Put the K in debate




Challenges the assumptions of the aff
Similar to a cp in it’s function and purpose
Offers an alternative that corrects the flawed
assumptions of the aff
Generally does not involve government
action





Epistemology-study of knowledge
Ontology-study of being
Deontology-morality based on duty and
obligation to rule
Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest
number
Postmodernism-period of philosophy and
academia, instability and uncertainty of
meaning, critical of modern philosophy

Epistemology-study of knowledge

How do we acquire knowledge?

What qualifies as knowledge?

What is the relationship between knowledge,
belief, and truth?

Ontology-study of being

sub branch of philosophy under metaphysics

What actually exists?

What does it mean to exist?

What is the meaning of existence?



Deontology-morality based on duty and
obligation to rule
Categorical imperative
The result of the action is less important than
the justification and reason for acting


Utilitarianism- Greatest good for the greatest
number
Most policy affs operate under a utilitarian
framework




Postmodernism-period of philosophy and
academia, instability and uncertainty of
meaning,
critical of modern philosophy
Embraces new fields of study
Psychology, science, sociology, etc.

Greater argument diversity

Develops skills not used in traditional debate

Still trips some teams up

Talking about assumptions and justifications
is important

Link

Impact

alternative




Links to the assumptions of the aff
Aff reinforces X
Aff props up X
Aff engages in X


Perms of the K are essentially no link
arguments
Proves that plan action and alt are not
mutually exclusive






Function similar to policy impacts, but vary in
type
extinction
No value to life
Ethics
Dehumanization
Systemic impacts





Non government action
Rethink/withdrawal
Change mindset/approach
Somewhat abstract
Requires strong explanation




Gateway issue
Test the theoretical legitimacy of the aff
Does the neg have to offer a competitive
policy option?
More judges are willing to let teams leverage
than advantages than outright rejecting the k
•
Links and impacts are different
•
Alternative
•
Moves away from government action and
consequentialism and focuses more on
justification




Not the same as researching policy
arguments
Use primary sources
Project muse and other academic search
engines
See what other authors right about the issue
or author in question





Practice
Understand the philosophy
Understand the story
write overviews
Break it down in the same way you break
down policy arguments

Role of the ballot

K is a prerequisite

Ethics first

Root cause