Skip to content
January 1, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Debating Framework–Ramblings for Running Critical Affirmatives

I can’t take credit for this…..but I thought I would share:

I’ll give an example with the Ecofem Aff that I read on the Energy Topic this year, the aff essentially rejected the mechanisms and framework of the topic and affirmed an ecofeminist pedagogy vis a vis the environment, energy, etc.

Our interpretation for debate is that affirmatives must be restricted to instrumental, epistemic, and ontological affirmations of the resolution.

This means all discussion must be limited by the question of the mechanism and object(s) of the topic.

Offense on top:
Only three impact areas –
First is Predictable Ground –
a) Even if absolute predictability were possible it wouldn’t be desirable: debate would be an endless repetition of the same arguments without innovation or creativity – people leave the activity when it becomes stale, lifeless, and un-relatable.

b ) An instrumental policy is not the only predictable or the best point of stasis for debate vis-à-vis climate change, the best analysis are at earlier stasis points in argumentative progression that intersect between disparate fields. Jumping to the last stasis point of techno-scientific decision making means climate debates are always at an impasse.

Malone in 12 (Elizabeth LL; PhD Sociology @ U of Maryland, MA Comms @ Purdue, nobel peace prize winner 2007 for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc…?staff_num=5697 ; Debating Climate Change: Pathways through Argument to Agreement; p. n/a ebook; Google Books/Routledge)

One way to cluster the arguments is to determine where they are in terms of
shared across the boundaries of science, social solidarity and politics/policy.

Second their Education is Bad
a) Repeats the Public/Private division: Patriarchy brackets out subjective marginalized epistemic positions as grounded in emotion as irrelevant while valorizing “objective” knowledge claims. Switch side doesn’t solve – instrumental focus always crowds out these forms of knowledge

b ) Elite focus bad – it relies on problematic notions of human nature that restrict political agency and detract from local politics.
Plumwood in 7 (Val; Australian Research Council Fellow @ Australian National University, ecofeminist and founder of the ecological humanities; “Has democracy failed ecology? An Ecofeminist perspective,” Environmental Politics Vol 4 Iss 4; Taylor and Francis)

If liberal democracy (by which I mean the attempt to combine liberal principles of
in the long run, the only source of hope for real improvement.

Third it disengages students:
a) Disembodied education leaves violent paradigms unchallenged and causes a backlash from the supposed receivers of knowledge.
Peers in 12 (Chris; Faculty of Education of Monash University; “Freud, Plato and Irigaray: A morpho-logic of teaching and learning”; Educational Philosophy and Theory,Vol. 44, No. 7; Ebsco Host)\

In the absence of historical and cultural signifiers, the reconciliation of teaching and learning
of course, that the teacher who won’t listen similarly destabilizes pedagogical logic.)

b ) Switch side decouples advocacy from sincerity which normalizes neoliberal models of education.
Hicks and Greene in 5 (darrin and walter, LOST CONVICTIONS Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens, cultural studies, vol 19 no 1)
But why dredge up this event …and uptake of cultural technologies.

c) Your role as a judge and academic should be to advance the most ethical pedagogical approaches.
Kretz in 12 (Lisa; “Climate Change: Bridging the Theory-Action Gap” ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 17:2; MUSE)

Academic ethicists are uniquely …political, economic, and social locations.

Next is our defense.
a) Predictable Ground: All topic research is directed at the objects of the topic as well as the topic mechanism. Since all research they believe predictable assumes a supply side framework then all research would be relevant offense or defense means virtually all disadvantages, case negatives, and K answers apply.

b ) Predictability doesn’t exist and is impossible to universalize: no universal standard and voting on framework can’t implement a static model of predictable debate

c) No objective standard for textual interpretation means you default to broad interpretations of the resolution
Gehrke in 98 (Gehrke, Pat J. “Critique arguments as policy analysis: policy debate beyond the rationalist perspective.” Perspectives in Controversy: Selected Essays from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate (2002): 302)
Similarly, we might say that any policy debater who does not seek a critical
interpretive, Berube’s objective standard for encountering a text never can be met.

d) Switch side is a myth: teams never truly switch sides – teams will read framework on the aff and neg to preserve their preferred ground.

e) No Impact to Topic Education: The function of tournaments is to advance the most valuable pedagogical and epistemic methods and proposals derived from that research.

Don’t Evaluate this Debate based on Competing Interpretations; Default to Reasonability:
a) Infinitely regressive: so long as we don’t follow their interpretation to the ‘t’ they will always find some minute distinction to limit us out – reasonability solves

b ) Predictable Ground is not Preferred Ground: No right to your favorite arguments only to debates limited by the topic area. Voting against us a big penalty. They should have to win that we have made debating impossible


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: