In order to determine my decision on this resolution I need to choose what lense to observe it from. If the framework told me to prioritize money I might go into the medical field. If the framework evaluated what I like doing I would probably choose the IT field.
These are all different frameworks. I need to determine what I want before making a decision. Applying this to a debate round, you need to tell the judge what the resolution wants, what are we striving for in this debate? We all subconsciously need and utilize frameworks in our daily lives. It seems only appropriate to incorporate this into the strategic world of debate. What happens at this point is you get to actually debate which framework you should use for the round.
So here are some of the arguments you can make to win the framework debate. The most popular arguments use the resolution itself to prove your framework. I call these resolution specific arguments. There are also arguments that observe the internal effects that the framework would have on the round. These take into account attributes such as fairness of the round or the limits that this places on each team.
As previously mentioned the framework writes the rules for how to win the debate. I like to refer to these as internal framework arguments. Testing is beneficial to all education in the US. I would argue that this framework where they just have to prove one instance to win is extremely unfair because even if we prove that This also forces us into a defensive position. Under their framework nothing that we do or say matters unless it is directly refuting one of the instances they attack us with.
These limits are drastically unfair. After you propose your framework let the judge know that your framework is best for the resolution and is fair for both sides. And finally there are external framework arguments that take into account the effects that a framework would have on us, the debate community, or the world.
For example you might run into a debate team that tries to be tricky and runs a framework that proclaims that Human Extinction or War is a good thing. In real life we would never implement a policy with the goal of killing everyone in the world. In fact if my principal came in to watch this round and saw that the winner was determined by whoever kills the most people our debate program would be shutdown immediately. It destroys the educational atmosphere of debate and if they continue to run this it could shut down other debate teams.
Keep in mind that an experienced judge generally evaluates the round in 2 parts. The premise is the assumption that an argument relies on, while the conclusion is what implication stems from that premise. However, if you accept the premise of an argument, you can show that its premise justifies your conclusion.
Not to mention, it alienates the judge, flees from the position of common sense and provides compelling independent links into their criticism. There are two major ways to engage the framework debate effectively. The first is by making specific arguments as to why your framework accesses their role of the ballot. Although its prominent philosopher is heavily criticized, there are many authors who claim that deontology is effective in combatting racial and gendered oppression because its notion of rights condemns racism Arnold Farr makes claims of this nature.
That way, debaters avoid linking into the criticism by evading, but instead engage on their layer. The second way is to make more macro-level arguments about framework debate that could be articulated in the context of a Role of the Ballot argument. This is strategic because it accesses the top level of a framework debate by offering a comparative strategy to help the oppressed, while avoiding exclusion or linking into the criticism.
For example, many critical debaters will read generic structural violence frameworks that use authors such as Winter and Leighton. A philosophical approach might seem helpful, as it would ensure that there is a clear methodology to combat oppression. Finally, oftentimes debaters are confused about how Role of the Ballot arguments interact with frameworks.
The best approach will depend on the given round. You could show that your framework conceptualizes what it means to promote the best liberation strategy. Even the best framework debaters might make a mistake, or undercover something. While these arguments are possible to defeat, it means that framework must be defended on a theoretical level which requires different skills.
Impacting offense to their framework prevents this from being as likely. Better, if your opponent didnt contest the contention, you might have full strength of link, which could be articulated as a tie-breaker if there is question as to whether it really links to their framework. This includes obvious similarities like consequentialism vs non-consequentialist theories, but can expand beyond that. Debater A should focus a lot on the merits of using an ends-based, consequentialist approach, while Debater B should heavily criticize aggregation.
A theoretically justified framework is just what it sounds like — a framework warrant that appeals not to the relative truth of that ethical system, but rather external justifications in terms of fairness or education.
If you have a judge like this, your opponent winning that a theoretically justified framework is legitimate is an uphill battle, and you can claim that more normative justifications come first. All frameworks are impact exclusive, to some extent e. With some exceptions, such as frameworks like polls or international law, most frameworks give very similar amounts of ground.
0コメント