Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-2 Slipping...

About DickRida

  • Rank
  1. Recently, I've been having some confusion over whether I should be flowing some arguments on framework or on case against planless K affs. Here's some questions I have: 1) Should the "reps don't shape reality" argument be flowed on case, or on framework? In recent memory, I have been flowing it on case because I consider it part of the solvency mechanism of the aff. 2) How about "discourse doesn't affect social change" (which is kinda the same thing) or "discourse cedes the political to the elites"? Should these be flowed on case or on framework? 3) This is only tangentially related, but does framework need independent voters? I have never seen a 1NC framework block that says "D. Vote negative because" but I'm thinking about including it in my own framework frontlines anyway. My reasoning is as follows: (a) Standards are usually voters in themselves, i.e. vote neg to preserve discussion of topic literature - best education. So I should not have a section devoted to explaining my voters, but ( Framework impacts are usually distinct from standards ("no switch side debate -> dogmatism") and framework impacts can usually be grouped under traditional Topicality voters, like fairness and education. Any insight on the matter would be most helpful.
  2. 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: Can you elaborate on how I can "blow it up" in the 1AR if it comes to this?
  3. 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"?
  4. Thanks for enlightening me. But I still have a few questions, namely: 1) What is a "masking link"? I've never heard this term used before. 2) So is the functional competition of the alt determined solely by the link cards the neg reads? Just like how in a CP competition is the link to the NB? 3) Could I write a PIK with an alt saying "do the plan without the USFG" and claim textual competition off of it?
  5. Can it exist? Why doesn't competition in the understanding we use to talk about counterplans not carry over to kritiks? Textual competition could apply to the alt -- wherein PIKs have the least textual competition. And functional competition could apply to the alt solvency -- what the kritik does differently from the case. This could be especially useful in K vs. K debates. If perms are "tests of competition" than I don't see why perms on the kritik can't also be tests of competition. Or maybe this literally is a thing and I've just never heard of it.
  • Create New...