welcome everybody to the second episode of debate simplified my name is Jack young I'm a debater at the Barkley Forum at em University I'm a former debater at M Bell Academy and currently work with uh MBA um also officially now a contributor for policy debate Central this is our Series where we simplify um complex Concepts and debate um using reward examples and um you know more easy explanations this episode we'll be talking about debating framework uh with policy affirmatives so um the negative has read a k and your task is to read framework so let's get into it um what is a critique so before we talk about framework itself we need to talk about critiques in episode one I talked about Mutual exclusivity and counter plan competition uh mostly in the terms of process counter points and when think about K's in framework you should sort of have the same logic the K is not as we detailed uh previously in the last episode a negative advocacy in the same way that a counter plan is not just a negative advocacy it is an attempt that uh it is an argument that attempts to disprove the desirability of the affirmative framework is the determination of how a judge should view Mutual exclusivity and desirability of their affirmative it is a framework for the debate and it identifies which types of Link arguments are permitted so if we uh you know at this point you know that a critique focuses less maybe on the exact uh more objective hypothetical uh effects of the plan such as a disad be um and does not have uniqueness because the alternative provides uniqueness um lots of this offense becomes a question about various philosophical representations or assumptions of the one see and framework put simply is the determination of how much that philosophical offense is legitimate grounds for contestation in a debate so framework uh is a determination of whether negative K offense linked to the affirmative so um naturally the negative will want to expand what the notion of what is competitive and what links to policy arguments and policy affirmatives and the Ala want to reduce what is competitive and what links now there's essentially three paths um a debate can conclude a judge evaluating uh with framework the first and obviously best for the affirmative is no case so the affirmative has one that all forms of critiques are unfair and there therefore the negatives critique um is it's not a valid uh proof of mutual exclusivity and non- desirability of the affirmative B and oppositely the negative has one that evaluating the hypothetical effects of the plan is a bad way for uh of determining desirability uh for the affirmative this is obviously the worst case because it means that you no longer have the hypothetical enactment of the plan uh which is where you're going to want to get most of your offense of and C is some sort of hybrid approach so the judge thinks that some types of Link arguments are a determination me exclusivity perhaps the affirmative does get planned specific offense and we'll talk about some of the ways in which a hybrid approach can be good for you um later on uh later on so your job very simply is that when you're affirmative you have to conclude either uh a that no Ks are allowed or see some version of a hybrid approach that uh helps you win the debate now let's talk about some genres of K before we get into uh the sort of negative offense um for each sort of critique so first I titled structural Cas so these are KS uh premise mostly on ideology political ideology so for example the capitalism K is sort of the premere example of this if the affirmative invests in a political ideology that's problematic for example capitalism then saying capitalism bad is bad is responsive to the affirmative so logic here is that if the affirmative for example uses the market or says that the economy is good then the negative has valid grounds of contestation by saying that capitalism broadly is bad two is a case about epistemology the premier example here is security these CS involve guarding offense based off a philosophical representation so uh in the case of the security K this would be how you presented impact claims in the one AC see and lastly uh is's K of ontology um ontology is a study of being um the premier example of this is afop pessimism and more sort of identity Focus critiques these are more similar to structural C but also maybe have some epical elements they will criticize ontology in the way in which the AF grounds its ontological notion of the world or how the AF understands the world and what exists within the world sometimes uh the one Andy what I'm calling a Franken K so it's not immediately obvious which genre of the K it is until the one in C reminder that the sort of categories of critiques are you know just my perspective on sort of genres and how I tend to quantify these but these are not trict categories so sometimes the K will often critique epistemology ontology and ideology at the same time so um this might be concerning especially for the 2ac but um that's all right because the K usually reveals itself in the block um especially on framework the 2 and C1 and uh one andr uh interpretation on framework or sort of guide um the way in which you debate framework right if the one andr says quote only evaluate um the sort of one's investment in the ideological apparatus of capitalism for example that's a very clear example of an ideological based criticism um sometimes they'll just say that you should evaluate the sort of ideology or maybe Phil philosophical Investments of the plan in that case that's still somewhat vague but sort of gives you a general notion that the negative is trying to say that philosophy comes before the plan so in terms of framework structural KS um often approach framework through the lens of ideology right so the an argument would be for example that capitalist ideology tricks Debaters into thinking that we can solve things through the lens of the market and capital which makes us more likely to treat the market and government as some sort of God this ideological investment affects the world and Debaters more than the hypothetical enactments of the plan and the impacts of the plan therefore it matters more than the plan and that you should reject the plan epistemology case approach framework the lens of representation so securitize threat logic supersedes enactments of the plan A lot of the times they'll say rep shape reality and what we take away from debate is not the pl text uh itself but how affirmatives have Justified it via impact uh chain claims lastly ontology CL K obviously intuitively approach fir to the lens of ontology so for example apop pessimism and this explanation uh kind of proves um how little I have gone for aphr pessimism uh this is not the clearest explanation of it but for example the one arises from a ruse of progress humanism this logic is anti-black and causes violence in debate space that their framework allows therefore we do we don't get the plan and critiquing ontological uh forces and the method of ontology that the oneac understands and assumes is valid grounds for contestation um I won't talk about Hyer but that's just an example for the Hyer C so let's take a step back and ask where we are in any case negative as best case version of framework is something like the following in the case of epistemology or security K epistemology is prior to the hypothetical enactment to the plan therefore they don't get the plan or a permutation uh k teams uh or K's will say um in you know most of the time ontology ideology epistemology first no matter what the case is they'll try to limit your range of permutations and how much offense you can Garner off of the impacts and solvency of the plan saying quote X is prior should trigger alarm bells for you because it signals that they are trying to say that the hypothetical enactment and the impacts of the plan come secondary to the ontology ideology or epistemology of the plan if you think that the permutation is the best two uh to give versus the k then you must win framework to get a permutation this is because the permutation relies on the habital enactment of the plan and doesn't actually necessarily happen when the judge votes neck affirmative rather so this means that in the context of attempting to give a permutation argument the um negative team will always says that say that framework comes prior and they'll also say that because the one itself invested in problematic ideology you can't sever out of that problematic ideology representation or ontology with the permutation and that is all a question of framework so the task for the affirmative then is to prove that at minimum you do get to leverage the benefits of the habal act of the plan versus the K so you get the impacts of the plan or the versus the impacts of the k for example winning framework helps for a variety of reasons first it means that the neg will have no offense and links are non unique which means that Extinction not ways the idea here is that capitalism is nonunique right we live in a capitalist world the AF does not actually cause capitalism to cause the impacts that happens so the negative needs in order for the permutation not to resolve uh the uh uh problems with capitalism the negative will have to win framework and that this is a sort of valid grounds for contestation and this allows you to go for peration as I'll detail later so there are essentially four winning twrs against the K using or not using framework first is the most risky in sort of rare version which is the concession of framework and you're like yes epistemology is prior but ours is better than theirs second is the most aggressive version of framework that says that um no Ks are allowed essentially in debate um and this sort of model um means that any negative offense is Tethered upon an unfair anti- educational model of opportunity cost comparison third is fra permutation plus framework so framework as a justification for why the affirmative gets permutations reminder as we mentioned last slide if um the negative wins framework often times they'll win that there is no valid permutation so in order to go for the permutation you need to win framework lastly is framework plus the alt fails plus the appat ways this is sort of the vanilla version of of framework um it essentially allows you to get the offense of the AF compare that with the alternative um and sort of uh understand and you know make opportunity cost comparison there so which way you go should be predetermined by what you think your best TWR is given your type of affirmative and the judge so I've roughly Outline Three types of affirmatives first it would be the hard right affirmative so this would say something like hegemony is good capitalism is good and make that a sort of explicit stance of the one I see often times and maybe counterintuitively they will attempt to impact turn framework right because uh if the negative is correct that debate uh over the plan or debate uh solely about the plan uh is bad um and forecloses sort of interrogation of capitalism the uh negative or the affirmative will say well that is actually fine um we should have debates about uh the sort of ideological investment in capitalism because capitalism is good or we should have uh debates about um investments in hegemony because hegemony is good second and the most popular type of affirmative the one that you'll probably be reading is a sort of a typical policy half um I would say that in this case your path Choice um is sort of a dealer's Choice it's contingent a lot upon one the uh critique that you're facing and will'll make sort of I'll help you make judgments about which choices best given the particular uh critique that they're giving uh and to the judge if the judge doesn't like KS then maybe it's more opportunity for you for you to say that um there should be no case allowed for example uh finally is the hard left style of of affirmative which is meant to permute uh it depends largely upon AF and uh the framework interpretation perhaps the affirmative will concede framework so if the affirmative says that sort of debates about um for example carbon tax are good because they help mobilize political energy uh help students understand climate change more those are all effects that are not contingent upon the actual enactment of the plan right a carbon tax might be hypothetically good but also debating about the consequences and understanding a carbon tax is a good idea for example so in that case the affirmative can just simply concede framework but they can also uh have permutations so if the 1ac and maybe the 2ac doesn't have the sort of explicit language that the carbon tax is did right where the carbon tax is saying uh that you know debating about the carbon tax is a good idea maybe the affirmative doesn't have that but maybe the affirmative has a more sort of left-wing style of impact maybe it's soft lift Etc and in that case maybe you think that the affirmative aligns closely with the alternative and in that case a permutation would be good so in that case then you would go for framework and we get a permutation now before we determine the 2 AR obviously the speech that happens before that is a 2 andr and the 2 andr will have three options right first is go for framework no plans and if this is the case then you should spend a lot of time on framework right because the negatives essential wind condition is that you don't get to weigh the hypothetical ACC of plan so um in given these two andrs the T andr will not spend the entire speech on framew new plans but a framework is you know solid three four minute chunk of the tar then that's a pretty good signal that they're going for the style of argument second is this sort of hybrid approach um and this is not just to say the hybrid approach that we mentioned earlier this is to say that the tar both goes for substantive version of the K so one that has clear links to the plan a unique alternative that solves case you know impacts conion upon the case and framework the problem with this sort of hybrid is that it puts it's uh it it over in underinvested the more fundamental uh Concepts behind 2R 2 is that you should spend a lot of time on a few issues and if you're spending too much time in the T andr um having both substance and framework be alive um while it might seem good in theory because you know both are good for you um oftentimes both become underdeveloped and allows the affirmative to answer both substantively and because the two is the last speech and knows the affirmative at a level that should be quite high they can make a lot of the framework arguments and especially a lot of the substantive arguments that sort of an overextended 2 andr cannot make and uh lastly is a more substantive approach so for example if you're going for the most offensive version of framework right which is to say framework no K as evident cure then they if they want to go for substance then they'll have to answer the idea that we should get no uh k at all that you know philosophical uh principles are not valid grounds for contestation um so in that sense they'll have to answer for noks but they're mostly trying to go for so sort of substantive argument that justifies the logic um and justifies sort of unique opportunity costs between the plan and the K so in that case you can either if you're going for the aggressive version of uh framework and saying framework no case then you should obviously spend time on framework because that would delete the substantive portion of the K or you can always sort of go for the impact turn permutation all style so here I made a chart hopefully this is somewhat helpful I'm not sure if it will be um this is like a political Compass of potential 2 options right so these are all your options on the x axis you see um the propensity to go for the permutation versus the impact term right so permutation is sort of a defensive argument it agrees with lots of the sort of ideas behind the alternative and says that the f is compatible with that so it's a no link argument and impact turns the exact opposite it says that the f is exactly those things but that those things are good right so um the Y AIS then is a question of offensive versus defensive framework so how much time you want to invest in eliminating the desirability of KS versus just you get a k we are a now let's have a debate right so you'll see here that the framework perm style um is in the left quadrant because you want to go for the permutation and go for an offensive framework argument um the impact uh the framework no Cas sort of style is potentially more of an impact turny less permutation style that says that the D get permutations the concession of framework style um says that we should just concede framework and say heck those representations that ontological focus is good we are impact turning and in that case it is defensive framework it basically concedes the premis of framework and secondly is or lastly rather is this uh bottom left quadrant the alt fails plus the F outweighs quadrant which is to say that we get to an affirmative you don't get to mute moot our affirmative um but that the alternative fails for for a variety of reasons okay so let's talk about each path in particular the risky concession of framework because this sort of conversation I'm having is not uh specific to like it's not just about all Kate it's more about the framework portion uh for the affirmative I don't want to get too much into this style because it's um a little bit different um usually this style is used against epistemology case although it can be used against uh both ontology and ideological criticisms um it requires lots of setup and often times requires sort of unique genres are affirmative for example if you know that a k team um if you know that a team is going to Red Decay and be sort of a one-off style of Team then you might want to just say hey hedge is good militarizing debate's a good thing um for example um if they make arguments sort of in that vein because then you're already ready to impact turn you're already ready to defend your representations this also applies to the opposite spectrum of affirmatives so affirmatives that um are leftwing and says that debating about those particular nuances of the carbon tax as I mentioned earlier for example that debating about those types of affirmatives is good and helps movements Etc so in a way sort of paradoxically you kind of have a horseshoe right where um if you're very sort of hard left or hard right and this is a spectrum that maybe is not totally descriptively accurate but still is helpful and understanding the idea that maybe these types of affirmatives will not want to talk about framework much at all um but this is also is somewhat risky because this gives the negative lots of the framework um sort of arguments that they're making for example if you're saying an epistemology k for example security the negative could make sort of this nuanced position that's like even if securitization or cap or hedge is in principle good you need defenses of what you did and the one you see in the debate space so it requires lots of sort of uh thinking about uh what's going on in the first place one particular example that I I've seen a lot is um an affirmative will read an impact premise upon like Chinese rise for example then will say that that's sort of a racist depiction of China that causes material impacts um to Asian uh Asian people in the United States sort of like hate crimes for example and the affirmative will say well that doesn't matter because China you know we're descriptively accurate China is a threat um their government is bad but that doesn't necessarily answer the negative issue which is that the M representation talking about China in that particular way does cause violence so because the plan never happens hypothetical enactment of the plan never happens we're not going to contain China after an F ballot there's only a risk that the negative is correct that it causes sort of violence um which is an example of how this could potentially be problematic path to the aggressive version is framework no KS so this applies to every sort of K because it is basically generic so what are the pros here the most obvious Pro um going for framework Noe is that it's a very easy clear objective win condition right it allows you to tell the judge and the two that the only thing that matters in this debate is framework and if we win framework that means that they don't get the alternative they don't get their impacts they don't get links so in this way it's basically generic because you can say it against any genre K and it probably apply and at least gives you some mode of debate so at the very worst case if there's a critique that you don't have an answer to that's being broke new against you or you just can't find your blocks for example you always sort of have the out of saying well framework no KS so you don't get a k um the path and the two sort of structure and idea behind it is fairly simple the two will say something like fairness outweighs um using the fairness Paradox um very briefly the fairness Paradox says that because debate's a competition in which the neg wants to win too um both sides sort of act you atically value fairness and rely upon it so saying that fairness isn't an impact in debate is silly um that's the fairness Paradox and they'll also uh uh apply the fairness Paradox with balanced solvency arguments sort of presumption style arguments so um if you've been neged against a KF and someone said hey go for presumption this applies equally here the basic premise is simply that voting negative does not solve the impacts uh the representation the ideological the ontological impacts that they say they do so the only thing that matters is fairness in the debate space two then you have to isolate the internal link for the K right so we have to say that ks in general are unfair um one they sort of are unpredictable they shift debate to the quote other section of the library and um they're also can defend basically anything and that's unfair there's no AFR against it because the sasus is hard to defend sasus ideology sasus entations hard to defend Etc and they'll always get to choose to focus the debate which is uh hard to debate from the perspective of the affirmative now the cons here is that it's very hard to win with a lot of Judges who like more philosophical critical arguments most judges I would say don't love this path of framework but some that don't like it will still vote for you if you activate them so if you get very good at saying that Ks are bad um then you can kind of rely upon it as a generic but the problem is is that its generic sort of presence means that the negative has a large internal link to a lot of their framework offense because it means that you're basically excluding deleting removing whatever word we want to say every sort of type of K which seems bad an ontological K will say that this leads to an exclusion of critical perspectives and debate if the on if the onology K is premised upon you know particular groups of debaters um then that seems particularly bad second is ideology case it allows X ideology to go unchecked in debate which makes us evil you know we literally don't ever have any ideological based criticisms lastly um is the epistemology based k k um for example security that says that you know because rip shape reality not allowing any representational critique in debate allows that sort of bad research that bad affective practice to go and checked so the the best version of the two ARS I kind of preluded to would be the fairness outweighs fairness Paradox um fairness filters education because the game's unfair and we won't learn if you know the game's unfair because the only reason we're here is because we want to win um and then the sort of presumption s of arguments no one gets more or less violent in debate because of competition people view wins and losses as technical uh successes or technical failures um not actually informing ideology which is informed by stuff much outside the debate space you know we go to debate tournaments for about 3% of our year the rest is uh more influential and determining ideology you know Debaters make silly arguments all the time not believing them Etc so you should focus Less in this Sense on the internal links because you kind of are removing lots of K and focus more about impact calculus and presumption of arguments when you're going for framework uh no case this uh the third path you can take is permutation and frameware uh these are particularly good against ideology K although they can be deployed against the other two types so what are the pros with saying um we get an AF in permutation and you get a critique well it seems very defensible because permutations are good a fairness right as I detailed uh pretty extensively in episode one the logic of the permutation uh filters the idea that the negative can present any form of advocacy that might link that is basically good the affirmative is constrained to the resolution and making sort of clear demands upon the state so if the negative is just not that then it seems like any sort of permutation would be very problematic in a sense right like not allowing permutations means that the negative has a wide variety of arguments that they can say that seem to be problematic um and unfair third is or second rather is sort of clash uh related reasons so you could make this a sort of typical um framework fairness style Clash you know education learning about debate that's uh you know ground Etc is key but um especially for permutations it seems like permutations Foster a unique sense of clash right it allows um sort of movements and a variety of different people to sort of hash out the nuances behind you know which exact unique State policies are good and bad um how can they can be combined and tailored to a sort of more Progressive Movement Etc that sort of nuance focus a sort of a requirement of permutation debate that the negative team uh will disallow because um as I mentioned earlier a lot of the negatives attempts will be um attempts a lot of negative framework um is a lot of the times attempting to remove the permutation because they think that the permutation is very good against the alternative so that means that this version of uh framework enables a peration wind condition which is very good against large utopian Alternatives which I'll talk about in a second um it also as I mentioned earlier gives you sort of generic fairness presumption style but uh in as in contrast to framework no uh KS um there's less of an internal link to their offense right there's no there's less of a link to the exclusion stuff a and Additionally you can go for more Clash style framework arguments with this too if that's what you prefer um more even more uh Pros is that this is good with a lot of affirmative setups that are more Progressive leftwing in nature um it means that it's you know if you're to consider the policy outside of the context of debate right so if we're to be like let's say the affirmative is like universal healthcare for whatever reason that seems like a fairly Progressive idea um the negative will say it's not Progressive because you know it uses the state pragmatism Etc but if you want to have those debates on the affirmative if you want to say the state is key the state is good the state is inevitable pragmatism is good you know resolving material impacts is good if you want to have that sort of debate with your unique form of affirmative then um this model of framework definitely allows that and permits that because all of those styles of arguments are net benefit fits the permutation there reasons why the permutation is better than the alternative alone which means that even if they have defense to the permutation like even if the permutation doesn't 100% solve all of the negatives offense well the affertive also has some offense that only the permutation solves that the alternative does not lastly and most importantly is that uh this path of framework is very very good against lots of styles of KS that have very large Alternatives um for example the cap K this is the most common path for the affirmatives to take the reason for this is because the cap K has become more and more now um a question of quote philosophical competition which is basically ideological competition um so it's to say that you know which philosophies which ideologies the want to invest in the the negative can say that those ideologies are bad but um the real question the important thing is to understand that a lot of the time these Alternatives and these impacts will not be about the app particularly right like this is why these sort of genres of Ks are afraid of the peration that's why they're spending so much time on framework attempting for you not to have a permutation is because lots of these links and these alternatives are not very specific to the affirmative which means that a permutation seems like a very good option and I'll talk more about that in a second now the there some cons of this approach first is that it kind of sucks that the permutation fails right because then you spent all this time trying to get the permutation and then it doesn't work doesn't work out for you and then you know you just lose the debate um second is that the wi condition is a lot less clear than path two which is framewor no KS which makes sense because you know you still have to win their permutation um and maybe potentially it's to Middle Ground right because they'll still have some offense on framework regardless so you're not completely off your skating the idea of debating framework and debating their offense but you still have to answer a lot of their arguments on other sort of things and you're sort of spending a lot of time on framework the permutation maybe this is sort of an overinvestment right so uh let's talk about the 2 for this T this sort of path of framework first is permutations are good in their pretation just a way to get out of permutation uh this is really bad for debate as I said CU permutations are important uh because the negative just having a potentially competitive advocacy means that they get the Magic World piece wand um the negative will say that this um prevents iological conversation but I don't think that this actually answers this argument because if the alternative literally dismantles all of world capitalism then the f using the market once isn't going to stop this um the f is not really that big of an ideal ological investment in capitalism compared to the complete other um ways in which Debaters understand capitalism right like whether a debater thinks capitalism is is good or bad is not determined by whether or not a debater gets access to a permutation or not whereas the access to the permutation does have a very tangible clear impact on the fairness implications of the round second is defense um to their offense so there are other ways to test ology besides no permutation right the logic of a permutation is actually able to test more iological Investments because lot for no Nuance so are interpretation is key to more gerain link and alternative arguments that are best for K debate because the best forms of K debate are typically the ones in which the negative has clear links to the AF and the F has clear offens to those links right because then those critical Investments become actual grass for contestation not just that the AF used the market which you know is a length clearly but maybe not as specific as we' want and then you can also apply the fair presumption arguments the causes um the stuff I said above third is the link turn to their offense so um their logic of framework essentially allows the AF just to Fat anything under the guise of ideological or philosophical competition that itself is anti-education under their own standard because we don't get to learn what choices we make in Evolutions we don't get to understand what sort of practices we think the state should invest in how we can Orient ourselves with or around the state we don't really have debat over those issues because the negative under their model and what it's kind of increasingly happening is that the negative just has a very large alternative that solves lots of issues with the SAS quot so let's talk about the 1 uh now that we're moving from the 2 backwards um for the one so the bread better version of the one for this style framework is one framework yes we get a permutation outlined that your framework interpretation is very clearly not excluding all types of KS so I think the interpretation if you just want to copy and paste this is framework weigh the hypothetical effects of the plan and permutation versus uh competitive and solvent alternative I would say just as a little tip you should send out your frame work um interpretation in the document itself so you should uh if you have the analytics feature on verbatim I would not put your framework information under that i' put it under a tag or something or at the very least you should go slowly and clearly flag that you're saying way the plan and permutation and you should say that most of your offense is tied to the idea that having permutations are good secondly and perhaps most importantly is permutation do both which is framed as quote the permutation double bind now here are both sides of the bind either the peration solves because the alternative which the peration includes is very large for example in the context of the capk does socialism internationally maybe Fiat a revolution in the United States that goes well or the alternative can't overcome the issues to the um idea the reason why the alternative can't happen in the status quo right so for example um let's say the capk alternative let's say it's just the revolution alternative well there's lots of reasons why a revolution is not happening right now in the United States right um the military would say no just not very popular of an idea to be quite Frank all those things the alternative has to sort of increase or get rid of um so they have to increase the popularity of socialism maybe the military converts these are all good crossx questions for the one andc on the capk by the way so you know those sort of questions maybe the alternative can overcome those and if they do overcome all the other structural factors that I just mentioned then it can probably overcome the affirmative right finally I would say alt uh fails because you could say something like transition Wars states are key no one converts Etc um and if the 2 andc one andr says that we fat past that and the alternative solves there you go that is your magical ticket uh for the permutation double bind right because then they basically give you the version of the bind that gives you the permutation solvency portion the first bu point the first aspect of the bind which is that the permutation solves because the alternative is very large right if they're fatting past or imagining past whatever word they want to use pass the issues with the status quo then that means that the permutation likely resolves and doesn't get really hampered by the affirmative so that is the devil bind um no K Lings are actually about the plan for the most part so you should specify potentially that their links are about the topic generically or the market generically now about the plan and that under this logic they're all non unique dads which the Alternatives must solve so if the judge does not think that the alternative solves these non unique dads then these are dads with the status quo that do not hamper the uh desirability of the plan um but it also means that the alternative must solve lots of these other issues with capitalism this double bind puts the affirmative in a very good spot and to be frank it's very tough for the negative to answer without framework because ideologically ideology based KS sort of almost always require framework to answer the pration reminder that this is the reason why they're spending so much time on framework because they don't want you to get the permutation right so justifying the permutation as we mentioned above is very important final pathway for uh framework is the sort of vanilla version of framework I say that this is the most standard version of framework which is framework plus the F ways so this is very good against most types of K but especially against KS with smaller Alternatives so let's think about the the pros here so a reminder that this version of framework says that we get the affirmative the affirmative outweighs the alternative so it is in nature very defensive it simply says that we get a na which is easy to argue for because you know in a lot of cases some Kens will just say yeah sure you do get an NA and and you get to meet in the one R and then you actually have the debate about the alternative versus the plan um a lot of Judges find that this version is very uh very intuitive and seems good because it allows for critical debate but it doesn't mean that debate always sort of becomes unfair um it's also quite responsive to a lot of more The Meta K that are arising especially in high school which are essentially just attempts to moot the plan so there will be lots of spam on uh framework lots of sub Point Etc and this version is the best at responding to it because your sort of theme is very simple right the theme is simply that there's no link to a lot of your offense we get to plan Etc um you get the alternative um this enables uh lots of alternative fails arguments so you know micropolitics fails focus on representations onology fails Etc and it enables you know decent deployment of the more traditional framework arguments so you know focusing on ontology for example Le means that we can't focus the material violence that exists in the world or we can't solve extinction because we're so sort of preoccupied and thinking about philosophy and stuff um you can still make the fairness presumption arguments I mentioned but you can also make the Clash arguments if you would like now there're also some very clearly identifiable Cons with this sort of approach the wi condition becomes much more focused on the alternative versus the affirmative so in some cases this means that it's very hard if the alter alternative is large in this case i' recommend going for path three because it allows you to get that permutation that permutation double bind that's so so juicy so sweet um it you still have to spend a decent amount of time on framework especially if the tar is going for the more offensive no plan version of framework so you know this sort of approach you kind of would like to talk about the a versus the alternative you like to make the state uh inevitable the state key the micropolitics fails style of argument but if the tar is just going to go for frame work anyways then you know eh you don't get exactly what you wanted it also enables some strange hybrid approaches that might be losing so the judge might conclude that um it's kind of hard to say that representations in epistemology don't matter that there's clearly an impact to them or that there's clearly impact to ideology or ontology So the plan happens but so does the representation and it's confusing to decide which matters more necessarily so it would be a lot easier you know in principle to just say do uh strategy two which is say no reps only the plan matters which lends less Credence to that sort of Judge intervention that sort of Judge confusion um now the way in which you go for this path is determined mostly by the block and the 2 andr so I'll begin with the one R first the one year should think how much of the block was frame how much were planned specific Links of the old fails and how did they answer Al fails arguments right and the answers to these questions elucidate how much time you spend on the framework and the A out way portion of your one and 2 right because the substant of portion if the block is mostly talking about substance then that's good you got what you wanted right they're not talking about his framework as much that's good we get the a that's great um but if they are spending a decent amount of time on framework in the block then you have to answer all those arguments um and for example I think a decent tell um is that uh if they want to go for the sort of more offensive version of framework for the negative which is say that you don't get to plan is that the one andr the 2 andc will do the overview the impact the alternative and the links um and the one andr will do the framework and the pration for example that sort of block split is very traditional framework heavy because the one R spinning lots of time on framework oftentimes 3 minutes 4 minutes es um on framework and that's a lot of time um the one R itself is only 5 minutes so you're you know this you have to spend a decent amount of time there um at least you know if you were to think about it in terms of let's say four minutes of the one andr um was framework if it was a 13 minute High School block 4 minutes divide by 13 minutes is about 33% of the block was framework right so the one should spend I don't know know 30ish per of the time on framework and it kind of sucks to get through all that slog but it's something that you have to H have to do with a lot of these Cas uh but you know if the tcy takes framework in one minute 30 two minutes maybe they say we get a k you know should very clearly flow their interpretation and if they don't give you their interpretation and you don't have it no shame in asking it's a lot better than uh not knowing what it is you know if it's very defensive then there you go you get the A out way portion and the one AR can just say we meet their interpretation uh under some cases um sometimes the the there will be sort of an instance in which the block will the block on the K will try to have both alive so both a substantive and a framework section alive and you kind of have to answer both right so you have to be very cognizant of how much time they're spending on each and what you think is more threatening with your affirmative right if you think that you know uh permutation is very good you think that your 2A can wrap it up think that your 2A can give a good speech on the per double bind then spend more time on framework if that's what you're worried about right um then the two INR happens so one year happens does a great job because you listened to all my fantastic advice the 2 andr happens and the 2A is now like okay what is the judge going to vote for in this two andr like what did the T andr spend the most time on is it a purely framework based K what am I more likely to lose them right am I more likely to lose on their framework that's offensive or that the alternative solves in the more substant portion if a then logically spend more time on framework and if B spend more time on the alt fails right and that should make sense right you know but it requires a clear understanding of what you think the affirmatives or rather the negatives win conditions are um and identifying those so um the 2 setup will be very conditional the one R sorry for the typo the most important part of the speech will probably be the alt fails and the apha waste portion right and you should um sort of had this mindset of placing offense like link impact turns on link arguments this is like a good heads space I think in a lot of cases for some of these KS so let's say one of the ks is like a Fiat State bad K like using the state imagine yourself being the state is bad um You' probably have to answer the Fiat K more on framework but you can also say that using St it's good right and because each link argument has to be resolved by the alternative the alternative must naturally take the opposite stance of the link right so if they say using the state's bad then the alternative cannot use the state right that seems logical so um you could say the state's inevitable the state's key to solve large impacts so this is obviously a contingent um so you know the state might be key to solve Aral links if you're asks about you know building an alliance with NATO then you can be like well clearly the states keep to build allies with NATO right because NATO is a state-based collective I I haven't seen any micropolitical movements in NATO that have changed their strategy VV Russia for example um and that means that the alternative uh fails to solve their offense as well so if you say that micropolitics generally is a strategy fails that means that they can't solve maybe their more structural philosophical based impacts because that is maybe more of a material impact um so for example if there's lots of inequality and let's say you're reading an MA about the environment and you want to clean up the environment and the next says the way in which we clean up the environment is predicated on sort of a logic um an ontology perhaps of sort of violence um perhaps anti-blackness um and we should instead not use the state we should reject the notion of progress Etc well if the alternative is to sort of build sort of maybe collectives maybe be more individually focused on our sort of un representational practice thinking say that the alternative fails to solve their discrimination based racism as you know antiblackness offense um because um it's not going to be actualized it's not going to resolve the material effects of that violence for example if they do not spend much time on framework no plants and spend more time on substance they should spend less time on framework uh in this path in particular than any other path besides the concession path right because then you sort of get what you want um I would spend maybe roughly 30 seconds and fairness on Clash give some defense to their offense which will be pretty easy because the portion the the idea the good part about this path is that you have lots of defensive out ends um to responding to defense because you're basically giving them the K you're just saying hey we need are affirmative right so in that case you know there's not a lot of exclusion of K and critical perspectives here and then you know if you want to say cap good that can be the portion of the app out ways that can be the portion of the alt fails if the TNR is more clearly in the no plan approach then you have to spend more time on framework you should be sure to answer every piece of defensive framework and provide a very clear internal link I think the as I sort of mentioned earlier The Meta with lots of critiques is now becoming more focused on framework note plans and a lot of these Debaters are getting very good at technically going for that strategy so you need to spend more time uh flowing and working on answering most arguments the problem here is that um for the negative a benefit for you all is that most stretches don't really want to moot the plan um so even you know let's say the T andr says 15 total arguments uh on framework no plans let's say you get to sub point5 you say like one quick thing maybe let's say you make one and a halfish arguments you say one clear thing one thing that kind of doesn't make sense you know you'll probably be fine obviously this is sort of Judge dependent right like if the judge is very sort of like in the weeds and philosophy know you should make note of that and be like okay this judge is more clearly you know a sort of critically oriented person U let's make adjustments here um and then in that case I would focus maybe more on a permutation self approach um or you know but in in in most cases you'll probably be fine just being like you know we answered every single argument you know there's defense you know we answered all their defense to our offense um this is sort of a skill that requires lots of drilling if you tend to lose um in the 2 in the one to framework and the A out ways or sorry to framework no plans that's actually very common sort of universal debator experience um this happens even at the very highest levels because this sort of argument is very tough to answer because there's lots of proliferation of arguments and the onear has to answer lots of things and if you concede something then they'll blow it up in your face and you just feel kind of in a bad position right in any case if this is something that you are worried about I would consider perhaps flowing um some of the best college tars on um framework and thinking through your TW and WI our tool kit and answering all those sort of arguments because they're not great arguments um at least for most judg maybe sometimes they're persuasive more persuasive than other times but again it's more content upon how much of a length they're winning how much of the alternative they're winning so the easiest version for the ne is just to say for no plans and teams are getting very naturally good at this in the same way that it's very easy to win on a processed counter plan um the only thing you have to really focus on in a processed counter plan is process counter BLS good and answering competition right so it's very similar sort of thing Debaters are getting very very good at answering um one particular style of argument or going for one particular style of argument and sort of getting involved in that and being specialized so if you are concerned about this I would say that I wouldn't really worry about this because as you become more technical as you get better at Flowing line by line know efficiently answering arguments all those things are very very important um here then you can sort of being a very good place answering this um and I would say you know there's lots of poent attempts to drill um with this sort of particular sty argument so let's conclude this um we first outlined that framework can be either defensive or offensive from the perspective of being affirmative and that's sort of contingent upon which style of affirmative you have which style style of Judge you have um what um path you're taking on frame frork and what the 2 andr and what the 2 andc is saying on framework and you want to find what sort of mix of offense and defense you are taking by via choosing what path you're taking you should determine which style of 2 you most likely want to give versus most types of KS as part of your after prep so think about you know sort of the three three to five most prominent critiques on your particular topic let's say it's cap security um cybernetics afro pessimism and haiger whatever cap I want to go for permutation do both plus framework maybe uh security if I get a judge who doesn't like k i I'll go for framework noks but if not I'll impact turn I'll say that my representations are actually good militarizing the climate is good something like that cybernetics the cybernetics alt I don't think it solves our impacts or their impacts so maybe I'll just go for the fourth path the framework and the a ways path any sort of case you can make the decision yourself um I hope I give you a nice little toolkit and understanding maybe sort of the more technical nuances of that decision but the important part is that you are making the decision that you do have a plan when thinking about framework before the 2ac even says the word one framework right and you should be cognizant of what the two andc and two andr interpretation is right is it deleting your ass is allowing for their a is it something in between all these matter and sort of reflect upon what style framework debating that you will want to be giving I hope that this was helpful for uh some of yall if you have any comments feedback questions we'll be happy to answer it um and yes uh yeah