Affirmative Strat Meeting.

1) Cases

Every sentence/ must have purpose, be useful. 6/13 minutes at beginning of round, we
can read quicker than we can writ/extemp.

Goal: To compensate for the Aff/Neg time skew. Put ourselves so far ahead that we
can’t lose the round.

A) Don’t have wait and see attitude. Make neg make strategic positions based on you.
Take control. Force Neg to have extremely small amount of strategic choices.

In AC: set Framework for debate.

Interpretive issues: words in res, what do they mean

Standards analysis: burden/criterion/ deon ,util.

Neg gets to drop stuff first. When something is dropped, can’t respond later to them in
round.

Where neg makes biggest mistakes >> That is 1AR

More thought on Framework.

Why Aff is hard: Easier to exploit advantages of being negative debater. Easy to get lazy
in writing your AC.

Huge advantages if affirming: 3 Goals.

1) Extrapolate as much ground as possible, types of things you can do to win.

2) Simultaneously narrow your own burden, ways you can lose.
3) Preclude avenues of negative offense, insulate our own args against common
attacks.
4) Have multiple args that fulfill Criterion.
5) Develop multiple avenues through which to meet the burden

Questions: What does Neg want to do in their first speech?

A: Look at our own Neg arguments. What do we do?
A: Look at the resolution, how do we affirm or win? Best possible position.

Role of Resolution: 1) Comparison of worlds. Aff world > Neg world.

2) The resolution is a truth statement. Is it true that we ought not use ES to achieve
F.P.O.?
3) What is ought? How do we satisfy a moral obligation?

Want multiple avenues of attack, to satisfy both worlds.

Goal 1: Analyze definitions to see how they help,

Strategically analyze evaluative term: Ought . . how does that give us ground or give us
our value/standard.

Evaluative - How we determine who is winning the round.

Deontological affs: By saying Neg can’t use people as means in an end, we force them
to fight on our terms. Deon allows us to avoid Neg general Util impacts.

Minimize our burdens through limiting definitions. e.x. > > Economic sanctions don’t
include smart/targeted sanctions. We have to fight fewer args.

Necessary/sufficient burdens.
Necessary: Move from location to go to store. Moving one step is not SUFFICIENT
however.

Find standards that are sufficient but not necessary for you to win.

Don’t want a really broad standard that allows them to read any arg. E.G. Social Welfare
= everything links in.

Even in a Util fw, we don’t want all impacts to count.

Standards/Criterions need multiple justifications, diversify.

make it hard for my opponent to group them and take out easily.

Preempt common arguments against our criterion.

Example: Means as an end bad because government is paralyzed, leads to inaction.

Answer: Better to paralyze gov because 1) How does this link to morality? 2) better to be
paralyzed than to violate someone’s autonomy deliberately.

Establish next steps when we have conflicting interpretations. Have multiple args in
case that impact to standard. Multiple warrants for each point.
Give a card, then an analytic justification right underneath.
 Offense that operates independant of your standard/fw. For deon case, make sure we
have util impacts also. No wait and see, answer their args in our case.

Example: Smart Sanctions.

Turn: Smart Sanctions cause harm to people

Definitionally: Take out SS because not type of ES.
Deon: Smart Sanctions still violate deontological.
Their Strategy illegitimate.

Presumption arguments: Definitional type args.

Example: Noone is winning any offense, how do we decide who wins?

1) Stay in Squo, noone is dying right now.
2) Default Aff because Neg wins more rounds
3) Default Neg because it is a truth statement.

States aren’t moral beings because they don’t have individual intentions, they don’t have
a moral obligation to not use sanctions. So now do we affirm or negate?

Weight arguments ahead of time. Keep neg off args we might lose.

Weighing analysis

Make non-turnable arguments. Limit analysis to stop turns. NO STOCK. Put unique spin
on arguments so that we can preclude turns.Think 1 or 2 steps ahead. Prepare blocks
to their blocks.

Control internal standards that govern who is winning an argument.

EX: Social Contract. Who decides what an infraction of the Social Contract is?

KEYPOINT: How to force Negative to run certain arguments. >> Smart Sanctions. Force
the neg to defend comprehensive sanctions only. They reference Marinov, so we
reference studies that say they don’t work.

Be aware that they are going to run theory that we are abusive because we are limiting
them.

Strategy limitations. 1) Our ability as a debater

2) Our judge - they won’t allow
3) our opponent’s skill set - Their strengths, weaknesses.
necessary Skills.