Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnvsvk

Framework Debates

Recommended Posts

Lately, i've been having some trouble answering framework in the 1AR (with a kritikal aff, obviously).

 

I'm not really sure how to go about the standards debate and what general arguments should be made. Especially in instances when the block spends like 6 minutes on framework, we pretty much get destroyed.

 

You guys should help me out/let me know some things that I can do to get better at this. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should help me out/let me know some things that I can do to get better at this. Thanks.

 

Heh. Presumptive, aren't you?

 

It would help if we got an idea of what your aff does. What kinds of framework arguments is the negative making, anyways? If you're not prepared to have a framework debate, you probably shouldn't be running a kritikal affirmative.

 

As a note, though, you should always be trying to leverage your 1AC against any framework arguments that they may make. It could be something along the lines of "The negative's call for state action in debates locks us into a box which precludes actual, individualistic movements to bring about real-world change." Again, it would be helpful to know specifics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. Presumptive, aren't you?

 

 

Lol, yes I am.

 

Okay, generally the arguments are extra-t and such. That's usually directed towards the pre-fiat impacts of the aff. Discourse solves shenanigans. I'm not really sure how to leverage the 1AC in this instance. Like, for example, we make an argument about how discourse of deterrence solves conflict and such but how would that relate/answer education and fairness standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, wait, they're saying that you're extra topical based on your advantages? Any team that says that pisses me the f*ck off. If my interpretation is correct, then you should say first that the plan text should be evaluated in a vacuum. Then, you can say that even if we're pretending to be congressmen and such, the fact that they even discuss things on their debate floor actually has implications for the real world.

 

Honestly, you shouldn't even "link" to their framework arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's helpful. Sound like good arguments to make. What can I say against framework stuff that we run into some rounds because we sometimes don't defend fiat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's helpful. Sound like good arguments to make. What can I say against framework stuff that we run into some rounds because we sometimes don't defend fiat?

 

Well, a better question is why you don't defend fiat. You could still defend fiat while gaining access to your pre-fiat impacts.

 

To answer your question, though, you can make a few arguments as to why fiat isn't important. Their arguments would be based on fairness and education. They should still gain links as to why the effects of the plan are bad (e.g. you say dehumanization is bad, and you prevent it by saying things in the debate round. They could still argue that dehumanization is good). At that point, then, you could say that it's more educational to talk about the real world than it is to talk about hypothetical things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the standard that the aff can't claim pre-fiat impacts is radically unfair....because presumably the negative can.

 

That feeds Phantom's interp of the plan text. What they are actually saying is your ADVANTAGE (ie discoursive) is extra-topical....but thats a terrible standard because no aff meets it.

Arguably they could say "no....its your solvency thats extra-topical".....well same deal.......for instance, signally a reversal of our position on NPT or international or whatever is extra-topical too. Again no aff meets this interpretation or standard.

 

You should have evidence in your 1ac that makes this argument for you--at least in terms of impact turning the idea of "framework good". Also, if you don't get one. How?

1. look at your existing file

2. look at other affs (on the case list) and look for parallel arguments/claims.

3. look in other K affs from camp and look for parallel claims which pre-empt topicality/framework type arguments. Generally these are often semi-hidden or in "role of the ballot." But if you go seeking them....they are pretty easy to find...I think.

4. look at framework files from camp--there should be a handful in there.

 

Some stuff may not be answered:

1. roleplaying good/scenario planning good

2. switch side key to empathy, diversity, etc...

3. switch side debate key to skills

 

These you either have to answer on point....or explain why your arguments trump theirs--the value you achieve is higher or more important or more significant or relevant.

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...