Jump to content
BobbyTables

Best Framework standard

Recommended Posts

Ignorance 

 

Edit: Downrep me I don't give a fuck 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most successful is most likely state good (we need institutions, they solve the aff better, etc.) and limits. but given the current environment, unless you literally say, "you should get out of the activity if you want to do this" most standards are winnable. Fairness I'm kind of torn on, to some degree it's kinda true but at the same time the line between that it's unfair because it's actually not predictable and/or there's no negative ground that exists that is good, and "critical affs are stupid and we don't want to debate them ever" is kinda small.

 

Though in recent years affs have been getting good enough to where neg teams do have a leg to stand on with the "there's no damn negative to this" argument for limits debates. Not that countermethods don't matter, but teams are building affs to where any of your non framework/T arguments either don't link or they are the perm. Or you'd have to go on the morally suspect/you're a jackass/this could cause a fight in round route to answer them directly.

Edited by Firewater
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework has kind of transformed over the last few years. People don't really win a LOT on the Fairness/Education debate. FW's become a debate of methodology, aka who's method can best solve the "harms" of the 1AC. Your Role of the Ballot should be to vote for the team that provides the best method for solving the 1AC. So the debate comes down to whether USFG action or bottom-up societal awareness/whatever the 1AC claims is best.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Though in recent years affs have been getting good enough to where neg teams do have a leg to stand on with the "there's no damn negative to this" argument for limits debates. Not that countermethods don't matter, but teams are building affs to where any of your non framework/T arguments either don't link or they are the perm. Or you'd have to go on the morally suspect/you're a jackass/this could cause a fight in round route to answer them directly.

 

That's what scares me most about college debate. What the hell am I supposed to say to an aff so good there's nothing I can run besides FW/T? Imagine I read FW vs a wilderson aff because nothing else links. Suddenly that means I'm racist and part of the problem. Should I throw the round in a show of solidarity? At what point do we realize that this is a competitive activity, and that there is always going to be the "winner" and "loser" in a round. I think that a well written "No negative to this" kind of argument is one of the few framework arguments I 100% buy. 

 

 

 

Also, I haven't been downrepped enough. I want at least -15 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what scares me most about college debate. What the hell am I supposed to say to an aff so good there's nothing I can run besides FW/T? Imagine I read FW vs a wilderson aff because nothing else links. Suddenly that means I'm racist and part of the problem. Should I throw the round in a show of solidarity? At what point do we realize that this is a competitive activity, and that there is always going to be the "winner" and "loser" in a round. I think that a well written "No negative to this" kind of argument is one of the few framework arguments I 100% buy. 

 

 

 

Also, I haven't been downrepped enough. I want at least -15

 

I mean, this is a legitimate question, but I can down rep you if you want me to...

 

There are two parts to framework. There's the theoretical and the substantive. The theoretical involves your "normal" standards like fairness and education. You're probably not going to win this because the aff will be extremely prepared to answer it. However, once they do so, then you use that to your advantage with the substantive part of framework. You can then argue that the use of the state is the best internal link to solving the harms of the aff. By saying that the neg's invocation of fairness/education is bad, you've basically gotten them to say that they actively preclude the use of the state.

 

Then you say that the state, since it's so powerful and what not, is the best means of combating all of these problems. Sure, they'll call you racist, but tell them that this doesn't make any sense because you're basically agreeing on the terminal impact being a problem, but you're saying that your method is best. It is a competing methodology, and any claims of you being, say, racist just don't make sense.

 

Yes, that means that you'll have to do some case work against the aff in order to find relevant cards on solvency from the state. However, that just means that you have to do case work against these affs.

 

For an aff that actively eschews the state, you're basically internal link turning them. With Wilderson, for example, you'd say that the state is actually the best method of solving anti-blackness.

 

 

 

There are very few arguments where the neg literature is actually bad. However, this means that you have to expand your concept of what "neg" literature is so that it includes things like a competing methodology via the state. Even if that's really not an option, then you can probably find something to PIC out of from their speech.

 

If all else fails, throw some random crap at the wall and see what sticks. You might as well if you really think that nothing links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about for Gender Affs, particularly those with narratives and that ish? What are good standards in those cases? 

You can win that gender mainstreaming is key to solving their impact areas, which makes their harms an impact turn to their method.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what scares me most about college debate. What the hell am I supposed to say to an aff so good there's nothing I can run besides FW/T? Imagine I read FW vs a wilderson aff because nothing else links. Suddenly that means I'm racist and part of the problem. Should I throw the round in a show of solidarity? At what point do we realize that this is a competitive activity, and that there is always going to be the "winner" and "loser" in a round. I think that a well written "No negative to this" kind of argument is one of the few framework arguments I 100% buy. 

 

 

 

Also, I haven't been downrepped enough. I want at least -15 

I don't think this is the best example, there's quite a lot of kritik of Wilderson. But if you read something like Deleuze, with fluid identity, then the totalizing static identity claims of afropess clash pretty hard with that, so you can try and win the turn debate. I'm not familiar with the lit but afro-optimism may have some K's of afro-pess. Worst comes to worse you could always try util with big stick impacts, but your mileage may vary.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what scares me most about college debate. What the hell am I supposed to say to an aff so good there's nothing I can run besides FW/T? Imagine I read FW vs a wilderson aff because nothing else links. Suddenly that means I'm racist and part of the problem. Should I throw the round in a show of solidarity? At what point do we realize that this is a competitive activity, and that there is always going to be the "winner" and "loser" in a round. I think that a well written "No negative to this" kind of argument is one of the few framework arguments I 100% buy. 

You can read a soft framework? Are you honestly telling me there's no negative to we should burn down the state?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read a soft framework? Are you honestly telling me there's no negative to we should burn down the state?

Soft framework is honestly kinda terrible, you're better off going for hard framework or just not reading framework than it, on account of you have an actual link, where soft framework could get you into trouble with other position. Also as the person that was quoted, I want to point out that while some K affs are "easy" if you can even call it that, the original argument is that K teams are better at finding affs with no "good" neg ground, I don't mean "good" as in here's some politics links or a DA or something, I mean Good as in actual case debate or actual engaging options. Nowadays the best K affs are so small that they either link to nothing OR they can perm anything the neg reads. That's why hard framework would be better to read.

Edited by Firewater
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once Wilderson started writing, every other race scholar immediately stopped writing.  Clearly his position is unassailable and instead of criticizing his work, contemporary scholars give him burnt offerings at every meal.

 

Moten, hooks, Hartman...?

Edited by ARGogate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moten, hooks, Hartman...?

I believe your sarcasm-o-meter is in need of repair.

  • Upvote 4

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...