Jump to content
LDr

[PF] Framing Framework Debates: Work Smart, Not Hard

Recommended Posts

Check out Christian Chessman's new article on frameworks for the upcoming PF topic here:

 

https://championbriefs.com/blog/frameworks_sports?fb_action_ids=10204856305231503&fb_action_types=og.likes

 

IMO he is correct on all accounts, both in his evaluation of the strongest pro/con arguments on the topic and in the strategic utility of framework debates for public forum.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how one can have a substantive framework debate with 4 minutes for 4 speeches, and 2 minutes for 4 speeches. That's not even including the actual case. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how one can have a substantive framework debate with 4 minutes for 4 speeches, and 2 minutes for 4 speeches. That's not even including the actual case. 

"word economy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy how impact calc is now framework.

Out of interest how is a judge supposed to decide a pufo round without impact calc?  ...wait I'm sorry I meant Framework.

You did mean framework, which is why the poor attempt at snark bespeaks ignorance. All frameworks are impact calc.

 

An "extinction first" framework says that impacts which end in extinction deserve prioritization. A "disads probability over magnitude" framework is similar; as are "epistemology first" frameworks (knowledge production impact prioritization), "ethics first" (inviolable rules impact prioritization). "Method" k aff frameworks are similar (vote for impacts at the method level).Even "policy" frameworks are impact calc (which is why they often feature extensive discussions of weighing the aff).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Framework" is a term with different meanings across different events. In LD, framework refers to an ethical theory, e.g. a utilitarian framework. This usage seems closer to the PF definition of "framework" than to policy's. I see no grounds for treating one event's usage of jargon as on face superior to another's.

 

TL;DR

Language is fluid. Smug policy debaters are annoying.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Even imperfect access to an impact may be sufficient to win. In other words, even if the affirmative creates higher levels of happiness, the fact that the negative creates some level of happiness and an independent benefit is sufficient to award them a ballot. These argument can be deployed with whatever level of complexity the debaters feel appropriate for the round, including arguments as simple as a negative argument that "the affirmative framework only accesses social goods while the negative framework accesses social goods and economic goods, and is therefore superior".

 

Are you intentionally trying to make PF debate worse? Such arguments are terrible but wildly persuasive with stupid judges. Having more than one type of impact is not a factor that should in any way influence the decision, only the total value of the impacts. Why would you ever spread this dumb idea, haven't you ever seen this monstrosity in action? It's like a brain glitch for stupid people, it's like the Khalilzad 95 of bad but popular and winnable arguments.

 

All frameworks are impact calc.

 

You are the first debater who has ever claimed so, I think. If all frameworks are impact calc, then why not all DAs, Kritiks, and topicalities? Just as a framework argument would claim we should prioritize education, a topicality argument would claim we should prioritize fairness, and a DA would claim we should prioritize political capital, and a Kritik would claim we should prioritize resistance to capitalism. Judging by your examples, you seem to be using a very very loose notion of impact calculus, where impact calculus means an argument for prioritizing something over something else in the judge's decision. The problem is that literally every argument in the round will be having effects on the judge's decision in the same way, prioritizing this idea over that one, and that argument over this one. That's way too broad a concept to be useful.

 

Regardless, all grozzles are flozzles. Are all flozzles grozzles? Obviously not. Framework necessarily involves a claim about which arguments should be excluded or ignored. This is what "framework" means and has meant historically. So even if your broad claim is true and framework should be considered as though it's a subset of impact calculus, that doesn't mean you're justified if you take impact calculus arguments and label them as framework. Impact calculus might be necessary for a framework argument, but it's not sufficient.

 

"Framework" is a term with different meanings across different events. In LD, framework refers to an ethical theory, e.g. a utilitarian framework. This usage seems closer to the PF definition of "framework" than to policy's. I see no grounds for treating one event's usage of jargon as on face superior to another's.

 

LD doesn't use framework this way. LD frameworks do not argue, eg, "consequentialism is more important than deontology". They instead argue "consequentialism is true and deontology is false". Only the latter claim is considered a framework argument in the LD sense, the former is an impact weighing argument. The former claim looks weird, and this is a consequence of the fact that LDers, for good reason, do not make such impact weighing claims when discussing evaluative moral theories - such claims can't be made without first presenting the standard by which you're evaluating. Framework is about setting a frame on the round, setting limits on the round. And impact calculus doesn't do that. Excluding ideas from the debate is distinct from claiming that one outcome or scenario is worse than another.

 

Edit: removed the word "even" from my post, as it violated one of Snarf's rules.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too much silliness in that post to merit response; unfortunate, given your leave of absence, but not surprising. The mindless misreading of the OP's impact access argument, the wildly unverifiable assertion that no debate scholar has ever claimed framing debates boil down to impacts (perhaps you haven't heard of Calum Matheson who articulated various versions of that argument), or the equivocation between the terms "impact" and "argument" in discussing argument prioritization.   

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "impact access" argument itself is mindless. It counts types of impacts that are accessed, rather than evaluating the overall amount of harm or good that results from the impacts. I have seen that argument in action, roaming the barren plains of LD in the Midwest. It decimates all idiot judges who wander into in its path, it is an unstoppable tornado of violent stupidity. You either released it on accident, in which case you're just another tragically damaged victim, or you released it on purpose, in which case you're a slightly evil businessperson. But either way, it's an ugly argument that needs to be opposed. You claim I'm just oversimplifying it, but I guarantee you don't have a better or different version of that argument, in anything except the connotation of words composing it.

The conflation of "impact" and "argument" was your own. That was literally my whole point. If framework is impact calculus because it prioritizes certain values, Ks and DAs and CPs and theory are also impact calculus.

I wasn't trying to make a verifiable claim of perfect proof, but only a general probabilistic inference, when I claimed no one else says that framework debate is just impact comparison.

I think you are possibly misinterpreting Calum's viewpoint. While framework debates do "boil down" to impacts in a certain sense, so too do all debates boil down to impacts. But there are arguments that determine the form of the boiling process, and there are also arguments that are themselves boiled away during the process. Although impacts are the end product justifications that effect the judge's ballot, that does not mean that impacts are the only thing that really exist in a round. Impacts are extremely important and should shape the way we think about the debate, but despite that not everything is an impact. For example, a framework interpretation is not an impact - thus framework debates are not just impact debates. Claiming otherwise broadens the concept of "impact" to the point where it is meaningless.

Even if you are right that we should think about framework debates just as a type of impact debate, that doesn't mean you were justified when you labelled impact comparisons as a kind of framework. Logic 101, flozzles and grozzles.

For you to say you won't argue with me and then rattle off a string of unfleshed objections is terrible. Rude and transparently unfair.

Edited by Snarf
edited at user's request
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

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...