Next Level **** : beyond the stupid in framework debating

Debating Framework - Brian McBride

I judge way too many ‘clash of civilization’ debates (essentially a kritikal aff in some form versus a framework argument) for my liking. Most of the time this debate super seriously sucks because the neg has their ‘sweet’ copy of Klinger’s framework file from years back (sorry Klinger, nothing personal) and the aff is real good about describing any concern for limits or fairness as white supremacy, biopower or genocide. No one really cares about listening to the other teams’ argument or making arguments, off their blocks that is, that actually responds to what the other team said.



Here’s what I’m come to notice over the years.



Aff Tips



Defense is the new offense. Typically affs can’t win a framework debate without winning some defensive arguments that demonstrate that their interpretation of the topic is debatable. Let me say that again: the aff must win that they are somewhat debatable in order to win the debate. While it is possible to assert that all concerns for fairness or debatability are stifling to the affirmative, I rarely notice judges being persuaded by these arguments. Kritikal affs need to have and develop a relationship to the topic, whether through counter-definitions of the words in the resolution or reasons why their aff is an important part of topic literatures. But the move to take the door off the hinges and allow any aff to say whatever they want will often times be counter-intuitive to many well-established beliefs in the community. ‘T = genocide’ is often times insufficient without some defense.



There is no topical way to do our aff. This is an argument that should require some serious aff thinking of how best to articulate it. The aff should prove in more than an assertion that the standard view of the topic prevents their aff and that there’s something uniquely educational about expanding the interpretation of the topic to include it.



Neg Tips



There are two main crutches that I see operative in a bunch of neg framework debates:



First, topical version of the aff. The argument that there is a ‘topical version of the aff’ is often used as a crutch for poor impact debating. If the neg just wins that there’s a more topical version of the aff but doesn’t really spend time proving why the aff is hard to debate then I usually vote aff. Yes it is important to be inclusive and this argument should be made but it should substitute discussion of why the aff’s framework is bad for ground.



Second, fairness first. Again, while it’s important to make these arguments, the neg should probably recognize that they’re not gonna win the debate exclusively on fairness first. They will have to defend the politics of their framework argument in some fashion: fiat is a way to pay attention to government policy-making; cure apathy against the government; fiat politics are a way to get outside our shoes and respect the demands that others have to deal with, etc. For me, a lot of this debate comes down to the way the negative frames the final impact of their framework argument. For example, framing the framework impact as critical to methods of compassion or respect for able opponents is a bit different that pointing out that framework is a jurisdictional issue. The neg could argue that their framework politics pays attention to unworthy opponents, which spills over to larger forms of fairness and respect. Disempowered groups can use the politics of fairness and respect for unable opponents to strengthen their claims for political participation. Or the neg could argue that their framework arguments infer that politics has a duty to both listen and respond and that the aff wants of politics of listening only. They don’t want us to be able to respond. It’s not enough for us to simply listen to the suffering of others. Suffering demands a response.



The “fed is bad” is not really an aff argument. Often times the aff answers the negative’s framework argument by asserting, ‘well if federal government action is problematic why should we be forced to advocate it.’ Look people, every venue of action or concern has its downsides. If it’s true that there’s something inherently limited about federal policy making, usually aff’s that believe in the thought experiment of fiated action teach the many different and unique limitations or drawbacks to such thinking. Fiated aff teach us the different way agencies work, the way the government can (mis)interpret ideas and difficulties of truly progressive reforms. The aff’s assumption that the federal government is inherently a deadend assumes that when we as debaters advocate fiated action that we will come to believe when our debate days are over that nothing is more promising that federal action to cure for what ails us. Many moons ago the college community had a topic that advocating increasing federal control over Indian country (the resolution’s words not mine). I don’t know many people who walked away from the topic (and who advocated that the federal government should implement an idea) that federal control of Indian country was actually a net positive. The neg’s framework argument isn’t that the federal government is great but it is a concern for having the discussion.



Hope this little post helps with some of your thinking on the issue. Expect more from our site in the months to come.