Skip to content
April 23, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Debating Framework Affs on the Negative

One key distinction about affs like this:

1) Reason to vote aff in the 1ac is one thing

There are essentially 5 modes of consequences as I see them in terms of these affs–not all the affs use all 4:
a) Truth/Awakening/Assumptions
Ethics/Reject -Ism
c) Consequences (otherization, domination, and war as proved by history)
d) impacts on Being (usually this is in terms of one of the other ones….but I would think can be leveraged as an independent impact
e) Identity & performance

2) Reason to vote aff in the 2ar is often slightly different

Your exclusion of them via framework is another layer thats added on by the 2ar….usually initiated in the 2ac.

Strategic notes:
1) I think you can answer this later claim fairy easy by making multiple arguments for norms & fairness being good. Norms & order & standards VS. chaos & wildness & craziness.

2) Note they will also try to internally impact turn your education claims using their other arguments.

3) Also you have to PIK them in some way and/or capture or turn their -ism/ethics claim. (this last sentence perhaps isn’t as precise as it should be….but I think the concept remains key).

Advertisements

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: