Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'standards'.
Found 2 results
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.
I've been looking through files and files and my objective is to get enough cards for every major standard and compose a master standards file of sorts. For every file I look on, there aren't any/many cards on grounds but everything else has a bunch of cards on. If anyone could point me in the right direction that'd be great.