Cheaters Never Win? False

Or, what are you doing with the K?
You crazy kids today, I don't know where you get all these new fangled notions. You all have 70's haircuts that weren't cool in the 70's, you wear pajama pants all day every day, and you don't cheat when you run kritiks. I've listened to a few of you try and explain this trend to me, the not cheating one, and your explanations are pretty dumb. Some seem to think its an ethical thing, like they don't cheat because they are of noble blood. Others seem to think its low brow and anti intellectual to cheat when running a K. Both of these views miss the mark. The entire reason k's were invented was so that people could cheat. Long ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth there were some debaters who were to slow and lazy to compete and so they thought, what if there was an argument that allowed us to make everything the fast people say irrelevant, and got rid of all the cards the hard workers cut at the same time, wouldn't that be great? It is great. It's called the K, and if you aren't cheating you aren't doing it right. End of discussion. Cheating: just do it.
Maybe you have seen Jurassic park 3. In this crapfest of a movie people go to yet ANOTHER island inhabited by dinosaurs without any guns and end up , shockingly, in a major debacle. At the end of the movie the marines show up with tanks and rocket launchers and all other manner of hi tech weaponry and the stage is set for some classic Man V. Dino combat. And then the movie ends. That is like running a K without cheating. You set yourself up to demolish your opponent with high tech weaponry that they have no chance of countering because they are stupid dinosaurs and then you don't use it. Who does that?
Ok, so we have established that you should cheat. If you still don't see that please go join public forum.
I like to think if its good enough for the Bible its good enough for cheating, so I use the rule of 3: your block extension of the K should have at least 3 separate and distinct acts of cheating in it. So what exactly constitutes cheating? The SP rule of cheating is as follows: Cheating is any argument whereby if the other team drops it, it's game over. A VI is cheating. There is no status quo is cheating. No value to life- cheating. The list goes on. Basically any argument that in and of itself has the potential to alter the entire debate by mooting a large amount of the other teams arguments. If you had the option to do this, and you opted not to, you would definitionally be insane.
The first, and least cheaterriffic, form of cheating is impact cheating. Impact cheating consists of arguments like no value to life, X is the root cause of your harm, extinction is inevitable etc. These are pretty mild and generally rely on just making a silly argument about why your pile of foof outweighs the aff's actual advantage. While you should do all of these, they shouldn't be the focus of your cheating.
Epistemology
E-cheating basically is about making the aff's harms go away. In it's simplest form, e-cheating takes the form of a "bias" argument, such as western scholars have a flawed view of China so we shouldn't construct them as a threat. This argument is basically no different from saying "of course republicans support tax cuts, they're republicans!". Now granted the explanation here could be more complex and rely on a sophisticated critique of realism or positivist international relations theory, but boiled down to its essentials it says "don't believe what these people say". Usually this argument has two impacts: the K o/w because the case advantage is suspect, and vote neg on presumption. A slightly better e-cheat is to explain this argument in relation to both harms and solvency. So to continue the china example you could say "Western understandings of china operate from a positivist/realist understanding of the world that China doesn't ascribe to, this makes their predictions worthless" and then explain why this effects harms and solvency.
Methodology Cheating
Others will most likely disagree, but to me methodology arguments basically boil down to deontology. They say something like, the means you use are flawed/immoral and so we should ignore potential beneficial positive consequences of acting in that manner. People who write about the importance of method generally incorporate a "bias" argument like those explained above to make this a little more sophisticated. They would say something like, the perceived benefits of using violence are illusory- our recourse to violence has conditioned us to not consider other alternatives to such an extent that the use of violence appears to be the only possible solution to our problems, however, upon reflection we could find alternative means of conflict resolution. This argument boils down to some kind of hidden CP, that somehow the problem of the aff will be solved in another way as long as we stop viewing violence as the ONLY solution and instead view it as one of many possible solutions. This is pretty good- a hidden CP is harder to answer than one you can see; i.e. while you can make solvency deficit arguments, its basically impossible to read offense since you don't know what you are dealing with.
Ontology
This is the root of most "no value to life claims" like "give me liberty or give me death" or "turn off Ally Mcbeal before I kill myself". The basic idea here is that there are certain things that make life worth living and the affirmative somehow infringes on one of them. For example, kritiks of capitalism often say that the market reduces or commodifies us all into a unit of currency, and that this commodification reduces human beings to inhuman objects, making life not worth living. Most of these arguments are pretty weak. Usually there isn't really one thing that makes life worth living, any number of things like video games, roller coasters, ice cream, and the movie Heat all give life meaning. Odds are low the affirmative takes away all these things. The more sophisticated version of no value to life usually involves the word "ontology". An ontology can be thought of as a way of thinking about how we exist in the world. So a capitalist ontology says that we are all rational utility maximizes attempting to improve our economic well being. An ontology argument combines the no value to life claim with a solvency argument: not only is your ontology bad, but it also is false (you mean my whole fallacy is wrong?) that people act in the manner you describe, and since they don't, your solvency claims based on that model are false. Booya.
Alternative
The number of ways you can cheat with your alternative are almost too numerous to mention, and thus will be discussed in the next article.