Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'fw'.
Found 4 results
So I know that a lot of K folks will read arguments about what the roll of the ballot is -- ontology/epistemology/etc first, and I know that in my 2ac blocks I'm supposed to have framework that says the roll of the ballot/judge (assuming I'm reading a tpd aff) is to evaluate the effects of the implementation of a hypothetical plan text. But, as far as I know, the "actual" rob is affirming the resolution based off whichever team is more convincing. That said, this is all really shaky in my head. What does it really mean to say that the ballot signifies anything? How does this intersect with arguments about standards -- like, how does an aff being more educational mean that the resolution is true/false? What does it mean to argue that it should be changed, esp. does that affirm the resolution? What about topical counterplans? Is the only point of the resolution to inspire affs and then everything will be determined by the impacts inround? I guess this probably comes from a lack of understanding of the impacts of standards/pre-fiat stuff on the critical side. This was probably a lot, any help would be appreciated, I've a lot to learn. e: I put this in Ks because generally its teams outside of tpd that will make arguments like this (although its just as much if not more about T/theory) -- didn't know quite where it went, hope it's not an issue
hey all! i need help looking for carded answers to framework-- as in counter interps and usfg= the people (really need this fam pls). ive looked through all of the fw camp files and t camp files and cant find anything. where can i find some?
Hello all, hopefully this is in the right/an adequate place I was wondering what were some nontraditional responses to critical affirmatives? I find myself persuaded by many answers to framework, truly, but in as much as my career has gone thusfar I've really only spent time with more straight up negative strategies: politics. That, combined with a small and nervous circuit in the way of critical debate that has left me only encountering two k-affs in all of my debating, has left me at a sort of loss as to what to do against them. While I ended up running and going for FW, I had a really hard time arguing for it. However, I'm not terribly well versed in many critiques, and going for FW and cap is an easy round for a team that hits it all of the time. In preparing for an aff I know someone in our circuit is about to read, I came across disads to the K aff: epistemology and science disads. I thought the idea of running multiple disads and maybe even a PEC of uncertain political action would be interesting, so I appeal to those who know more than myself with a) is that viable at all what kinds of uncommon offcase like that exist c) where would I find them d) anything else that'd be relevant based off what I've said I've heard whisperings of a Heg DA? what is that Any help is appreciated, thanks