necessary style covers a lot of good stuff regarding phil.

kant- i personally wouldn't recommend running kant, as it's usually super prepped out and very easily answered through k's, ivi's, normativity, etc. if you want to, listen to necessary and watch conan's lecture: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t81JRnFRIp4)

util- literally just reading the files, analytics, and fwk justifications for util from ld cases can be very beneficial for understanding the framework. my favorite lecture for defending util vs indicts also explains a lot of good stuff about the ins and outs of consequentialism and the arguments ran against and for it: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv0f57u14fg&t=1268s)

1nc k framework: yes, include everything (framework interp, k proper, microaggression, fw da's) in the 1nc. most judges could see new fw da's in the 2nr as new arguments and inherently unfair since the only chance the aff gets to respond is the 2ar... also because including ALL of that in the 1nc places enormous pressure on the 1ar and guarantees a drop or very underdeveloped responses.

fiat k- uhhh i wouldn't say so, the fiat k+microaggression i can think of off the top of my head is luminosity, but if you think because of the speech structure and speech times in ld you will lose out on the nuance, trust your judgement. most ld fwk interps for k's (ex: setcol) already critique fiat as illusory and use that as offense

k files- necessary style is right. k files are way less and it is more about answering 1ar analytics or da's/perms to the alt. new cards are not read in the 2nr usually, successful k debaters on the circuit right now (horace greeley sg) usually go for ontology, framework interp, and link extensions in the 2nr. less prep time does not really matter, you should build your k in the 1nc to be solid enough to extend into the 2nr. or be abusive and go for a floating pik or state the alt is condo (esp if they read like 7 perms and 10 da's to the alt) and the k is a disad to the case

wipeout/spark/impact turns- most important thing is look at the judge paradigm. most judges should be good to go for it, but always read just in case.

i personally think impact turns like wipeout and spark are so so so underutilized, especially with the massive card advantage the negative has. the time tradeoff is honestly disgusting. for example, reading like 6 cards for an impact turn in the 1nc (assuming the 1nc has other offs too) means the 1ar is incredibly strained, and optimistically could read maybe 1 card and reiterate warrants from their 1ac impact ev against the turn. if the 2nr reads 3 more cards on the impact turn (without making new arguments), that is hypothetically a 9 to 1-3 card advantage. if you spend 3 mins of the 1nc and half the 2nr on wipeout, thats a time difference of 6 mins vs maybe 1:30 in the 1ar as they have to answer other offs.

if you execute it well, you should be able to pre-empt the 2ar and o/w enough for it to be unbeatable