Skip to content
November 29, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

The Ultimate Simple Way to think about Framework Debates Versus Performative Affirmatives

The four core issues in terms of topicality and framework:
1. Fairness (fairness as a general rule, fairness for games, fairness for debates, fairness as a value outside this context for the other)
2. Predictable Ground (predictable ground….etc…mirroring #1 phrases/buckets)
3. Limits Good/Its the rules/Structures and procedural rules good (yeah, I know this is where they get their offense….but guess what they already have this as an argument–this is just you providing impacts that comparatively outweigh or at least mitigate their arguments)
4. What their type of debate does for its stakeholders (you, judges, community, and the other the aft tries to “save” or raise awareness of). The value of your type of debate to those stakeholders.

Three Other Key areas:
Dealing with their -ism. You pretty much can’t get beyond this. They will say your education = that -ism as an impact turn. So like I said, no getting beyond this. If you aren’t dealing with this, you will lose. This is the reason most folks lose on the neg with framework versus performative type affirmatives.

Cooption & middle ground.
1) We pic the advantages of their framework, but also give you X, Y, Z.
2) These can also be at the standard level (ie more micro level)

Think toward interactivity. Think toward how what we are saying relates back to their ultimate impact. How can I use framework to turn their core aff impacts?


One Comment

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Nov 30 2013 1:32 am

    Some level of stability in communication is pre-requisite for informed in-depth discussion.

    Fairness is the basis for competitive discussions. Fairness helps both sides.

    And you can be counter-hegemonic and affirmative (just read your neg links the other way).

    Muting random words in the resolution risks making it meaningless.

    And corporations & powers that be can exploit de-stabilized meaning as much as you can–which means there’s no intrinsic value to breaking things down. (ie your counter-hegemonic move will be coopted later). [this is an experimental line of reasoning]

    Overturning norms shouldn’t result in us losing any hope or any power or any predictability. (needs more specificity)

    Norms like fairness check violence and abuse of power. A world with norms is better than one without them. Its the only possibility of goals and accountability–and judging for that matter. Otherwise you might as well be judging a subjective art contest–dueling starving artists.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: