Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheF4LL3N

how to write framework?

Recommended Posts

how do I write framework, I'm trying to put together a framework file, and I just don't know how I should write it.

Well, what do you want it to say?

What do you want it to exclude?

 

You should structure it like this:

 

A. Interpretation (What debate should be about - topical affirmatives and negatives disproving the affirmative through advocating the squo or competitive policy option, etc.)

 

B. Violation - How they violate

 

C. Reasons to prefer - Usually along the lines of limits, predictability, education, etc. Sort of like T

 

D. Voter - Means you default aff/neg, whatevs

 

If you PM me, I can help you out a little more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know how to write a T shell, then you know how to write framework, because T is a kind of framework. What are you writing the framework for?

 

If you're writing it to tell the judge how to weigh the round ("discourse first", "real-world impacts", etc.), then you need your interpretation to tell the judge what they should weigh. Usually you have a tagline version of the Interp ("Interpretation: Vote for the team with the best discourse.") followed by a card ("Discourse shapes reality, racism is bad, postmodern rambling, etc.").

You generally don't need a violation unless the framework is deliberately targeting a certain argument. For example, if you were to read a framework argument which says that kritiks shouldn't be weighed, then you would read a violation which shows how the negative's argument is a kritik and why it's bad in the context of your specific Ks bad framework (ex. "Their argument is a red herring which forces us to defend the ontological implications of our plan instead of focusing on the actual policy benefits of the plan in the real world.")

 

Standards are important because (just like with T) they tell the judge why your framework is preferable ("Weighing only policy options prevents us from kritiking a team that says, 'Provide universal healthcare, except to niggers.'").

 

I personally think there's a really blurry line between standards and voters on a non-offensive framework. Even if you're using a framework as an offensive attack on your opponents (policy-first against a kritikal aff, for example), I think this belongs more on the relevant flow than the framework flow. In the aforementioned example of reading a policy-first framework against a kritkal aff, I would read the framework and then go to case and explain exactly why the 1AC can't be weighed under the framework, rather than framing it as a voter. You don't vote neg because a policy-maker framework is better, you vote neg because the aff doesn't have any impacts under such a framework.

On the whole, if your framework argument needs voters, then it's more abuse than general framework.

 

I'd advise downloading an existing framework file from a camp and reading through it to see what a typical framework shell looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you know how to write a T shell, then you know how to write framework, because T is a kind of framework. What are you writing the framework for?

 

If you're writing it to tell the judge how to weigh the round ("discourse first", "real-world impacts", etc.), then you need your interpretation to tell the judge what they should weigh. Usually you have a tagline version of the Interp ("Interpretation: Vote for the team with the best discourse.") followed by a card ("Discourse shapes reality, racism is bad, postmodern rambling, etc.").

You generally don't need a violation unless the framework is deliberately targeting a certain argument. For example, if you were to read a framework argument which says that kritiks shouldn't be weighed, then you would read a violation which shows how the negative's argument is a kritik and why it's bad in the context of your specific Ks bad framework (ex. "Their argument is a red herring which forces us to defend the ontological implications of our plan instead of focusing on the actual policy benefits of the plan in the real world.")

 

Standards are important because (just like with T) they tell the judge why your framework is preferable ("Weighing only policy options prevents us from kritiking a team that says, 'Provide universal healthcare, except to niggers.'").

 

I personally think there's a really blurry line between standards and voters on a non-offensive framework. Even if you're using a framework as an offensive attack on your opponents (policy-first against a kritikal aff, for example), I think this belongs more on the relevant flow than the framework flow. In the aforementioned example of reading a policy-first framework against a kritkal aff, I would read the framework and then go to case and explain exactly why the 1AC can't be weighed under the framework, rather than framing it as a voter. You don't vote neg because a policy-maker framework is better, you vote neg because the aff doesn't have any impacts under such a framework.

On the whole, if your framework argument needs voters, then it's more abuse than general framework.

 

I'd advise downloading an existing framework file from a camp and reading through it to see what a typical framework shell looks like.

 

1) I'm writing this b/c

a) I don't have Framework I 100% agree with

B) To frame the round well and give the judge an easy way to vote

2) I was going to put that as a sepparate contention/ card calling it a weighing mechanism. I though that would be better as Framework is supposed to simply frame the round ( the judge's glasses)

3) I already have a bunch of them, I'm just wondering how you guys make your shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I'm writing this b/c

a) I don't have Framework I 100% agree with

B) To frame the round well and give the judge an easy way to vote

2) I was going to put that as a sepparate contention/ card calling it a weighing mechanism. I though that would be better as Framework is supposed to simply frame the round ( the judge's glasses)

3) I already have a bunch of them, I'm just wondering how you guys make your shells.

But what do you want your framework to exclude?

 

Depending on what it is will determine if you want to actually have a framework shell or not. In most situations with critical affs, it's for the best not to read framework and just go with a card saying "Moral obligation to provide assistance in the face of extinction" or what-have-you.

 

Framework is usually read to debate against critical affs, to get the debate to policy and not linguistics, to establish what teams have to do to win.

 

Specific questions would guide in the community trying to help you as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what do you want your framework to exclude?

 

Depending on what it is will determine if you want to actually have a framework shell or not. In most situations with critical affs, it's for the best not to read framework and just go with a card saying "Moral obligation to provide assistance in the face of extinction" or what-have-you.

 

Framework is usually read to debate against critical affs, to get the debate to policy and not linguistics, to establish what teams have to do to win.

 

Specific questions would guide in the community trying to help you as well.

 

1) I don't want to exclude anything, I just want it to say in round Impacts come first, or justifications first.

2) How would I run Framework without a shell?

3) so like, aff should win if they prove the resolution is a good idea while defending the effects justifications, and discourse of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of justifications come first...what is the core of your argument? Is this just "rhetoric/language/representations first" or something else?

 

For instance, you could make the argument justifications = 1st based on logic and the need for warrants. If you search Google books for either 1) argumentation and debate textbooks or 2) logic textbooks you should find what you need. Some intro to public speaking textbooks will also have similar arguments.

 

Some would make this argument in terms of method (the idea of having a sound method of evaluating reality). This gets to the ability to evaluate the truth claims of the affirmative or negative. The argument I guess would be something akin to...without a valid or sound method--the affirmative can't justify their truth claims and they aren't grounded. (This may be an example of calling the affirmative on their own modernist assumptions).

 

You probably will independently want to justify the educational benefit of justifying our arguments...perhaps in terms of decision making, communication, or advocacy.

 

In round impacts come first are usually something like this:

1) Resolution doesn't pass. Congress doesn't act. The judge doesn't have their hands on the levers of power.

2) Language is key:

a) The personal is political

B) language creates reality or at least language shapes reality/

c) use the ballot to show solidarity with a particular other (sometimes the warrant for this

3) Spillover

 

I think the spillover argument has lost prominence in some circles. Also, I think people are making the language creates reality argument in similar and less direct ways--so they don't have to defend that saying "purple unicorns creates purple unicorns."

 

Of course checking out individual K files and the framework files at the Open evidence project could be helpful. For instance...the framework file from GDI from p. 80 to 140 may address related questions on this issue--although not the specific ones you outline.

 

(Note: it was the first file I checked out, so it may not be optimum, but it surely covers the issue with a significant degree of depth. One primary caveat is that they are somewhat jargon heavy and assume a critique of international relations or realism...not a critique of poverty--but they do encompass the same issues)

 

If you included which critique you were trying to provide a framework for...it might be helpful for those who wanted to help.

 

Update:

You might take this into account as well...

 

I think these two lines of argument (below), combined with pointing out that the plan doesn't really pass & debaters don't have their hands on the levers of power.

1) Representations come first. They frame and create a lense for all the the truth claims in the debate. I would speak to the role of the ballot here.

2) Method: Must justify assumptions

 

Others would take the form of:

1) We win even in a policy making framework (K turns the case and our alt. solves most of the aff)

2) Roleplaying bad or at least roleplaying policymakers bad

 

Without being able to make these last two arguments, you

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I don't want to exclude anything, I just want it to say in round Impacts come first, or justifications first.

2) How would I run Framework without a shell?

3) so like, aff should win if they prove the resolution is a good idea while defending the effects justifications, and discourse of the plan.

All of these are answered by the idea of reading "X come first" cards as opposed to setting up a framework for that. I guess by "in round impacts" you should find a card saying the way we as individuals talk about this certain issue is essential, then phrase your plan text around it. Rarely does a critical 1aC have framework in it, they usually just answer framework if people read it.

 

Or, you could argue the way debate was intended and defend fiat, a plan text, and the consequences and benefits of the plan. Unless you're good at critical debate and get consistent coaching on it (or know what you're talking about), then it probably isn't a good idea to read arguments like these. Stick to what you know kid.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of justifications come first...what is the core of your argument? Is this just "rhetoric/language/representations first" or something else?

 

For instance, you could make the argument justifications = 1st based on logic and the need for warrants. If you search Google books for either 1) argumentation and debate textbooks or 2) logic textbooks you should find what you need. Some intro to public speaking textbooks will also have similar arguments.

 

Some would make this argument in terms of method (the idea of having a sound method of evaluating reality). This gets to the ability to evaluate the truth claims of the affirmative or negative. The argument I guess would be something akin to...without a valid or sound method--the affirmative can't justify their truth claims and they aren't grounded. (This may be an example of calling the affirmative on their own modernist assumptions).

 

You probably will independently want to justify the educational benefit of justifying our arguments...perhaps in terms of decision making, communication, or advocacy.

 

In round impacts come first are usually something like this:

1) Resolution doesn't pass. Congress doesn't act. The judge doesn't have their hands on the levers of power.

2) Language is key:

a) The personal is political

B) language creates reality or at least language shapes reality/

c) use the ballot to show solidarity with a particular other (sometimes the warrant for this

3) Spillover

 

I think the spillover argument has lost prominence in some circles. Also, I think people are making the language creates reality argument in similar and less direct ways--so they don't have to defend that saying "purple unicorns creates purple unicorns."

 

Of course checking out individual K files and the framework files at the Open evidence project could be helpful. For instance...the framework file from GDI from p. 80 to 140 may address related questions on this issue--although not the specific ones you outline.

 

(Note: it was the first file I checked out, so it may not be optimum, but it surely covers the issue with a significant degree of depth. One primary caveat is that they are somewhat jargon heavy and assume a critique of international relations or realism...not a critique of poverty--but they do encompass the same issues)

 

If you included which critique you were trying to provide a framework for...it might be helpful for those who wanted to help.

Update:

You might take this into account as well...

 

I think these two lines of argument (below), combined with pointing out that the plan doesn't really pass & debaters don't have their hands on the levers of power.

1) Representations come first. They frame and create a lense for all the the truth claims in the debate. I would speak to the role of the ballot here.

2) Method: Must justify assumptions

 

Others would take the form of:

1) We win even in a policy making framework (K turns the case and our alt. solves most of the aff)

2) Roleplaying bad or at least roleplaying policymakers bad

 

Without being able to make these last two arguments, you

 

1) This is taking those Ideas a little further, but would include them. I'm thinking that:

A) The aff's call for action must be justified to prove truth claims

B) any Solvency comes from the way they justify the action to get it

C) in the above two contexts it would include, reps, method, and language, but also includes assumptions of any sort. (we have to do anything at all)

2) I'm writing this for a bunch of stuff, basically, I want it to be a framework file for all my kritikal stuff seeing as how thats what I run most of the time. so as of now the list is:

A) Badiou

B) Nietzche

C) Rhetoric Ks

D) Kappeler

E) Hillman (maybe, I'm not too sure about that)

 

I'm thinking of organizing it like this, tell me what you think.

Interp)

Standards/Reasons To Prefer)

then Role Of The Ballot

What happens b/c the ballot is signed

Why that's K2 solvency

Weighing mechanism

You weigh the round based on X

Why thats justified

(In other words, we get Solvency B/c of the weighing mechanism.)

 

So, As of now the authors I'm cutting is:

Friere

Deleuze/Foucault

Nietzsche

Badiou

 

Plus whatever you can suggest thanks for the help/ideas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking out the posts from the 3NR on framework would be helpful along with the 3nr on reps:

 

AT: Reps (lots here)

AT: Harrigan

AT: Affirmative Framework choice.

 

The "Reps" throwdown is specifically worth checking out. It has decent cards which speak to the reps issue.

 

(I can't speak to the Malgor cast...which I haven't listened to)

Edited by nathan_debate

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...