Framework in DebateFramework in Debate““Smokey this is not ‘Nam...There are Smokey this is not ‘Nam...There are rules.” rules.”

--Walter Sobchak--Walter Sobchak

Intro-to-FrameworkIntro-to-Framework

Two Types---Two Types---

Theory FrameworkTheory Framework: made up by debaters to : made up by debaters to argue that all rounds should follow this rule--argue that all rounds should follow this rule--what’s ok to do and what’s notwhat’s ok to do and what’s not

Impact FrameworkImpact Framework: what type of argument : what type of argument should the judge prioritize--what type of impact should the judge prioritize--what type of impact should win the ballotshould win the ballot

They are not the same THING! They are not the same THING!

Theory Framework-its simply Off vs Theory Framework-its simply Off vs DefDef

IInterp---(how should debate be--example--aff must nterp---(how should debate be--example--aff must defend topical USFG action)defend topical USFG action)

Violation---how does the Aff not meet this interpViolation---how does the Aff not meet this interp

Impacts/Standards---why is this interp best for Impacts/Standards---why is this interp best for debate. This typically includes: Predictability, Fairness, debate. This typically includes: Predictability, Fairness, Ground, Education, Utopian thinking, Switch-Side Ground, Education, Utopian thinking, Switch-Side debate, debate,

Competition voters (debate is a game) vs Competition voters (debate is a game) vs Education voters (debate trains us to succeed) Education voters (debate trains us to succeed)

The key arg to win (if possible) is that the Aff or Neg could The key arg to win (if possible) is that the Aff or Neg could access their argument in your framework--it solves all their access their argument in your framework--it solves all their offense and makes debate more fair for you.offense and makes debate more fair for you.

Theory F/W--can be Aff or NegTheory F/W--can be Aff or NegWhen to use it if your NegWhen to use it if your Neg? When they don’t ? When they don’t run a plan, demand, they say debate is bad and run a plan, demand, they say debate is bad and should change or claim they don’t defend should change or claim they don’t defend USFG action. It will answer most crazy AffsUSFG action. It will answer most crazy Affs

What advantage to you get if you force them to What advantage to you get if you force them to defend that USFG action should happen?defend that USFG action should happen?

Judges will be sympathetic to your situation but Judges will be sympathetic to your situation but you must defend and block out possible you must defend and block out possible answers to FW. answers to FW.

When to use it if your Aff? When to use it if your Aff? You may use a You may use a theory FW that excludes K’s----not the best theory FW that excludes K’s----not the best strategy. strategy.

Typical Answers to Theory FWTypical Answers to Theory FW

If you are Aff---the team running a K will say you If you are Aff---the team running a K will say you decrease education, they are predictable, and decrease education, they are predictable, and you have Aff advantages.you have Aff advantages.

If you are Neg against the K aff---they will say If you are Neg against the K aff---they will say you decrease education, silence their voice, you decrease education, silence their voice, increase bio-power, FIAT and role-playing is increase bio-power, FIAT and role-playing is bad, switch side debate bad, they are fair and bad, switch side debate bad, they are fair and predictable and don’t decrease your ground. predictable and don’t decrease your ground. They are most likely wrong except in certain They are most likely wrong except in certain circumstances. circumstances.

Why is policy debate Why is policy debate good?good?

Write at least 2 things down for each Write at least 2 things down for each question, you have 3 min then we will question, you have 3 min then we will discuss----discuss----

Why is policy debate (roll playing the Why is policy debate (roll playing the USFG should implement a policy) good?USFG should implement a policy) good?

Why do you debate?Why do you debate?

Is debate fun and why?Is debate fun and why?

Impact FW--What Impact FW--What MattersMatters

Not whats allowed but whats important--types Not whats allowed but whats important--types of impacts--what is the ethical framework how of impacts--what is the ethical framework how do we determine if something is good/bad--do we determine if something is good/bad--quest of ethics.quest of ethics.

Utilitarianism (Util) and/or ConsequentialismUtilitarianism (Util) and/or Consequentialism

Deontological ethics--duty basedDeontological ethics--duty based

Which system should be our guide to make Which system should be our guide to make decisions? Does the actor change which decisions? Does the actor change which system we should use? Example USFG or system we should use? Example USFG or individuals individuals

When is it used?When is it used?IIf both Aff/Neg operate in a world of Util---there is no f both Aff/Neg operate in a world of Util---there is no need for a FW debate. It’s about access to the most need for a FW debate. It’s about access to the most devistating impact (nuke war, global warming, devistating impact (nuke war, global warming, whatever) and why that impact jeopardizes survival.whatever) and why that impact jeopardizes survival.

If one side operates in a util/calc based FW and the If one side operates in a util/calc based FW and the other side argues that value to life, respect for the other side argues that value to life, respect for the other, or some ethical choice should be prioritized other, or some ethical choice should be prioritized then their may be a need for an impact FW debatethen their may be a need for an impact FW debate

What if the Aff says global warming or systemic What if the Aff says global warming or systemic impacts should be prioritized and major/nuke war is impacts should be prioritized and major/nuke war is not likley---should you read a FW arg against that? not likley---should you read a FW arg against that? Are they using deontology? Are they using deontology?

How to argue How to argue Util/ConseqUtil/ConseqYou just read cards on case to support your You just read cards on case to support your

impact claims---no interp or theory neededimpact claims---no interp or theory needed

Read offense util/calc: good card, inevitable Read offense util/calc: good card, inevitable card, card,

Read defense of util/calc: ethical card, Read defense of util/calc: ethical card, necessary for VTL card, make args that prove necessary for VTL card, make args that prove their impacts are inevitable if your util/calc their impacts are inevitable if your util/calc based impact happens.based impact happens.

Have extensions ready---that include a defense Have extensions ready---that include a defense of util, war reps, survival rhetoric, nuke war=ext, of util, war reps, survival rhetoric, nuke war=ext, AT: typical turns like security or VTL claims, At: AT: typical turns like security or VTL claims, At: nuke repsnuke reps

How to argue How to argue Deont/ethicsDeont/ethics

You must win calc/util is bad and not inevitableYou must win calc/util is bad and not inevitable

Win there is no value to life under util/calcWin there is no value to life under util/calc

Win security or nuke reps bad to K their impactsWin security or nuke reps bad to K their impacts

Win your form of ethics solves the impacts of Win your form of ethics solves the impacts of their argstheir args

It’s very dangerous to concede that you It’s very dangerous to concede that you operate under a Util/Calc framework----and operate under a Util/Calc framework----and bank on your case otw because these args bank on your case otw because these args usually lack specificity and have weak time usually lack specificity and have weak time framesframes

How to argue systemic How to argue systemic mpxmpx

If your aff argues environmental impacts, If your aff argues environmental impacts, genocide, torture, or other systemic impacts genocide, torture, or other systemic impacts you have to win a few key args.you have to win a few key args.

Its all about probability debateIts all about probability debate--you must win --you must win their impact is unlikely and yours will happentheir impact is unlikely and yours will happen

You can still win offense to their impacts that You can still win offense to their impacts that don’t link to you---threat con, security reps, don’t link to you---threat con, security reps, nuke repsnuke reps

Your Defense of their impacts must be GOODYour Defense of their impacts must be GOOD