Circuit Debater LD

Difference between revisions of "T-Framework"

T-Framework (view source)

Revision as of 01:02, 19 January 2022

863 bytes removed ,  01:02, 19 January 2022
m
removed subjective opinions about the strategic value of arguments
(tfw edits)
m (removed subjective opinions about the strategic value of arguments)
 
Line 19: Line 19:
* '''Clash Turns the Affirmative's Impacts''' - many non topical affirmatives will advocate for some sort of method for combatting oppression. Debaters reading these affirmatives would argue that the judge should vote aff to endorse that method if it is effective. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that the method proposed by the affirmative will be ineffective in bringing about social change unless its advocates know how to rigorously defend it against criticism and convince people who disagree with the method that it is effective. These skills can only be acquired through forms of debate in which the negative can robustly contest and clash with the affirmative's method, forcing the affirmative to robustly defend their ideas.
* '''Clash Turns the Affirmative's Impacts''' - many non topical affirmatives will advocate for some sort of method for combatting oppression. Debaters reading these affirmatives would argue that the judge should vote aff to endorse that method if it is effective. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that the method proposed by the affirmative will be ineffective in bringing about social change unless its advocates know how to rigorously defend it against criticism and convince people who disagree with the method that it is effective. These skills can only be acquired through forms of debate in which the negative can robustly contest and clash with the affirmative's method, forcing the affirmative to robustly defend their ideas.
* '''Clash Prevents Dogmatism''' - dogmatism is the practice of unconditionally believing in certain ideas, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Debaters reading T-Framework would argue that reducing the negative's ability to contest non topical affirmatives creates an echo chamber in which the ideas proposed by these affirmatives are never exposed to rebuttal, therefore encouraging dogmatic belief in those ideas. By allowing the negative to prepare for and robustly challenge these ideas through a stasis point for preparation like the resolution, debaters would be forced to consider many conflicting, well argued ideas. Certain theories, like the marketplace of ideas, would suggest that in this environment, the best ideas would win out.
* '''Clash Prevents Dogmatism''' - dogmatism is the practice of unconditionally believing in certain ideas, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Debaters reading T-Framework would argue that reducing the negative's ability to contest non topical affirmatives creates an echo chamber in which the ideas proposed by these affirmatives are never exposed to rebuttal, therefore encouraging dogmatic belief in those ideas. By allowing the negative to prepare for and robustly challenge these ideas through a stasis point for preparation like the resolution, debaters would be forced to consider many conflicting, well argued ideas. Certain theories, like the marketplace of ideas, would suggest that in this environment, the best ideas would win out.
One reason clash is strategic is because it doesn't pass a referendum on what kind of content or skills debate should teach us. Many critical affs are written to criticize the idea we should use debate to learn about the government, the law, international relations, or other common topics in traditional policy debate. Clash offense doesn't argue that debates should be about the state, the law, or any one type of content. Rather, it argues that regardless of the topic we choose to debate about, that topic should be attached to a predictable stasis point for preparation like the resolution because debates in which both sides have robust preparation produce the highest quality clash and most nuanced testing of ideas.
An important distinction between the clash standard and the skills standard is the fact that clash doesn't pass a referendum on what kind of content or skills debate should teach us. Many critical affs are written to criticize the idea we should use debate to learn about the government, the law, international relations, or other common topics in traditional policy debate. Clash offense doesn't argue that debates should be about the state, the law, or any one type of content. Rather, it argues that regardless of the topic we choose to debate about, that topic should be attached to a predictable stasis point for preparation like the resolution because debates in which both sides have robust preparation produce the highest quality clash and most nuanced testing of ideas.
=== Skills ===
=== Skills ===
This category of offense will argue that non topical affirmatives prevent important discussions about the law, policymaking, international relations, and other topics that are commonly found in topical policy debates about the resolution. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that these discussions produce '''Portable Skills''' that debaters can use to impact the world outside of debate in positive ways.
This category of offense will argue that non topical affirmatives prevent important discussions about the law, policymaking, international relations, and other topics that are commonly found in topical policy debates about the resolution. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that these discussions produce '''Portable Skills''' that debaters can use to impact the world outside of debate in positive ways.
Line 29: Line 29:


* '''Critical thinking''' - some scholarly literature suggests that analyzing complex concepts like international relations, debating about policy proposals, and predicting the actions of nations and individuals helps create critical thinking and creative problem solving skills. Debaters reading T-Framework would argue that policy debates about the resolution are the best way to foster these skills, which have countless applications later in life.
* '''Critical thinking''' - some scholarly literature suggests that analyzing complex concepts like international relations, debating about policy proposals, and predicting the actions of nations and individuals helps create critical thinking and creative problem solving skills. Debaters reading T-Framework would argue that policy debates about the resolution are the best way to foster these skills, which have countless applications later in life.
However, skills arguments have an important downside. By arguing that debating about specific content can directly alter the way debaters see the world and act outside of debate, the debater reading T-Framework concedes that what people say and do in debate can have large impacts outside of a debate round. Often, this concession will allow non topical affirmatives to leverage large impacts about positively changing debate or society, because if the skills argument is true and debates about the law and the US government can help debaters better understand and improve the law and the US government, then debates about racial oppression, colonialism, and other parts of critical theory can help debaters better understand and positively address those issues, which is the thesis of many non topical critical affirmatives. Skills arguments can still be very strategic, but it is worth keeping this downside in mind.
 
== Miscellaneous Arguments and Terms ==
== Miscellaneous Arguments and Terms ==
=== Topical Version of the Aff (TVA) ===
=== Topical Version of the Aff (TVA) ===
Max
Content-Manager
8

edits

Retrieved from "https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/2282"