Notes from CDS

Don't want LOR to cover what LO misses
Cover all speaker points
Act like you know your points

Strategy
LO will pretty much set the round
Thick vs. thin cases
Lots of possible points to talk about

Counter-case if you want to avoid talking about too many things
When you opp straight - push PM into a corner
Time period frame
Policy

If debate is becoming more muddled and less fair, you can set the record straight...

Not a reasonable caveat
The logic of the government case, justify... setting up an artificial barrier

Tight cases:
Some people are sadistic and shouldn't be
Fundamental Christian perspective which I am sure you do not share but you've left me no other choice/way.

Don't challenge the gov assumption...
Shift the debate - basketball policy on women/men team to gender inequality.

Opp arg. should be independent points (not rebuttals)
Analyze gov's p.o.v
Assumption of gov.
Identify - sufficiently removed that it requires explanation / elaboration / attack, it isn't a rebuttal
Damn their philosophical perspective...

Utility, morals, social welfare.

Policies always & usually have unintended consequences.
Who are they, what do they want?

MO's job is partly to give "POI" for PM speech.

On case:
Flows - listen for justification - factually inaccurate? False assumptions
If no. seems to be pulled out of thin air: Number is far more advantageous to them.