Hello Cross-X forum friends, my partner and I have been debate nomads at our school for a bit, and this week we've been drafted to cover for our school's only policy debate team. We're not competing too seriously, of course, but we're looking not to make a fool out of ourselves or our school. The team we're filling in for and googling/lurking has taught us the basics of the order and a lot of the vocabulary - and we think we have a good grasp of that stuff, as we've observed a couple rounds of Policy before. We have no specific policy debate coach and our school wide coach tends to focus on LD debaters - basically we're coachless and mentor-less. Left out to dry.
So, I've decided to come to what seems to be a pretty active cross-x forum to ask the noble denizens what case(s) I should run and a counterplan I can run in order to not make a mess of the debate round we're going to stand in for next weekend. Our school provided us with "squirrel killers" which appear to amount to scattered evidence and a lot of "on-case" negative cards. We've become familiar with Openevidence which seems to provide a multitude of cases we could run and a wide array of negative cards against given cases that we can use when it comes to debate day - but we have no idea which ones would be best for complete newbies like ourselves to run. In addition, I've run into a bunch of "K" cases and counterplans and such on Openevidence that I can't make heads or tails of. They reference a lot of specific philosophers I've never studied before and I can't exactly see how they win debates? I'd love explanations of "K" arguments I'd probably run into because I don't really understand how to debate against that. Having mostly debated parli in the past - it's usually data vs data but "K"'s seem out of my league. Any resources or guides for newbies would be appreciated.
Basically - huge noob, what case/counterplan should I run?
Thanks for helping me out, I'll tell you guys how it goes after the tournament if you're interested!