Jump to content
vdog

2ac blocks / Framework

Recommended Posts

How exactly do you block disads, cps, and k's? On a separate note, what is framework and how does it differ from theory?

Das

How will you get your offense? A Link turn or an Impact turn? Decide whats best for you - read defense if its your thing, or just read offense and make them deal with it

 

Make sure to include impact calc (Putting it in 2ac gets youa head of the block, case o/w, solves impact, turns impact)

 

CP

1.) Solvency Deficiet to advantages

2.) Perms - explain how it avoids the net benefit

3.) External Reasons CP = Bad (Impact, or more solvency defeciets)

4.) Theory

 

Ks

1.) (mitigate link debate/Perm)

2.) Defend assumptions of plan (Heg=good, threats=real, realism=inev, ect)

3.) Impact Calc - Often here you also include VTL=Bad / Util Good

4.) Specific OFfense against alt/K - Cap=Good, Cede the Political, Friend+Enemy Distinction Good, that sorta shit.

5.) Framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I read the 1NC shell to think about the weaknesses of the disad. Both in terms of the evidence in the shell...and in the extensions. (obviously you may have to read a couple shells ofr more popular)

Does my 1ac make the disad impact inevitable?

Does the disad have a built in time frame problem? (movements, democracy)

Does the link or uniqueness evidence non-unique itself?

Are there any internal link gaps?

Are there any tensions with core Ks on the topic? What are they?

Is there the possibility of tension with other typical neg. arguments?

 

2) I think about how each of my advantages/big impacts interacts with the link and impact of the disad.

 

3) I check out the 2ac answers in the file (I pick out the best 3 or so).

 

4) Underline down the add-ons.

 

What impact scenarios is the neg. most likely to counterplan or create quality offense?

Which impact scenario from your aff can you turn into the nexus question for the debate? (highest credibility, most ways you solve/access, and largest impact--some Afghanistan affs make this hegemony)

What impact scenario in your aff is hardest for the neg. to answer?

How can you create try or die scenarios which help frame the debate for you?

What are your best add-ons?

I would define best add-ons as :
1) can't be solved by typical counter-plans

2) relatively short

3) can't be impact turned (not if you use a hege add-on to answer a hege disad--obviously the impact turn issue is not an issue.)

4) are potentially impact turns to K alternatives.

One more strategic thought: you can also turn arguments like multi-lateralism, soft power, or laundry list impact cards (often from relations stories) into generic answers to disads. Obviously these are best when the neg can't counterplan out these. If you have one (and the neg. doesn't counterplan it) you can use it to box out the negative. For instance, Japan affs that solve the alliance can do this with relations & can probably do it with the SLOCs (economy/free trade/oil & military).

 

--------

Another way to think about 2ac frontlines:

 

I may be wrong, but MSU seems to group their arguments into five categories:

 

1) Uniqueness dump [notice: you only need about 2 lines of uniqueness cards unless additional lines explain the scope/degree of the argument]

2) Offense (link turns or impact turns)

3) Add-on advantages

4) takeouts/indicts/mitigation

5) Case outweigh/Impact comparison

This is one way to think about arguments. Note: I don't know if MSU orders their frontlines this way--or when they decide to shift the order. I would guess that the uniqueness dumps on this resolution might be limited to: Afghanistan, Iraq, and your country specific answers (although I'm sure future troop draw downs or movements in other geographical areas are possible). Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework is a form of theory. So is topicality (not relevant at all, but just saying).

 

The questions of "why we should debate" and "how we should debate" are inherently connected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework ultimately is how debates play out, theory is more of the rules of debate. FOr example...

 

Aff can Say: Out Framework is that represenations come before policy action. This does several things, 1.) Sets up how judges should evaluate the round, and 2.) Allows them to destroy you.

 

Theory response is: Focus on Reps unfair., but then the aff provides a competing framework like, Policy Discussion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some associated questions when creating theory arguments:

What constitutes proof? What constitutes "fair argument"? What constitutes "fair ground"?

 

What is the purpose of debate? What is the role of the ballot/the role of the judge? What is the role of debaters? What should debate look at?

 

What are the most important and relevant questions for debaters to think & debate about?

 

What does this interpretation include? What does it exclude? And why does it matter?

 

Ultimately they all (attempt to) answer the question--what do we give (intellectual) priority to?

 

As to the distinction of framework vs. theory:

Framework is a subset of "theory" which discusses the purpose, fairness, and relevance ("ethical" significance) of including particular kinds of debate (subject and argument types)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best advice I was ever given about blocking things out:

go through camp files and get a list of every disad, counterplan and kritik... write answers specific to your affirmative for the entire list.

 

Then to finalize, make a generic impact file to impact turn ones you aren't blocked out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
best advice I was ever given about blocking things out:

go through camp files and get a list of every disad, counterplan and kritik... write answers specific to your affirmative for the entire list.

I'm tried to do this last year, but never got through the list. Same thing is happening this year. Time commitment is not the problem, I'm just slow (but thorough). Does anyone have tips for how to cut answers to a lot of positions in a fairly short amount of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm tried to do this last year, but never got through the list. Same thing is happening this year. Time commitment is not the problem, I'm just slow (but thorough). Does anyone have tips for how to cut answers to a lot of positions in a fairly short amount of time?

 

There are multiple incarnations of Heg disads -

Appeasement

Resolve

Deterrence

Ones that are actually called "Heg"

 

etc.

 

I would make a heg internal link comparison - overstretch vs. credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm tried to do this last year, but never got through the list. Same thing is happening this year. Time commitment is not the problem, I'm just slow (but thorough). Does anyone have tips for how to cut answers to a lot of positions in a fairly short amount of time?
1) Use a common theory template for answering counterplans.

 

2) Use an egg timer in 15, 20, or 30 minute intervals (obviously focusing on the most common & credible arguments).

 

3) Grouping like the above poster suggests. You might even just use the "find and insert" command to fix the frontlines for each argument.

 

Yeah...these seem to be the core arguments:

Hege

Economy (US & the country you withdraw presence from)

Politics (both ways)

Tradeoff arguments (mostly of the reverse spending variety)

Relations (????)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Das

How will you get your offense? A Link turn or an Impact turn? Decide whats best for you - read defense if its your thing, or just read offense and make them deal with it

 

Make sure to include impact calc (Putting it in 2ac gets youa head of the block, case o/w, solves impact, turns impact)

 

CP

1.) Solvency Deficiet to advantages

2.) Perms - explain how it avoids the net benefit

3.) External Reasons CP = Bad (Impact, or more solvency defeciets)

4.) Theory

 

Ks

1.) (mitigate link debate/Perm)

2.) Defend assumptions of plan (Heg=good, threats=real, realism=inev, ect)

3.) Impact Calc - Often here you also include VTL=Bad / Util Good

4.) Specific OFfense against alt/K - Cap=Good, Cede the Political, Friend+Enemy Distinction Good, that sorta shit.

5.) Framework?

 

Unless link turns are non-existent or very weak for your aff, you probably shouldn't impact turn. Impact turning in the 2AC is risky because the negative has the entire block to out-card you with new scenarios for why their impact is good which makes the 1ARs life very difficult. Do, however, impact turn if you feel like you have "the goods" on a certain impact. *You* have to figure out if you have "the goods".

 

On the distinction between framework and theory, you also have to define what type of framework you are talking about. Substantive framework debates are more about what types of impacts matter and are about defending the institutions the kritik criticizes as a reason why only reading policy proposals is good. In this debate, you will see evidence like Boggs 97 [cede the political] vs Dillon 2k [serial policy failure]. A theoretical framework debate is much more similar to theory and it will include reasons why *introducing* the kritik into debate is bad like fairness, predictability, and education. In my mind, the theoretical framework debate is almost entirely the same as a "theory" debate such as when debating PICs or conditionality bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless link turns are non-existent or very weak for your aff, you probably shouldn't impact turn. Impact turning in the 2AC is risky because the negative has the entire block to out-card you with new scenarios for why their impact is good which makes the 1ARs life very difficult. Do, however, impact turn if you feel like you have "the goods" on a certain impact. *You* have to figure out if you have "the goods".

 

I've never understood this approach to politics disads. If you read three link turns, the neg is just gonna put D on them and read two other link scenarios. Straight impact turning is bad because, since the neg controls the choice of scenario they've picked, are probably on the right side of the debate. But a host of uniqueness/link takeouts and two meta-level impact takeout arg and two impact turns is a low time investment for the 2AC that can pay off in the 1AR as you get to pick and choose between a "no uq/link - case outweighs risk of impact" or a "we'll just win your shit is good." Blocks have to consolidate a ton of time to this approach - not just pull out their Uniqueness Wall and read some new link cards.

 

Not to mention that negs are rarely ready to defend the impact implications of their disad-of-the-week. How many people in the country that ran the series of FTA's a couple of years ago actually knew what the fuck those FTA's did? How many people know the intricacies of tax cut economics? Debaters know link/political capital language because they invented it. Impact debates make it a question of research and analysis zeal instead of the ability to mechanize out of habit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never understood this approach to politics disads. If you read three link turns, the neg is just gonna put D on them and read two other link scenarios. Straight impact turning is bad because, since the neg controls the choice of scenario they've picked, are probably on the right side of the debate. But a host of uniqueness/link takeouts and two meta-level impact takeout arg and two impact turns is a low time investment for the 2AC that can pay off in the 1AR as you get to pick and choose between a "no uq/link - case outweighs risk of impact" or a "we'll just win your shit is good." Blocks have to consolidate a ton of time to this approach - not just pull out their Uniqueness Wall and read some new link cards.

 

Not to mention that negs are rarely ready to defend the impact implications of their disad-of-the-week. How many people in the country that ran the series of FTA's a couple of years ago actually knew what the fuck those FTA's did? How many people know the intricacies of tax cut economics? Debaters know link/political capital language because they invented it. Impact debates make it a question of research and analysis zeal instead of the ability to mechanize out of habit.

 

 

Lolwut?!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm tried to do this last year, but never got through the list. Same thing is happening this year. Time commitment is not the problem, I'm just slow (but thorough). Does anyone have tips for how to cut answers to a lot of positions in a fairly short amount of time?

 

Look through the same files you made the list from and take their decent answers. Or sometimes take the sources as a starting point/head start on research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never understood this approach to politics disads. If you read three link turns, the neg is just gonna put D on them and read two other link scenarios. Straight impact turning is bad because, since the neg controls the choice of scenario they've picked, are probably on the right side of the debate. But a host of uniqueness/link takeouts and two meta-level impact takeout arg and two impact turns is a low time investment for the 2AC that can pay off in the 1AR as you get to pick and choose between a "no uq/link - case outweighs risk of impact" or a "we'll just win your shit is good." Blocks have to consolidate a ton of time to this approach - not just pull out their Uniqueness Wall and read some new link cards.

 

Not to mention that negs are rarely ready to defend the impact implications of their disad-of-the-week. How many people in the country that ran the series of FTA's a couple of years ago actually knew what the fuck those FTA's did? How many people know the intricacies of tax cut economics? Debaters know link/political capital language because they invented it. Impact debates make it a question of research and analysis zeal instead of the ability to mechanize out of habit.

 

Reading this post at the end of the season - it actually makes a lot of sense. Question - isn't this dependent on the fact that you'll win a solvency deficit to the CP? I know a lot of teams straight turn so they don't have to debate the cp they're not ready for. Thoughts?

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...