Skip to content
January 7, 2011 / compassioninpolitics

Create a critical framework for your affirmative

Tens ways to help your critical affirmative (mostly via better framework arguments):

1) Butler’s “Precarious Life” (Butler has some great evidence which specifically mentions “dissent”
2) Roland Bleiker. Bleiker has some Alternatives and Millenium articles, but I believe most all the arguments from him are from his book.
3) Try a geneaology. This is incredibly strategic. Its hard for the neg. to link turn.
4) Evidence about “memory” being good can also give you an advantage (particularly against representation critiques). Most of the memory bad assumes the “official” memory or the status quo memory not your affirmative.
5) Nayar
6) Kappler
7) At least one must reject card (hopefully reject in every instance)
8] At least one root cause piece of evidence
9) Evidence which turns the status quo into a fundamentalism.
10) Arguments about the State:
1. Either. A defense of the institution if you use the institution (ie Zizek evidence on using the letter of the law against itself….or perhaps Rorty Cede the Political). Also other defenses of the need to engage the public sphere. Campell has some evidence about using biopower against itself (it may be best to hold this back for the 2ac)
2. Or. Arguments about simulation being bad (or the politics of deference to government or calling on government)

Other thoughts on critical affirmatives or framework?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Jan 7 2011 9:07 pm

    Here is an earlier post on Tips for Debating Framework (my guess is this is mostly for the neg–but its wise to take these into account)
    https://learnpolicydebate.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/tips-for-debating-framework/

    As I recall some of these are about using theory inclusive arguments
    to coopt your opponents framework arguments. (Basically a a PIC of their theory argument)

  2. Nathan Ketsdever / Dec 4 2012 4:18 am

    You probably want one contention which indicates 2 things:

    1. Critiques traditional debate or whatever aspect of debate you decide to critique (DAs, topicality, fiat, public policy focus, speed, etc…
    2. Explains the role of the ballot

    To me the 2nd is far more important than the 1st. This allows a bit more 2ac flexibility, but establishes a clear idea of the purpose of debate/the ballot, etc…

    And….your ethics argument is your route to education. I’m kinda curious how many K debaters try to mitigate or win the fairness debate. For instance critiquing meritocracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: