Jump to content
theydb8r

Framework

Recommended Posts

Make sure to not make it too exclusive, like obviously they shouldn't win we meet, but there should still be some reasonable kind of arguments they could make. It really, really helps to have a short list of cases the aff could run under the interp and still be topical and stuff. 

Line by line, definitely, have to second that.

Make sure to extend your impacts throughout the entire round, if you drop your reasons that your interp should be the winning one you're probably screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure to not make it too exclusive, like obviously they shouldn't win we meet, but there should still be some reasonable kind of arguments they could make. It really, really helps to have a short list of cases the aff could run under the interp and still be topical and stuff. 

Line by line, definitely, have to second that.

Make sure to extend your impacts throughout the entire round, if you drop your reasons that your interp should be the winning one you're probably screwed.

How do you impact a T/Framework argument? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you impact a T/Framework argument?

 

Fairness.

If it's a race team then have answers to they can't access Fairness, and use Fairness to turn their other impacts (like if people leave debate because unfair then they have no one to educate)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

What do you think I should be good to go on in order to ru framework as the negative.

I honestly wouldn't advise it, IMO, framework, while not dead, is getting pretty antiquated. I'd advise that you get good at a few general turns for recurring K affs and go from there(i.e. If you were going to hit a lot of Race/gender affs, get good at some form of "X binary bad" or "viewing X oppression through X lens, it's rooted in the same episteme as whoever you're critiquing", etc) 

 

If you do decide to go w/ framework, i'd advise practicing it against A.) Team members who are good at whatever you'd read framework against or B.) Bad (or at best decent) teams on your circuit, you don't want your first framework 2NR against a team good enough to get a bid.

Edited by Payton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wouldn't advise it, IMO, framework, while not dead, is getting pretty antiquated. I'd advise that you get good at a few general turns for recurring K affs and go from there(i.e. If you were going to hit a lot of Race/gender affs, get good at some form of "X binary bad" or "viewing X oppression through X lens, it's rooted in the same episteme as whoever you're critiquing", etc) 

 

If you do decide to go w/ framework, i'd advise practicing it against A.) Team members who are good at whatever you'd read framework against or B.) Bad (or at best decent) teams on your circuit, you don't want your first framework 2NR against a team good enough to get a bid.

Framework really depends on your judge, as can be seen with the NDT 2014 Semi-finals round of Oklahoma CL vs Georgetown, if you're judge is super policy-oriented then there is a strong chance he/she will vote neg on framework, but if they're more liberal with regards to their views on debate, then they'll prolly be less persuaded to vote on a framework argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wouldn't advise it, IMO, framework, while not dead, is getting pretty antiquated. I'd advise that you get good at a few general turns for recurring K affs and go from there(i.e. If you were going to hit a lot of Race/gender affs, get good at some form of "X binary bad" or "viewing X oppression through X lens, it's rooted in the same episteme as whoever you're critiquing", etc) 

 

If you do decide to go w/ framework, i'd advise practicing it against A.) Team members who are good at whatever you'd read framework against or B.) Bad (or at best decent) teams on your circuit, you don't want your first framework 2NR against a team good enough to get a bid.

I'd have to disagree. I've seen framework against every single K aff or against every policy aff by K teams this year, but it may be different in HS.

 

Then again were probably thinking of framework in different ways, I don't see 'you can't run K's' or whatever though, which is what I usually associated with FW in HS, is that what you're describing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree. I've seen framework against every single K aff or against every policy aff by K teams this year, but it may be different in HS.

 

Then again were probably thinking of framework in different ways, I don't see 'you can't run K's' or whatever though, which is what I usually associated with FW in HS, is that what you're describing?

Yes, i'm mean the old framework that's like "no K affs" or when people run K's on the neg the framework is like "No K's" or "links have to be intrinsic to the plan"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a summary of a lecture on framework that I thought was good.

 

There are two kinds of framework arguments. The first is less powerful and less likely to win than the second type. However, the second type can usually only be employed in conjunction with the first type, so the two should always be run in conjunction.

 

The first type falls into the category of theoretical arguments. Theoretical framework arguments say the K is bad for debate and should be rejected for procedural reasons. This is where standard fairness and education impacts come into play.

 

A good K aff will be extremely prepared for this. They will use those procedural standards as internal links to further arguments, and then they will impact turn those terminal impacts. For example, a Wildersonian (he has an adjective) may argue that fairness is a white conception divorced from one's social location, an attempt to speak for all people when, in reality, it reifies certain bad practices.

 

Substantive framework arguments say that either the status quo method of thinking of the questions highlighted in the K team's arguments is good or that the method that the K team uses to address the problems that they discuss is bad. One of the most common examples of this would be engaging with the state is good, specifically in the case of solving the harms that the aff highlights. Thus, insofar as the aff rejects the state, the aff rejects the best means of combating the issues that they wish to solve. There are other substantive arguments that do not necessarily involve the state, but those should be tailored to the particular aff in question.

 

The reason to run the theoretical arguments is so that the negative answers them. Above, I said "insofar as the aff rejects the state...". Without the theoretical framework arguments, it may be difficult to prove that the aff does indeed reject the state (obviously, there are some affs that outright reject the state in the 1AC, so in this case, the theoretical arguments are not very much needed). In impact turning fairness and education, the aff has functionally rejected any institutions founded upon those principles. This includes institutions like the state and university systems, entities ostensibly founded for the purposes of education and fairness.

 

The key to winning the substantive arguments is to have specific levels of argumentation. This does indeed mean that it's best to have evidence that, for example, specifically says that the harms of the aff are best solved by the state. This means that specific research would have to be done to find such specific evidence.

 

You're functionally internal link turning the aff with the substantive arguments.

 

Of course, as Snarkosaurus Rex pointed out, you could also internal link turn the aff with the theoretical arguments, but it would seem to be more difficult in most instances.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wouldn't advise it, IMO, framework, while not dead, is getting pretty antiquated. I'd advise that you get good at a few general turns for recurring K affs and go from there(i.e. If you were going to hit a lot of Race/gender affs, get good at some form of "X binary bad" or "viewing X oppression through X lens, it's rooted in the same episteme as whoever you're critiquing", etc) 

 

If you do decide to go w/ framework, i'd advise practicing it against A.) Team members who are good at whatever you'd read framework against or B.) Bad (or at best decent) teams on your circuit, you don't want your first framework 2NR against a team good enough to get a bid.

Naman Gupta where are you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a summary of a lecture on framework that I thought was good.

 

There are two kinds of framework arguments. The first is less powerful and less likely to win than the second type. However, the second type can usually only be employed in conjunction with the first type, so the two should always be run in conjunction.

 

The first type falls into the category of theoretical arguments. Theoretical framework arguments say the K is bad for debate and should be rejected for procedural reasons. This is where standard fairness and education impacts come into play.

 

A good K aff will be extremely prepared for this. They will use those procedural standards as internal links to further arguments, and then they will impact turn those terminal impacts. For example, a Wildersonian (he has an adjective) may argue that fairness is a white conception divorced from one's social location, an attempt to speak for all people when, in reality, it reifies certain bad practices.

 

Substantive framework arguments say that either the status quo method of thinking of the questions highlighted in the K team's arguments is good or that the method that the K team uses to address the problems that they discuss is bad. One of the most common examples of this would be engaging with the state is good, specifically in the case of solving the harms that the aff highlights. Thus, insofar as the aff rejects the state, the aff rejects the best means of combating the issues that they wish to solve. There are other substantive arguments that do not necessarily involve the state, but those should be tailored to the particular aff in question.

 

The reason to run the theoretical arguments is so that the negative answers them. Above, I said "insofar as the aff rejects the state...". Without the theoretical framework arguments, it may be difficult to prove that the aff does indeed reject the state (obviously, there are some affs that outright reject the state in the 1AC, so in this case, the theoretical arguments are not very much needed). In impact turning fairness and education, the aff has functionally rejected any institutions founded upon those principles. This includes institutions like the state and university systems, entities ostensibly founded for the purposes of education and fairness.

 

The key to winning the substantive arguments is to have specific levels of argumentation. This does indeed mean that it's best to have evidence that, for example, specifically says that the harms of the aff are best solved by the state. This means that specific research would have to be done to find such specific evidence.

 

You're functionally internal link turning the aff with the substantive arguments.

 

Of course, as Snarkosaurus Rex pointed out, you could also internal link turn the aff with the theoretical arguments, but it would seem to be more difficult in most instances.

 

This is almost the exact lecture that Steve Pointer gave at gonzaga. Coincidence  .....  I think not

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...