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. There are many different approaches that can be taken to engage on a framework debate, and the best way to get better at it is to just run it more often.
Editor Note: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Victory Briefs. Strategic importance of framework debate: There are a few reasons why having a framework debate can be strategic: Reason 1: It can help move the round to a familiar territory if debating an unfamiliar position.
Next, into some of the important strategic considerations! Consideration 1: Weigh As little as debaters weigh on theory and substance, they find ways to weigh even less on framework debates. 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.
Consideration 4: Leave yourself options Even the best framework debaters might make a mistake, or undercover something. Consideration 6: Dealing with Theoretically Justified Frameworks 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.
Conclusion There are many different approaches that can be taken to engage on a framework debate, and the best way to get better at it is to just run it more often. Share this: Click to share on Facebook Opens in new window Click to share on Twitter Opens in new window Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to email this to a friend Opens in new window. Ethan Massa Wins Tradition.
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Josh Zoffer, from the NFL National Champion Public Forum Debate team, gave an excellent lecture on Framework that can be found here NFLtv is no longer functioning, so it was posted on another speech and debate blog where it is still live.
His analysis is foundational to the current use and practice of Framework in Public Forum today. In Beyond Resolved, I cover the types of resolutions, goals of Framework, types of Framework, as well as practical tips on using and attacking Framework.
This post is the tip of the Framework iceberg. Check the blog later this week for a post on Framework in the January topic on the development assistance to the Sahel. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Menu Skip to content. Only general guidelines are available on PF ballots: the NFL ballot published in October offered: Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal beliefs.
Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge i. Clash of ideas is essential to debate. Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.
Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here
0コメント