Jump to content
NativeWarlock

T USFG vs Framework

Recommended Posts

Do y'all think one is comparatively better than the other?

 

I tend to side with T usfg. Mainly cause I feel framework tends to create discourse along the lines of "we need more rules about what the AFF can do" whereas T is simply saying adhere to one word of the topic- I get how both could do the same thing though.

 

Opinions?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW is so much better, IMO. The aff in this case can easily just shove T-USFG (just like every T violation) to the side. The aff in this case is very open with being untopical and everyone knows it. Also, USFG inherently bad and whatever they will say. 

FW, on the other hand, is something the aff in this case MUST answer. The neg in this case can beat the aff easier with FW because it is something the judge wants to vote on more. It also, is more broad, and can lead to a better debate. Also, it's a better arg to go for (more "impacts")

If the the aff is clearly not gonna mention the resolution, framework is just the go-to option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW is so much better, IMO. The aff in this case can easily just shove T-USFG (just like every T violation) to the side. The aff in this case is very open with being untopical and everyone knows it. Also, USFG inherently bad and whatever they will say.

FW, on the other hand, is something the aff in this case MUST answer. The neg in this case can beat the aff easier with FW because it is something the judge wants to vote on more. It also, is more broad, and can lead to a better debate. Also, it's a better arg to go for (more "impacts")

If the the aff is clearly not gonna mention the resolution, framework is just the go-to option.

 

Yeah I get that, but most teams only bring some law bad cards and sketch answers I feel like. I mean the question of the debate isn't if the USfg is bad, if its they use it or not- that usually falls thru tho. Edited by NativeWarlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do y'all think one is comparatively better than the other?

 

I tend to side with T usfg. Mainly cause I feel framework tends to create discourse along the lines of "we need more rules about what the AFF can do" whereas T is simply saying adhere to one word of the topic- I get how both could do the same thing though.

 

Opinions?

None - engage the aff on face for what it has said .  don't just rely on question of model- its kinda like someone just making a debate bout a author indict  with a shit ton of impacts . 

do things such as question broader questions - (bias of course ) but thats diff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None - engage the aff on face for what it has said .  don't just rely on question of model- its kinda like someone just making a debate bout a author indict  with a shit ton of impacts . 

do things such as question broader questions - (bias of course ) but thats diff

Obviously you need to do this. But having framework can drastically help your chances of winning. Plus, if a team is going to be kritikal, they need to be prepped for framework.

Edited by Leffen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the difference?

 

I guess the difference depends a whole lot on how you view each arg and how you frame it (in a round). Framework necessitates exclusion of the discussion of the affirmative ever happening in the debate space whereas T-USfg is just saying you should be topical for neg ground. T-USfg is more of like a "soft framework" against K affs and it depends a whole lot on how you spin it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the difference depends a whole lot on how you view each arg and how you frame it (in a round). Framework necessitates exclusion of the discussion of the affirmative ever happening in the debate space whereas T-USfg is just saying you should be topical for neg ground. T-USfg is more of like a "soft framework" against K affs and it depends a whole lot on how you spin it.

So framework is not saying that you should be topical? Isn't T-USfg excluding any non-topical affirmatives from ever happening in the debate space?

 

This is coming from someone who doesn't believe in the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the difference depends a whole lot on how you view each arg and how you frame it (in a round). Framework necessitates exclusion of the discussion of the affirmative ever happening in the debate space whereas T-USfg is just saying you should be topical for neg ground. T-USfg is more of like a "soft framework" against K affs and it depends a whole lot on how you spin it.

Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework.

 

At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance.

 

This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG.

 

None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Framework isn't 'excluding the discussion of the aff,' otherwise 'topical version of the aff' wouldn't be an argument used in framework.

At its core, framework is "T+" -- it's a T-USFG violation paired with a methodology/solvency debate. Depending on the aff, people usually pair this with other T violations, such as T-curtail or T-domestic surveillance.

This is why you see the familiar 'resolved = legislative action' paired with both T standards (limits and ground) and with cards like 'Law key to address anti-blackness.' If it lacks the latter part it's really just T-USFG.

None of this is an exclusion of the discussion of the aff. Unless a team is making poor choices, the whole point is that you can talk about racism, sexism, etc. within the context of legislative action (usually contextualize to the resolution).

Which is exactly why I said whether or not the difference exists depends on how you spin. Imo, the distinction doesn't exist in most debates, but there are those that believe T-USfg doesnt make a totalizing claim about the state being good, just necessary for clash, where framework debates tend to come down more to the state goood/bad debate. Just explaining the thinking behind those that claim there is a difference.

  • Upvote 1

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...