments that are about structure vs. perception
 * 6) Always think about tie breakers before you read the strategy. How do you establish the credibility of your link turn vs. the link? Control credibility of your argument, uniqueness, and question of whether x issue is key.

__Impact turn strategy:__
 * 1) Kind of like a DA strategy – think about it that way.
 * 2) Remember to answer their impact. Saying prolif is good because it helps the Russian economy does not answer that prolif leads to destabilizing wars.
 * 3) You do need uniqueness for some impacts (or at least have it around to read in the block when the 2AC answers your turn)
 * 4) Remember terminal impacts!
 * 5) Be wary of reading impacts you do not have a defense of. The aff can impact turn.
 * 6) Pick impacts in the 2NR- think of it as going for several DA’s

__Debating solvency:__:
 * 1) Does the aff go far enough?
 * 2) Does the mechanism make it worse?
 * 3) Is plan key or will an alt cause either solve the case or trigger the impact?
 * 4) Be careful – don’t turn solvency and impact turn the case
 * 5) Does the plan text, as written, solve the case?
 * 6) Do they have a solvency advocate?
 * 7) Don’t let them get away with things like “attitudinal fiat shift.” Say fiat can solve structural issues but not attitudinal issues.
 * 8) You can put solvency takeouts and turns on the advantages.

//Technical issues// :

__During 1AC:__
 * 1) You don’t have to flow but do look at 1AC evidence and write indicts.
 * 2) When evidence they read answers or effects your strategy, make a cheat sheet. Their main solvency article for prolif is Smith. It has these warrants. This helps you compare warrants.
 * 3) Have they changed their 1AC since you last debated them?

__1NC__:
 * 1) Think about case order. What impacts are bigger? Which ones must you answer to win the rest of your strategy? Which ones do your DA’s turn or your K’s link to more or CP’s solve more? Those are less of a priority than ones you don’t have anything against.
 * 2) Go straight down, with hard numbering and lettering. Just as you wouldn’t want a judge to miss an off-case position because you were unclear and going too fast, you don’t want the judge to miss arguments you read on case.
 * 3) Vary your arguments so they can’t group arguments together and will have to later go to the same arg and repeat their argument.
 * 4) Before stating the warrant of your argument or explaining it, tag arguments with headers to help differentiate them.
 * 5) Example: “Turn: hegemony,” “No internal link to economy”
 * 6) Don’t re-explain a card after reading it.
 * 7) Example: “What this card says, judge, is that the affirmative plan does not solve.”
 * 8) This is what your TAG should say. Anything else should be saved for later speeches.
 * 9) With all turns, remember terminal impacts
 * 10) Slow down on analytics vs. the case
 * 11) Just as with kritik links, these are arguments you should be writing during the 1AC. Indicting their evidence takes less time than it does take for them to answer it.
 * 12) Make arguments that they will have to answer with a card but that won’t be of real consequence to you (i.e. that won’t force them to read an add-on).
 * 13) Example: “no evidence that the economy will go low enough in the status quo to cause their harms”

__2NC/1NR:__ i. 2AC says: “Prolif leads to war, Cirincione evidence, it is destabilizing and causes threat perceptions to increase, empirically proven. ii. 2NC says, “Group #1: prolif doesn’t lead to war. 1. Prefer our evidence, it cites historical examples and our authors are more qualified full professors. Theirs are bloggers. 2. Prolif decreases threat perceptions and makes accidents less likely because it increases monitoring mechanisms-that’s Smith. 3. Our Johnson evidence is future predictive of what will happen in a world of increased prolif. It is stabilizing because of the risk and proximity. Indo-Pak conflict has de-escalated since they got nuclear weapons.”
 * 1) Did the aff read add-ons or any offense that is external to what you have presented?
 * 2) If they kicked an advantage, did they do it properly? Maybe you had an answer that applies to the solvency of the affirmative in general that they didn’t answer even though they conceded the advantage.
 * 3) Are you addressing their offense? If you are impact turning, are you remembering to answer all of their impacts? Make a list of what they are and clarify in CX if you aren’t sure. Dropping one of these is like dropping a DA.
 * 4) Because you read your args straight down (like a 2AC), the 2NC/1NR extend arguments on case just as the 1AR extends arguments on off-case positions.
 * 5) Embedded clash is good- prevents you from getting bogged down.
 * 6) Example: 1NC says “prolif doesn’t lead to war.