Skip to content
December 29, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

How do you win framwork debates on the negative versus performative affirmatives

Is this framework on the negative versus performative affirmatives?

The debate over framework is basically romanticism versus the enlightenment, the wild versus order, or the post-modern versus the modern. [rules good versus rules bad, predictability good versus predictability bad, are standards good?, how do standards help us?]

Its also ostensibly about the nature of:
1) words/discussions/communication
2) movements/social change
3) games/competition
4) reps versus roleplaying
5) the role of the ballot/the role of the judge
6) the purpose of debate
7) creativity in relation to guidelines versus no guidelines
8) the ability of the affirmative to win -ism based impacts to impact turn education.
9) defining terms or having limits = bad (gatekeeper of IR….ala Bleiker….or something Foucault related

How all of this relates to fairness & predictability.

What replaces the space opened up by the post-modern turn in debate.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that in a framework lecture, however. If you can control a number of these….and prove that yours are more important (impact or theory filters)……you should win. Period.

* Note: when I say standards above….I’m referring to standards in the larger sense (ie principles & values).

Advertisements

18 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 3:46 am

    A bit of an update to the above:

    The debate over framework is basically romanticism versus the enlightenment, the wild versus order, or the post-modern versus the modern. [rules good versus rules bad, predictability good versus predictability bad, are standards good?, how do standards help us?]

    Its also ostensibly about the nature of:
    1) words/discussions/communication
    2) movements/social change
    3) games/competition
    4) reps versus roleplaying
    5) the role of the ballot/the role of the judge
    6) the purpose of debate
    7) creativity in relation to guidelines versus no guidelines
    8) the ability of the affirmative to win -ism based impacts to impact turn education.
    9) defining terms or having limits = bad (gatekeeper of IR….ala Bleiker….or something Foucault related
    10) what is the role of the resolution?
    11) what does it mean to affirm the resolution or to be affirmative? what are the affirmative burdens? And why is that framework good?
    12) various defenses of traditional debate….usually this puts the aff. is a decent position…..because they just pick 2 to 4 of a handful of practices they don’t like (and links to their -ism) and go for one or two.

    And then ultimately how many of the above relates to fairness & predictability.

    • Have values, standards, and order every been helpful or beneficial for society?
    • Have values, standards, and order ever been helpful or beneficial for communication?
    • Have values, standards, and order ever been helpful or beneficial for minorities?
    • What replaces the space opened up by the post-modern turn in debate?????

    Usually the affirmative (performative/critical affirmative) positions itself as the defender of wildness & the margins…..and overturning of norms, values, and orders. This philosophical line runs through most performative affirmatives……or at least by the 2ac in offense to the framework or topicality argument.

    I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that in a framework lecture, however. If you can control a number of these….and prove that yours are more important (impact or theory filters)……you should win. Period.

    * Note: when I say standards above….I’m referring to standards in the larger sense (ie principles & values).

  2. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:00 am

    I suggest backing up from the cards (I happen to like a card or two by Shivley, the Joyner evidence on role-playing, and the Foucault card on fairness) …..and thinking deeply about how the words we use and communicate with relate to social change (a la the above concerns & questions).

    • What do the defense of these values mean practically??? What are the stories, metaphors, historical examples.
    • What would happen to society, social change, minorities, etc…..if these values were realized & universalized????
    • Are these values zero sum? Can you adopt or accept a hybrid account between the extremes in the so-called “clash of civilizations” debate?
    • Does one subsume the values of the other? Is one paradoxical or does it eat itself?

    I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that in a framework lecture, however. If you can control a number of these (particularly 1 through 12, but some of the questions as well)….and prove that yours are more important–the paramount concerns in the debate round (via impact or theory filters)……you should win. Period. *

    * This is the act of putting your concern (worldview/value framework/perspective) as the central criteria for the round/debate.

    * * Note: when I say standards above….I’m referring to standards in the larger sense (ie principles & values).

  3. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:07 am

    I’m curious about the ways:
    • cultural theory
    • identity theory
    • semiotics
    • hermeneutics relate to the above
    • letter versus the spirit of the law
    • structures versus non structures
    • meaning & defining & the purpose of defining
    • the purpose of rules in a contest
    • art versus order
    • language games
    • the ideal speech situation
    • various philosophers on this topic
    • the importance of shared understandings in shared exchanges (ie the idea of negotiation)
    • also the idea of pre-round suggestion or negotiation as a counterplan–rather than hyjacking the stage
    • substantive & procedural issues (ie interpretation, fairness, justice, etc…)
    • what follows when meaning implodes?
    • what follows when everything is up for grabs?
    • what follows when power implodes or is destroyed?
    • is all order, structure, and power bad? does power ever act to protect the margins?

    However, I firmly believe that if any team has a firm grasp of how the first 12 questions relate to the issue…..AND they have a means to prove why their framework/worldview or prioritization is best…..they should probably win.

  4. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:16 am

    Which values or principles are at stake?
    Standards/order versus diversity & creativity? Are there any paradoxes here? Are there any counter-examples or counter-histories?
    Is there middle ground?
    Is there a true conflict? Is it zero-sum? Is there a tradeoff?
    What are the fundamental agreements on both sides?
    If you engage a structure do you always have to agree with it? Do you perpetuate that structure by using it?
    Do the segments or types operate differently?

    Its not a good argument, but ego means that we always link to -ism based arguments (i.e. both sides do).
    Essentialism & stereotypes and criticisms of structure? (development discourse is a good example)

    Its all about categories……differences and similarities:
    1. chart/spreadsheet
    2. boolean categories

  5. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:24 am

    Useful versus useless preconceptions.

    Other posts on framework:
    https://learnpolicydebate.wordpress.com/?s=framework&submit=Search

    There are also posts on beating critical & performative affs.

  6. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:26 am

    The value of majority rule/democracy in relation to the resolution.

    Gadamer on horizon merger? (results in useful history)
    Historicism condescends toward the past. If we merge with it….it might speak with us.

    Strict construction versus spirit of the law…..debate particularly in law and Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.
    For instance…..Narrow construction…..and I’m curious about the ways that might relate to

    Also the whole debate over multiculturalism in academia & versus the west and modernity.

    How does the negative escape the labeling of being “the man”, the structure, the powerful one?????? Or should it just impact turn this?

    Gadamer’s defense of classicism.

    Also various defenses of conservatism & power.

  7. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 4:41 am

    In what ways are the old & new intimately tied together?

    Prejudice against prejudice in the enlightenment.

    What are the philosophical assumptions of conservatism?

    ED Hirsch….universals………common core type arguments, etc….
    Champion of the right.

    Gadamer’s perspective seems to be on the side of problematizing & the aff, perhaps. Perhaps except his defense of conservatism.

    Power checks power.

    Dadaism & communication.

  8. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 5:57 am

    Three things most framework debaters don’t do:
    1. implication
    2. interactivity
    3. prioritization/impact filter

  9. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:01 am

    The case for the minimalistic center
    The case for the search for the universal
    The case for pragmatically landing & taking off. Dynamic equilibrium rather than eternal frenzy.
    Everything is comparative. Imperfect beats the never realized ideal.

  10. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:02 am

    Realism versus Andy Warhol versus Dada

  11. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:05 am

    How are ethical arguments created/made or proved or validated?
    Inter-cultural communication….the need for standards
    Example: We should never communicate in english…its oppressive….we should only communicate in the least oppressed language of the Hee-Bee Gee-Bee indigenous peoples.

  12. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:08 am

    I need food or I will die…..subjectivity and navel gazing is silly.

    Or the trains running on time. The later isn’t always helpful.

    Standards and shared meanings are the basis of effective communication.

  13. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:11 am

    3 ways to think about math & the universe.
    1. Static & ineffective
    2. Static & ineffective
    3. Its mostly true. We’ll get it together as we move along.

    Weird analogy about hyper-perfectionism: We can’t leave the house without enough gas to reach San Fran…..but we’ll pick up gas along the way.

  14. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:13 am

    1. Structures hold the universe together. Structures hold us together.

    2. We are social beings.

    We can doubt and problematize as we go. We don’t have to perpetually jump ahead frenetically & land nowhere. (example: the movement that never happens–critique the movement to death).

  15. compassioninpolitics / Dec 29 2012 6:16 am

    We can coopt:
    1. Issue & argument specific issues
    2. Arts as argument, just outside the language only context–at least in a blended context
    3. Movements
    4. Ethics
    All of these can take place in a blended or policy framework.

    Visual focus bad?????

    Hyper-identity movements bad???? If they adopt dynamic notions….so can we.

  16. compassioninpolitics / Dec 30 2012 2:58 am

    There is a sense in which performative affirmatives are a race to the bottom….a race to the most oppressed class. Its instead of building the Eiffel tower…let’s go as low to the ground or under ground as we can–the more rebellious the better.

    Language crushes existence–it over simiplifies existence and social change. The outcry to let them eat text isn’t a very helpful for the homeless or those in poverty.

  17. compassioninpolitics / Dec 30 2012 3:04 am

    Language focus over-virtualizes existence–its prone to hyperbolic over-exagerration. Particularly theoretical, jargon-filled, and obtuse language of the K anesthetizes us to the ground reality of existence. For instance, the phrase “the world is flat” is well at home in the post-modern field–it doesn’t have to deal with the fact that metaphor gets it wrong–the world is flatter….it is actually spiky. Place still matters.

    Post-modern feeds on the radical….even if the radical isn’t true. Its a perverse mirror image of advertising….but in the academy.

  18. compassioninpolitics / Jan 2 2013 1:38 am

    Note: Winning framework debates for the non-critiqueing team can be difficult. They can always ethically impact turn your education claims and probably your fairness claims (“the system is rigged judge”–which seems pretty simplistic to me). This means you have to pre-empt these options in the block…..or otherwise from frame your arguments in terms of their -ism, movements, communication, and social change claims.

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: