FrameworkBy Beth Mendenhall

The opening slide

• Introduction• Why you should listen• Please ask questions

Preview

• How to write the 1NC•What is framework? Types of interpretations•Standards/Voters/Impacts

•What to expect in the 2AC• How to give the block• How to win on framework

What is framework?• A debate about the rules•What are Affs allowed to advocate?•What does the ballot signify?•What counts as a reason to vote for you?

• A strategic tool• Not an ideology or a lifestyle• Not an entire 1NC

• What its NOT• Telling someone to “get out of our activity”• An opportunity to complain about particular teams• The utilitarianism/consequences debate about how you weigh advantages

The Resolution

•Resolved: The United States federal government

should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment

in the United States

Framework:

• Like topicality, in that it uses the resolution to prove that the 1AC was not a reason to vote Aff• Most people think its different from

topicality because it uses the whole resolution, or the notion of a resolution, instead of particular words• I disagree

Components of the 1NC

• Definition• Interpretation• Standards• Voters

• Should I include cards…?

Definitions/Interpretations• “The United States federal government”• The AGENT of the Affirmative• Roleplaying – you can’t be yourself, you have to pretend to be the

government

• “Resolved” and/or “Should”• The SUBJECT of the Affirmative• Policy action? Implementation?• The Affirmative as advocating an action, not engaging in a thought

• “substantially increase”• The OBJECT of the Affirmative• Allows other actors to increase transportation infrastructure

investment in other ways

• Different standards apply more to different interpretations

Standards: what are they good for?• The WARRANTS for your CLAIM about what the

debate should be about• The ADVANTAGES that the judge uses to weigh

one interpretation against another• The LINKS to your ultimate impacts: education

and fairness

• Highly inter-related – “limits are key to predictability is key to ground…”• That’s fine, but you have to link it to the IMPACTS:

education and fairness

Limits• The argument:

• our interpretation appropriately limits the number/type of Affs you can win the ballot with

• their interpretation under-limits the number/type of Affs you can win the ballot with – it allows too many

• The impacts:• Allowing too many Aff arguments gives the Aff team a strategic

advantage • Places an overwhelming research burden on the Neg

• Allowing too many Aff arguments undermines education• We would have less debates on the same Affs because Aff

teams would switch all the time to seek the element of surprise

• More debates on less Affs is better for education than a different Aff every round

Predictability• The argument: • Our interpretation ensures that any Aff that is run could have

reasonably been predicted by the neg• Their interpretation allows Affs that the Neg probably won’t have

any research on, because they didn’t see it coming

• The impacts:• Unpredictable Aff arguments gives the Aff team a strategic

advantage – they had “infinite prep” to prepare while the Neg has nothing• This is bad for participation – no one wants to play a rigged

game• Unpredictable Aff arguments decrease clash – we’ll be forced to

run generics• Targeted negatives are better for education on both sides,

because they force an in-depth discussion about the Aff

Ground• The argument:• Our interpretation only allows Aff arguments that give the

Neg a sufficient set of responses• Their interpretation allows Affs that the negative does/will

not have sufficient responses to

• The impacts:• Constraining the relative amount of arguments the Neg

can make compared to the Aff gives the Aff team a strategic advantage• Makes all Neg arguments predictable for the Aff

• Lack of Neg arguments decreases education• Doesn’t allow the Aff to be tested in multiple ways• Limits the amount of arguments the Neg could present

at all

Impact: Education• An important impact to focus on because its likely to be one

of the Aff’s sources of offense• Specifically – TOPIC education

• Every debate is educational to some degree – why is education about the resolution better than education about anything else?• It changes – forces us to learn about more things• Its democratic – the topic process allows us to choose what we learn

about as a community• This topic is uniquely good – why do we need to learn about

transportation infrastructure?

• Emphasize – resolution-focused debate has two types of educational advantages over the Aff interpretation• It has a better LINK to education – promotes clash that enhances

education for all participants – not just the ones that wrote the 1AC• It has a bigger education IMPACT – promotes a uniquely important TYPE

of education

Impact: Fairness• An important impact, but one you should be

careful about• Notions of “fairness” are more likely to link to the Affs

offense – fair for whom? Who determines what’s “fair”?• Fairness is hard to quantify – how fair is fair enough, and

how fair is too fair?

• Links to fairness:• Anything that gives the Aff a strategic advantage over the

negative, giving them a higher chance of winning JUST BECAUSE they are Aff

• Why is fairness important?• Participation – no one plays a rigged game• Anything else?? Self-evident importance isn’t good

enough…

Other possible offense - roleplaying

• Links to USFG interpretation – you must pretend to be the government

• Offers unique impacts• Benefit: participatory democracy on the part of citizens• Benefit: education about government policies• Benefit: teaches us to be future policy-makers• Impact: totalitarianism?

• Links to Aff exclusion/knowledge production arguments

What to expect in the 2AC• Look to the 1AC• We meet• Usually a stretch, but must be answered• Depending on which interpretation they claim to meet, it

might be strategic to concede

• Counter-interpretation• Make sure to figure out exactly what this is- use CX• Almost always more expansive than yours

• DEFENSE• OFFENSE

Types of defense you might see• Predictability is non-unique – new Affs, new Add-

Ons• Your answer: those things COULD have been predicted

based on the resolution, but weren’t. Your Aff COULD NOT have been predicted at all

• Our Aff was on the Wiki• Your answer: that doesn’t resolve ALL of our standards,

not everyone (novices, small schools) knows about/uses the wiki, and your interpretation justifies new Affs that AREN’T on the Wiki

• “You could’ve said…”• Your answer: ground is not the same as PREDICTABLE

ground – just because we could theoretically have an answer doesn’t mean we should be practically expected to

Types of offense you might see• Exclusion – you decide who is worthy/able to participate,

assigning value to certain groups and no value to others• Excludes those who the government excludes – they can’t role-play• Identity Politics and Performance Affs• Links to limits arguments

• Knowledge production – you recreate/reinforce bad ideas about reality• The government is the only relevant actor• Plans/policies/choices should be determined by consequences• Life experience is irrelevant• Links to topic education arguments

• Discipline/Rules• Exploitative power relations• Links to fairness/jurisdiction arguments

• Other impacts from the Aff

How to give the block• Start with a description of your interpretation –

what Affirmatives it includes and excludes• Follow with a brief explanation of your best

standards/voters• Follow the line-by-line• (1) AT – “we meet” and counter-interpretation• Explain your standards backwards – “this is unpredictable

bc…”

• (2) AT – their cards• READ THEM• Don’t ignore cross-applications• Extend your offense

• (3) Read your cards

What to focus on• ACCESS – even if they prove that theoretically

their type of education is better, does their interpretation allow everyone to receive that education?

• PARTICIPATION – do they promote a type of debate that encourages novices to stay and new programs to join? Or would it be frustrating/confusing/un-rewarding for them

• THIS TOPIC – what is learning about USFG transportation infrastructure investment important?• Link it to their impacts – does the status quo USFG

transportation system do what they criticize?• Read cards that every-day people need to learn about this

topic or the USFG will control the topic in a bad way

Your best answers• DO IT ON THE NEGATIVE – solves your offense

• Why does your argument need to be presented on the Aff to solve its impacts?

• Especially persuasive if the Aff criticizes the notion of the resolution – what does it link to? Better link on the Neg

• List DAs to doing it on the Aff• Lack of Neg preparation = uneducational debate

• SWITCH-SIDE DEBATE– solves your offense• Learning the other side is good – strengthens your argument• Key to clash – clash key to education• Dogmatism bad

• TOPICAL VERSION OF THE AFF – solves your offense• Give multiple examples

• Un-predictability means we don’t have to answer your impact turns• Winning an argument doesn’t mean the ballot should consider it – arguments

you shouldn’t get in the first place are irrelevant