Jump to content
jkneisel

Framework

Recommended Posts

This may seem liek a dumb question, but if you run a K, and the aff doesnt respond to your framework, how do you go about extending it.

just say-xtnd framework, only evaluate unders ethical fw, only thing relevant, or what. Is dropping fw a round loser/winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read framework like "ontology/ethics/discourse comes first", then the aff dropping that is pretty damning. The way framework functions in most rounds in which the affirmative is policy-oriented and the negative runs a kritik is a question of whether or not the affirmative gets to weigh case harms against the kritik. If the affirmative loses framework, there's a good chance of them losing the round; however, if they win framework, it's really only a reason to weigh case v. the K impacts.

 

Let's say your opponent is really not very smart (if they're dropping framework, that's a given) and they decide that it's a good idea to call black people niggers in the 1AC. You run a Racist Language K and your framework is that the affirmative must defend the real-world implications of their discourse before we examine plan policy / post-fiat world. You'll want to extend more than tags; even if they don't answer it, you need to justify WHY your framework excludes case harms. In this scenario, you'll explain that the affirmative using words like "nigger" harms people in the real world, which outweighs any "fiated" impacts - signing the ballot affirmative won't ACTUALLY prevent nuclear war because it won't cause anything to happen, but what the affirmative has done warrants a loss because their actions in the round have marginalized people outside the realm of the round. It's really just an issue of explaining why your arguments are true.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most Cap Ks link to plan passage more than to discourse... so the thing is, framework is almost irrelevant. That won't stop people from running framework args against you (policy-making good!), just make sure you answer that these are nonresponsive, because you're going to be weighing Cap impacts on the same level as case impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, most Cap Ks link to plan passage more than to discourse... so the thing is, framework is almost irrelevant. That won't stop people from running framework args against you (policy-making good!), just make sure you answer that these are nonresponsive, because you're going to be weighing Cap impacts on the same level as case impacts.

 

Yeah, if you're planning on running a capitalism K this year you probably won't even hit a team that will run an actually responsive framework. They'll most likely say policy-making is good. Which means you can say, "We meet--the critique stems from the plan's solvency mechanism; we are plan focus." But, depending on how your alternative is written, they may still have some offense on your alternative text. If you alternative text is not something that the USfg could do, it probably doesn't entirely meet their framework. In which case, you would need to answer the parts that link to your alt.

On the other hand, you still need to be prepared for teams to run a responsive framework--it will happen occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may seem liek a dumb question, but if you run a K, and the aff doesnt respond to your framework, how do you go about extending it.

just say-xtnd framework, only evaluate unders ethical fw, only thing relevant, or what. Is dropping fw a round loser/winner

This is a tough question in debate and depends on judges.

 

Honestly, I think the negative needs to clearly articulate a framework as in like Contention 3 FRAMEWORK because as a judge I will always take the position of a policy-making framework even if the negative runs a critique unless there is a clearly outlined framework. I have honestly hated it when teams run a K and the aff doesn't mention framework (and the word framework isn't in the 1NC either) yet the 2NC gets up and says "they dropped our framework, that means they lose." I am fine with critiques, but this to me is ridiculous. In this case, it should never be a round winner/loser.

 

Framework simply is a way to tell the judge how you want her/him to evaluate the round. For example if your neg framework is policy making and the aff provides a better policy, then aff doesn't need to make any attempt to refute the framework to win the debate. If your framework is ethics and the affirmative tries to turn the K saying its bad for ethical reasons I also do not believe that the aff has to outline a separate framework. Then again, all judges are different and I have had judges vote against me for not outlining an alternative framework even when I straight turn the K.

 

I hope that helps to some extent. Any questions, let me know.

-Matt

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i put it in a overview in the 2nr if they drop it.

just easy way to frame the round and will most likely influence other arguments you make below on the line by line.

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...