Jump to content
Durbait

How to win Framework debates vs Kritiks

Recommended Posts

On the aff, why is does winning a framework argument win the round?

 

What's the best interp?

 

And what impacts do you have to win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top of a k flow

 

Alright so basically, you wanna win that evaluating the concrete consequences of the plan is more important than evaluating the discursive impact of your advocacy of the plan. I'm not a 2a and I don't tend to read kritiks on the neg, so this isn't really an argument I spend a ton of time thinking about, but the interp we generally go with is: 

 

"The judge should evaluate the costs and benefits of joining the AIIB versus the status quo or a competitive option" (Our aff is AIIB)

 

winning this argument doesn't win the round unless the k is the neg's only offense. In that case, if we win that the judge should only weigh the consequences of the plan in their decision, then that means they don't get to weigh the kritik so they have no offense. Now, even that isn't universally true. Especially with stuff like security, the neg will often have a reasonable claim to being able to indict your solvency. But you always wanna read framework because it helps you weigh the aff against the k, even if you don't win enough of the fw debate to get the judge to throw out the k

 

the big impacts are, policy focus key, pragmatism key, consequentialism good, util good, stuff like that. Those are all internal links to education and advocacy skills, etc.

 

now, that's how I view the FW debate. Here's a different interp that one of my lab leaders gave us at camp, and it takes a totally different angle. So think about the arguments and figure out which style you prefer

 

Framework—debate is about the desirability of plan implementation— key to fairness
because any other interpretation has no basis in the resolution, moots the 1AC, and is
self-serving for the negative. They can still read critiques of our method but they need
to prove a reason why the normative statement of the plan is false.
Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interp: we get to weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

 

super simple, probably true. It won't win you the round, but it'll prevent you from losing 7 times out of 10.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework is overrated. Just beat the K on substance.

 

Saying "we get to weigh our aff" doesn't really help you at all - the neg isn't saying you can't weigh your aff, they're just saying you have to justify something else (epistemology, ontology, etc.) before you're allowed to.

 

Just say "no prior questions" instead, it'll actually help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework is overrated. Just beat the K on substance.

 

I mean ideally you wanna have both. Dont let them make a big show in the block about how you conceded x y or z framing question Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely Ks where you want to be able to weigh your Aff, and the Neg will insist that you shouldn't be allowed to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interp: we get to weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

 

super simple, probably true. It won't win you the round, but it'll prevent you from losing 7 times out of 10.

Someone was paying attention in lab.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone was paying attention in lab.

that interp and impact calculus were two things you really drove home in my mind back when I was a novice in your lab at Baylor.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, winning the framework as AFF against the K allows the affirmative to weigh the impacts of the 1AC, Ik they previously said it. 

 

Some explanation: Bc you win FW, that means the judge has to take into consideration your Impact, and lets say you go ham completely on Impact Calc and prove why yours outweighs, then it makes it easier for the judge to vote AFF. 

 

I do believe that winning FW shouldn't be your only argument, like they said earlier, getting into the substance of the K such as No Links, Impact Turns... etc should be good as well.  

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...