Jump to content
darkhorsediablo

Critical Frameworks

Recommended Posts

I'm in the midst of making a critical aff, and we establish a framework of ethics in which we are the true actors of the resolution rather than the USFG and we can only claim advantages off what the aff does to the judge's identity. While I'm convinced of this framework in relation to grammar, (the left side of the resolution needs a subject, and since there is none, it is implied that the true actors of the resolution are us rather than the USFG), I'm somewhat thrown off by the fact that the negative has absolutely no ground to run any neg arguments that provide clash under the aff framework. Because we need to look at ethics, for example, rather than the consequences of the plan, or how many people die, the negative can't really run CPs or DAs which mean that the only viable arguments under our framework are Ks, Topicality, or a direct on case against the particular ethic of the aff. So, if someone has some good defense against this neg argument, it would be greatly appreciated. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew I wouldn't lose on a "no ground" argument everytime I had this framework. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in the midst of making a critical aff, and we establish a framework of ethics in which we are the true actors of the resolution rather than the USFG and we can only claim advantages off what the aff does to the judge's identity. While I'm convinced of this framework in relation to grammar, (the left side of the resolution needs a subject, and since there is none, it is implied that the true actors of the resolution are us rather than the USFG), I'm somewhat thrown off by the fact that the negative has absolutely no ground to run any neg arguments that provide clash under the aff framework. Because we need to look at ethics, for example, rather than the consequences of the plan, or how many people die, the negative can't really run CPs or DAs which mean that the only viable arguments under our framework are Ks, Topicality, or a direct on case against the particular ethic of the aff. So, if someone has some good defense against this neg argument, it would be greatly appreciated. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew I wouldn't lose on a "no ground" argument everytime I had this framework. Thanks.

 

The negative does have ground; they can argue disads and counterplans as long as they can debate out the "ethics" framework.

 

The negative could argue that a traditional interpretation of aff fiat is good and bring up a counterinterpretation of the "Resolved:" argument in their favor and explain why that is a better standard for debate (often referred to as "Framework T"). After that, they're free to run DAs and CPs as long as they link and they can defend utilitarianism, etc.

 

So no, there is no abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then is there a strategic reason to establish this framework?

 

Sure, I'd say that the framework allows some perspective on how the judge should view the arguments in the round. If you can win the framework debate on a kritik, the judge looks at the debate from the lens of your K, which is favorable for you.

 

You have to answer the negative's objections to the framework though (impact turns, counter-kritiks to frameworks, etc), and if you got that down, you're set.

 

Better to have a framework to evaluate the round by than none.

 

SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then is there a strategic reason to establish this framework?

 

Sure is, I've dropped rounds where I would have won the debate, but since I dropped the framework none of my winning arguments could be weighed in the round. A random framework does no good, but if you make it very unique and strategic to your aff it should do you wonders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses, but the thing is, how will i win that the judge should evaluate my framework if the negative will never be able to debate CPs, DAs, etc within it.

 

This could have possibly been answered, but I'm too stupid to understand subtle explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i feel frameworks are a waste of time unless you're claiming an advantage off of it as your "framework" ought to establish itself through argumentation. while you're debating the disadvantage or counterplan it should become clear why vieiwing whatever in terms of ethics is the best idea (without much mention of "ethics," which i feel is a cheap shot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in the midst of making a critical aff, and we establish a framework of ethics in which we are the true actors of the resolution rather than the USFG and we can only claim advantages off what the aff does to the judge's identity.

 

what is your definition of ethics? it think that this plays highly into how your framework should be set up. for instance, what you describe (individuals acting rather than looking to the usfg or an institution) could function under a demand framework. the argument (at least the way that i make it and have heard it made) is that the affirmative demands a particular action and manifest in that demand is not just a call on the state to do a particular action, but a reversal of power relations in the specific context of your affirmative. this would be supported by authors like campbell. as far as fairness on the framework debate goes, with a demand you can claim that the plan might happen and that youll defend it as a good idea, but we shouldnt just focus on the advantages and disadvantages of a policy, we must debate about the ethics (whatever that means to you) and discourses inherent to such a plan, and even the framing of the 1ac. what this does, is allows them links to all of the da's and counterplans, but you still can criticise those da's (i usually K the impacts; chaloupka, etc.). its basically like saying that they get their ground and you wont no link out of them just because you dont use fiat, but you still get to K their da's because of your ethics framework. i hope that made sense...

another way that you could do this is with some kulynych evidence about micro/macropolitical action and how our view of performative politics disallows individuals from real action, she even gives alternatives which would jive well with what you want to run. with the kulynych evidence, you just criticise traditional counterplans (that try to claim action from within the state) because they inscribe the same logic you try to break down with a criticism of focus on the state. same with da's.

also, dont be afraid to talk about why da's and counterplans are bad for education (k's of the media, k's of politics, etc.), why roleplaying and fiat education are bad (schlag, mitchell, etc.), or why kritiks are better for education (kulynych, foucault, or the other way with zizek). also if you can prove why the resolution mandates your kind of debate (with grammar arguments), then you win that your kind of argumentation is uniquely predictable if we start to shift to a more 'kritikal' understanding of the topic.

also, the neg has framework ground. if they want to debate da's then they just have to win framework.

i also think that you need to think about why you want to use this framework. do you get a specific advantage off it? do you want to get out of debating da's and cp's? you may want to just stick with a criticial approach to state action (zizek, krauss, etc.) if it turns into too much of a hassle.

hope this helps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the responses, but the thing is, how will i win that the judge should evaluate my framework if the negative will never be able to debate CPs, DAs, etc within it.

 

This could have possibly been answered, but I'm too stupid to understand subtle explanations.

 

First of all, the negative could run other arguments. Like oncase/T/K, which are fair game.

 

At the point that the negative can't refute your ethics framework, it means that the opposing team is essentially conceding that their DA/CPs are "unethical" under your standard and thus there's no reason to vote for those arguments. If they want to run DA/CPs, they just need to give a justification that it is ethical through a counterinterp/counter-advocacy/etc... in another words by answering the framework itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the negative could run other arguments. Like oncase/T/K, which are fair game.
my first response to these sort of arguments was always "why aren't counterplans and disadvantages fair game?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my first response to these sort of arguments was always "why aren't counterplans and disadvantages fair game?"

 

They are, as long as you can argue that 1. DA/CPs can still be evaluated under the affirmative framework or 2. the aff framework argument is outright wrong for theoretical/ethical reasons. Of course, that has to be debated out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even Kerpen agrees that generic Dis-ads are bad for debate...or he did at one time.

 

I think he just meant that super-generic disads with ridiculously generic links and

unprobable impacts are bad for debate. I think he would agree that case specific disads are good for in-round education. Not exactly sure, though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lies. There is no suck thing as a case specific dis-ad, just good links.

 

.. okay fine, case-specific links then

 

and case-specific analysis would help in latter speeches as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but..i can get all that with my basic "plan spends political capital" link. I don't understand how a "good" link makes a dis-ad that much less generic.

 

well, when I originally made that statement I wasn't planning to portray politics disads as nongeneric.. but oh well, whatever. I'm not going to argue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, when I originally made that statement I wasn't planning to portray politics disads as nongeneric.. but oh well, whatever. I'm not going to argue here.

 

Well, how about economy dis-ads or Heg or any other dis-ad. All the specific links come from your analysis of the evidence. There is never an author saying that "If we gave GTMO detainees court rights then China will nuke this specific city".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is never an author saying that "If we gave GTMO detainees court rights then China will nuke this specific city".

 

lol i've heard someone try to argue that exact argument in round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are, as long as you can argue that 1. DA/CPs can still be evaluated under the affirmative framework or 2. the aff framework argument is outright wrong for theoretical/ethical reasons. Of course, that has to be debated out.

uh you didn't answer my question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh you didn't answer my question

 

I meant to say that they are fair game, as long as they can justify why those arguments are more important than the ethics that the case advocates. I'm not exactly sure what I tried to say earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but why aren't they to begin with? why do they have to justify the ethics of their arguments if their arguments make sense?

 

for example, let's say the plan destroys the economy, and destroying the economy leads to lots of poverty and famine and so on and three nuclear wars. why do they need to justify this argument?

 

more, wouldn't those impacts significantally alter the judge's identity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...