Framework

1. Framework By Beth Mendenhall

2. The opening slide • Introduction • Why you should listen • Please ask questions

3. 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

4. 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

5. The Resolution • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States

6. 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

7. Components of the 1NC • Definition • Interpretation • Standards • Voters • Should I include cards…?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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…

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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