T-Framework

Overview

T-Framework (also referred to as Framework and T-USFG) is a topicality argument designed to answer non topical critical affirmatives. In most topicality debates, both debaters agree that the affirmative should be topical, but disagree on whether the affirmative is topical. However, many critical affirmatives will contest whether the affirmative should have the burden to be topical in the first place. Because of this, T-Framework is a unique topicality argument, as most 2NRs on T-Framework will not focus on proving the aff is not topical, but rather on proving debates about the resolution are valuable and topicality is a norm worth preserving.

Core Standards and Offense

While many different standards and justifications for T-Framework have been read, most standards fall into 1 of 3 different core categories of offense: Fairness, Clash, and Skills. Most 2NRs on T-Framework will collapse to one of these standards.

Fairness

This category of offense will argue that non topical affirmatives place an unfair burden on the negative. Common internal links to a fairness impact include:

• Limits - if the affirmative is not constrained by the resolution, they could defend anything in their 1AC. There is no way for the negative to reasonably anticipate and prepare for this massive amount of possible affirmatives, skewing the debate in the affirmative's favor.
• Ground - if the affirmative can defend anything, then they have a competitive incentive to defend uncontroversial proposals with very little neg ground. An extreme example might be a 1AC that defends a truism like "racism bad".
• Library Disadvantage - if the affirmative is not constrained by the topic, they can read the same or similar affirmatives topic after topic and specialize in only 1 type of argument or literature base. Even if the negative is able to engage with the affirmative, the deck will be stacked against them because the aff has far more experience , given the length of time they could have been learning and reading their 1AC.

However, unlike most theory and topicality debates where both debaters assume fairness is an important impact, many critical affirmatives will argue that ensuring the debate is fair for the negative is unimportant. Because of this, a crucial component of winning fairness offense when reading T-Framework is proving fairness is an important impact. Common arguments that attempt to prove this include:

• Competition
• Fairness is a side constraint
• Fairness turns all other impacts
• Fairness is the only impact a judge's ballot can resolve

Clash

(to do)

reasons clash is good

• Clash turns aff impacts
• Clash prevents dogmatism

One reason clash is strategic 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 nuanced testing of ideas.

Skills

Movements/portable legal knowledge