K 2AC's

This is an email I wrote to a labbie in regards to what kind of arguments should make up a 2AC vs a K.

OK, here is generally all the components you need in a K 2AC. Obviously how deep you can get on them is related to time constraints vis a vis the other arguments in the 1NC. I have ranked them in terms of priority:

1. A permutation- prevents you from losing on ridiculous alt questions, and you can defeat a lot of cheating by proving the permutation avoids the X thing they say is wrong (bad ontology etc)

2. Challenge flags- these are direct responses to ways in which the negative may have cheated in the 1NC. These things include-Framework- non plan focus-X comes first- Method, ontology, representations etc.-Theory vs alternatives that are nonreciprocal- like anarchy, everyone be nice etc. -Impact D- vs any "causes extinction" or "outweighs death" claims, also vs "root cause of X" style arguments

3. Alternative responses- reasons (analytical or evidentiary) why the alternative will not solve the case. This is important because otherwise you will not be able to win that the case is offense.

4. Uniqueness- this comprises of two parts: arguments that the alternative does not provide uniqueness to absurd impacts by solving for them (i.e. biopower), and the argument that absurdist impact claims should be heavily discounted due to their low probability of occurring.

5. Link offense- this could be link turns, although that is generally a loser. More likely it will be specific offense as to why their link claims are backwards. For example, the neg says "Alternative energy perpetuates a consumptive mindset that will ultimately destroy the planet"So you say"Alternative energy programs foster environmental consciousness that combats wanton consumption- this is emp proven by XXXYYY"Do this for every link argument.

6. External offense. This can be vs. the alternative (doing nothing results in nuke war), their impact (biopower is key to hegemony), their framework (focus on representations reintrenches capitalism), or their impact claims (privelaging ontology causes genocide)