Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'framework'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive

Categories

  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 45 results

  1. I am a novice debater and I just finished my first year of debate. Me and my partner both agreed since I am the 2A I will write our aff, and since my partner is the 2N, he will write most of our neg arguments. We are both going to Michigan (although I have not been accepted yet) him 5 week and me 7 week. My team is a primarily K team, however, reading a hard right aff thoroughly convinced me it links to everything. What are some pros and cons of reading a soft left aff with framing and taking the util debate every time vs reading a K aff and taking the framework debate every time?
  2. So I run neg against a local team and they always run the perm - methodological pluralism. The specific tag is "Perm – methodological pluralism combines multiple schools of thought to reclaim IR as emancipatory praxis and avoid endless political violence." How do you answer this? Can you say they sever out of advocating for their own plan text? I specifically ran cap and security k against this team, both times losing on this perm. Anything will help!!
  3. Looking for an extensive homecut framework file with a good section on plan key and usfg policy option key, as well as homecut answers to Ks of T; willing to trade a lot for quality files
  4. Last year, I remember seing some teams make the framework argument that every case should have a "solvency advocate," or someone/piece of evidence that specifically and more-or-less explicitly says "We should do this plan." However, I've only ever seen this argument made as an analytics argument, a throwaway make-the-2AC-respond-then-promptly-drop-argument. So, my question is, is this argument ever made in a serious (round-winning) context? And, if so, what evidence and standards could teams use?
  5. As Neg, my partner and I tend to like our counterplans. They're homecut, (mostly my partner's work, I'll admit), and that makes them really hard to fight directly--there's no OpenEvidence direct answers to our cards. So, the Aff teams usually go for Perm: do both, and we make the argument that the Perm is a cop-out: instead of debating the merits of our Negative strategy, they ignore it and continue to do their own thing, even going as far as to insinuate that THEY presented it. It's credit-stealing laziness--Bad for education; prevents the merits of possibly better ideas from being discussed, and discourages the use of home-cut arguments. We usually win on this argument, but I'm worried about what will happen once we start facing better teams. How does it sound? How can I make this argument better? What can I expect against this argument against more competent debaters?
  6. So, I've been working on writing a K for a couple months now for next year. I already have the basic stuff that makes it a runnable K, a good 1NC Shell, basic AT and AT Perms, a handy-dandy framework, and block extensions. This is good, but what can I do to make it great?
  7. I need some help figuring out a constitutional framework. Essentially I am trying to flesh out the idea that constituionalsm is a pre-req to morality- at least when the discourse is about rights in america- because when examining the "right and legality" in america, it goes back the constitution. I have heard of other frameworks, I am just trying to figure out how the framework works, and what I would need to argue
  8. Does anyone have any cards that say Ocean Policy (this years resolution) is bad/irrelevant/not important? I run a race aff which talks about disidentifying from the resolution, and we use analytics to say that the resolution is irrelevant but cards would be better..... Message for trade requests! Thx
  9. 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.
  10. For the Buddhism K, I don't mean the economics shit on openev - I want the generic stuff with a link of desire. I have a lot of race/id pol stuff I cut that I'll trade. I'll take whatever is the easiest to understand and most applicable in LD for Psychoanalysis K.
  11. I'm a novice debater who's trying to prep for districts and I'm in desperate need of making a framework argument for a racism advantage based on border drones. please help me! all help is welcome due to the fact that I barely run framework so it'd be nice and stuff, thank you!
  12. Hey I'm in desperate need of a framework card that simply states small impacts are preferable to large impacts. Does everyone have a card like that or know where to find one?
  13. I've heard this tossed around a lot but what exactly is "skepticism"? Is it connected to externalism? Or how we gain knowledge? Is there a place that provides a really good beginners explanation to it? Who writes about it? How is it connected to determinism more specifically, or error theory? I'm really unclear with this so sorry for all these questions. Any help would be really appreciated
  14. So, as i understand it, because K's don't have uniqueness, the reason the judge should vote on them is to reject bad knowledge production by the aff, whether it be epistemology, ontology, whatever. It seems like it's impossible to argue consequentialism framework on a K. Take for example neolib. Without uniqueness, it's impossible to assess the impact of the plan itself because we don't know by how much the plan spreads neoliberalism. That's why we argue instead that the judge should reject the aff on the grounds that they engage in neoliberal discourse and neoliberalism is bad for x y and z reasons. So am I wrong in this assessment? Is it possible to run a consequentialism framework on kritiks? Do all kritiks have to reject fiat and focus on in-round knowledge production? If so, is it possible to run framework on a k while at the same time running a PIC such as consult or condition, or any advocacy that links to the k, without performative contradiction? Thanks!
  15. I remember sometime this year a judge told one of my opponents who read framework against us and lost to look into this argument...what is it? I can't find the flow where I wrote about it. Thanks
  16. Does anyone know what arguments to make/how to explain them? Thanks!
  17. AmandaC

    Best ROBs

    hi I'm looking for a good ROB to run as neg on top of a epistemology k against a policy aff that isn't self-serving i.e. "ROB= team who challenges capitalism the best" reasons to prefer would be greatly appreciated too thx a lot
  18. Version

    Hello everybody, This is a file of framework cards I recently cut that should be useful against critical teams with no plan texts or otherwise untopical affs. You're bound to get alot of mileage out of this file as it can be used year in and year out against the aforementioned untopical teams. This file will also be useful if you are affirmative and debating critical teams. This file consists mainly of cards written by Neil Butt, a debate coach from Vanderbilt University (last year Vanderbilt had team ranked in the top 16) and Nathan Stewart, a debate coach from Illinois State University. The cards are extremely high quality as they were written for academic purposes and extensively reference studies that have been done about the benefits of policy debate. The cards by Butt and Stewart cannot be found in camp files; to my knowledge I am the first person to have cut these articles. Not that it matters very much in framework good/bad debates, but many of the cards in this file are relatively new (from 2010). In this file you'll find cards to defend limits, predictability, role-playing, and switch side debate, which you'll find very useful as explaining the "impacts" to these concepts is one of the most important parts of framework debates. There are also answers to common arguments made by critical teams. Framework Good. 1 Debate K2 Critical Thinking. 2 Debate K2 Political Engagement 3 Debate --> Social Change. 4 Limits Good/Depth > Breadth. 5 Limits Good/Depth > Breadth. 6 Predictability Good. 7 Policy Focus Good. 8 Policy Focus Good. 9 Policy Focus Good. 10 Policy Focus Good. 11 Role Playing Good. 12 Switch Side Good. 13 Switch Side Good. 14 Switch Side Good. 15 A2: Ballot --> Change. 16 A2: Ballot --> Change. 17 A2: Debate Class Solves Education. 18 A2: Debate Excludes Women. 19 A2: Debate --> Coercion. 20 A2: Debate --> Marginalization. 22 A2: Flow Bad. 23 A2: We Won’t All Be Policymakers. 24 My name's Jacob Justice. I'm a 3rd year debater for Wayne State University, where I've broke and won speaker awards at multiple regional tournaments. I debated 2 years in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan. I'm currently a coach for West Bloomfield High School and last year I coached Brother Rice High School at the TOC. Happy debating, Jake

    8.00 USD

  19. Does anyone know what arguments to make when reading framework against Wilderson? Thanks!
  20. Check out Christian Chessman's new article on frameworks for the upcoming PF topic here: https://championbriefs.com/blog/frameworks_sports?fb_action_ids=10204856305231503&fb_action_types=og.likes IMO he is correct on all accounts, both in his evaluation of the strongest pro/con arguments on the topic and in the strategic utility of framework debates for public forum.
  21. I am debating LD this year and I am currently working on constructing a theory file. So far, I have a bunch of blocks for arguments like effects T bad, limits good, conditionality bad, etc., but I'm worried that I still won't be able to answer certain theory arguments on the national circuit because I don't have answers/don't know what they are. Can anybody give me a list of the major LD theory concepts, or link me to a place where I can find them? I did policy for a few years, so I know some of those, I just need LD-specific stuff. Any help is appreciated.
  22. Where can I find a file and/or a wiki entry for a forced clash K? I've seen it before run against Riverwood AD this year, but I'm not sure who so I can't find the cites. If anyone knows where I can find it or has backfiles willing to share or trade for it would be greatly appreciated.
  23. I've seen a lot of comments like "We won on framework", and I was wondering if I could get a simple description of framework, what it does in the round (how different is it from ROB?), and a list of common frameworks. Thanks.
  24. I want to write a new NC for LD JanFeb (living wage), because I've gotten tired of NCs that are basically just unemployment, inflation, poverty turns, etc. I want to have this NC framework heavy, in which the contention level offense isn't mostly the same as all the other NC offense. Any ideas? (just wanted to let you know, I'm a novice, so I'd prefer not to run Nietzsche or something that novice judges or opponents likely wouldn't take too kindly to)
  25. So just finished my GDI open doubles round against critical islamaphobia and lost on a 2-1 for the aff cuz i didn't do enough impact calc and stuff like that. I'm very new to being a 2n as i started being 2n at camp and going for fw was my first time. Any tips argue framework better? I'm not really that familiar with it when going against k affs.
×
×
  • Create New...