Jump to content
DickRida

Framework vs. Neg Kritik

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm looking for direction regarding using framework as a tool against kritiks read by the negative team in the 1NC. Sometimes, I find they preempt framework by reading a card along the lines of "your notion of fiat papers over important issues" or something like that in the 1NC. Most of the time though, their is no specific FW found in their 1NC, and they use the 2NC to finally develop FW, if it is to make an appearance in the debate.

 

I'm getting sick of hearing, "they conceded our framework so that means you evaluate this round under the scope of [THEIR AUTHOR] and prioritize our impacts," when we both know they articulated only a semblance of framework in the 1NC. So, I'm here seeking guidance on how to write 2AC blocks that provide an interp and defend policy action under the resolution.

 

Again, I'm not 100% sure of what this would look like. Are their any camp files that have pre-made blocks for this sort of thing? Do framework arguments against kritiks just devolve down to "reps don't shape reality"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our interpretation is that judge should only evaluate arguments based off the action of the plan text.

Standards-

1. Opportunity cost logic- Arguments that don’t prove surveillance should stay the way it is, under their framework incentivizes an aggressive zero-sum logic that is unworkable in modern life. It always begs the question of impacts and solvency so evaluating things in artificial vacuums propagates the worst forms of cherry picking

2. Regressive- Frameworks based off of speculative ideological components of the plan are self-serving and attempt to exclude the aff completely which crowds out any productive form of dialogue.

3. Reciprocity- Aff gets to control what they put in the plan text and Neg gets their links to K’s as long as they generate them from the actual action of the plan instead of assumptions.

4. Argument testing- their framework always let’s them say we are never specific enough because the parameter of their framework is always established ad hoc. 

5. Laws are an inevitable aspect of social relationships – interpreting them flexibly to further radical politics is more productive than re-inventing the wheel – the insidious acceleration of oppression requires reform – institutional engagement doesn’t require compromising ethics – empirically proven

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't need something that long. At the top of the 2ac, all you need is

"Interpretation: we should be able to weigh the impacts of the aff against the impacts of the K to prevent mooring of the 1ac"

 

Then, if they harp on it, in the 1ar you can blow it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't need something that long. At the top of the 2ac, all you need is

"Interpretation: we should be able to weigh the impacts of the aff against the impacts of the K to prevent mooring of the 1ac"

 

Then, if they harp on it, in the 1ar you can blow it up.

That is what I usually do but like if it is a one-off K or a K that you have almost nothing against, then it seems like a smarter route.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I usually do but like if it is a one-off K or a K that you have almost nothing against, then it seems like a smarter route.

Nobody is going to vote on policy making framework because the circuit has become such a leftist community. You should spend your time getting out more arguments, i.e. "Institutions Key, Reps don't shape reality, Epist. irrelevant, Reforms good, perms, and impact turns"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is going to vote on policy making framework because the circuit has become such a leftist community. You should spend your time getting out more arguments, i.e. "Institutions Key, Reps don't shape reality, Epist. irrelevant, Reforms good, perms, and impact turns"

 

If they win the argument than I'll vote on it and I'm a democratic socialist! 

 

Remember to get out and vote for Bernie Sanders (Paid for by Bernie, not the Billionaires)

Edited by BernieSanders
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is going to vote on policy making framework because the circuit has become such a leftist community. You should spend your time getting out more arguments, i.e. "Institutions Key, Reps don't shape reality, Epist. irrelevant, Reforms good, perms, and impact turns"

I don't expect them to vote on the Aff framework, I just want defense against 1NC framework in the kritik, which is exactly what this thread has provided me (thanks y'all). And a question, is "epistemology irrelevant" the same as util good?

 

 

And also, is there some middle ground between having just an interpretation at the top of the 2AC, and having a whole "policy making" good block? Maybe an interp with perhaps 3 good defensive answers?

 

In your experience, how does the framework debate usually play out? Does the 2NC often ignore it entirely?

 

 

Edit:

You really don't need something that long. At the top of the 2ac, all you need is

"Interpretation: we should be able to weigh the impacts of the aff against the impacts of the K to prevent mooring of the 1ac"

 

Then, if they harp on it, in the 1ar you can blow it up.

Can  you elaborate on how I can "blow it up" in the 1AR if it comes to this?

Edited by DickRida
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×