AFC Good File.docx

[Bartlesville High School Debate]Theory AFC GOOD Lawrence Zhou

***AFC GOOD FILE***

- 1 -


AFC SHELL V.1A-interpretation:

The affirmative can choose the standard by which we evaluate the round so long as the standard is theoretically fair to offset the neg's advantage in the round.

B-violation:

This theory is pre-emptive. My opponent violates if they advocate an interpretation of debate that doesn't let the affirmative choose the standard by which we evaluate the round.

C-standards:

1-time skew:

Because of the 7 to 4 and 6 to 3 minute rebuttal time skew the negative enjoys, they win the majority of rounds, regardless of the seeding of debaters. Allowing me to choose the standard helps combat the significant time skew affirmatives face because instead of having to win both a framework and offense back to that framework in the impossibly short 1ar, the aff only has to win offense back to a standard, which is more practical. Moreover, allowing the neg to contest the framework moots 6 minutes of AC offense, forcing me to restart in the 1AR, massively skewing time.

A bad division of time violates fairness because arguments don’t matter if you don’t have time to make them. Time skew is the most important impact to fairness because if you don’t have time to make arguments, you can’t debate, making it a prerequisite to all other standards.

2-strategy skew:

Given that the NC can adapt to the AC but the AC cannot adapt to the NC, the negative has an easier chance at winning the round structurally because it can maximize the use of it's speaking time by forcing the 1ar to respond to multiple layers of the debate. The variability in negative strategy while the affirmative has to commit to a strategy since they talk first is the definition of a strategy skew.

- 2 -


Preventing strategy skews is key to fairness because without being able to form a strategy, you can never win. If the negative can form strategy better than the affirmative can, it has an easier shot at winning the round structurally.

This also links into time skew because the adaptability of the NC allows it to maximize the value of their 13 minutes of speaking time while the affirmative must commit 6 minutes to the AC, leaving only 7 minutes of speech time where the strategy is not pre-decided.

D-voter:

Fairness is a voter because unfair debates determine the better cheater, not the better debater and debate is a competitive activity, which by definition makes it a test of skill. Unfair interpretations prevent neutral evaluations of who did the better debating, and thus contradict the fundamental premise of debate because the judge can’t properly measure the skill of the competitors.

And, if the negative shows that AFC is not the solution to side bias, it must offer some other way to rectify the inherent advantage to negating, otherwise you prefer AFC since it has a risk of solving the side-bias. This means criticizing AFC is not enough. Either the negative must show there is not a side-bias or it must offer some concrete alternative.

And, prefer structural over substantive arguments because they frame how we access substance.

E-preempts:

First, I don't harm education about philosophy.

The little a is that even though the aff gets to specify the framework, every debater on the circuit will still need to read and understand a variety of different philosophies to do well because that is the only way to find new frameworks to affirm with and to understand the other frameworks debaters on the circuit read. It's impossible to debate underneath your opponent's framework if you don't first understand what that framework advocates. This means that I also capture the benefit of education about ethics and philosophy.

- 3 -


The little b is that as harmful to our educational progress as it must be to not hear the same Ripstein/Korsgaard/Kant/Nagel bullshit over and over again, the education that both debaters receive on the contention level of the debate outweighs the minimal education we receive from the philosophy debate.

AFC forces greater substantive engagement on the AC contention level debate. This forces the negative to compare arguments and warrants, make more nuanced responses to the contention debate, and understand AC link stories.

Second, even though I know about my framework ahead of time, that doesn't make it unfair.

The little a is that it's ok if the neg is at a disadvantage. That's the whole point of AFC; it puts the negative at a disadvantage in order to counterbalance the structural advantage the neg enjoys. Thus, proof of abuse just means we are evening the playing field, which is a good thing.

The little b is that my opponent's argument is that AFC is unfair because I will always be better prepared to debate under my framework, but this assumes that my framework is unpredictable and my opponent couldn't be ready to debate under it. However, given that we have no clue what scouting systems my opponent is a part of, who my opponents is friends with, what frameworks my opponent has seen, and what frameworks my opponent is ready to debate, we can't ever verify that a certain standard was unpredictable or unfair. Thus, his argument is non-verifiable because the abuse story relies on out of round links that cannot be proven. Arguments must be verifiable for you to vote off of them, otherwise we will never know if they are actually true.

Now onto the AC proper:

- 4 -


AFC SHELL V.2The aff gets to choose the comparative and sufficient mechanism for ethical evaluation and resolution framing interpretations. There’s a few reasons to prefer.

The A point is time skew. Negs win tons of outrounds because the 7-4 skew and the proliferation of counterwarrants means NCs can uplayer the debate with prestandards and framework. AFC checks this back since I only need to win offense to win instead of having to justify a framework. This precludes other notions of time because persuasive appeals don’t matter if the neg can line by line all my arguments, and judges are less likely to buy tricks with ink next to them. Time precludes any other internal link since arguments don’t matter if you don’t have the ability to make them. To reject this standard, the neg must offer an alternative way to rectify the skew implementable in this round since aff choice always has a risk to help. This is empirically verified—AFC sets the parameters in policy and side wins are comparatively more balanced.

The B point is topic education. Aff choice improves discussion on the topic because it forces negs to engage the AC warrants and link stories instead of going for the same rote framework debate we’ve seen countless times. This is especially key as tons of rounds now are decided on permissibility or skepticism that has literally nothing to do with the topic. Topic-specific research is key to education because generic strategies don’t garner the educational benefits critically engaging new issues. This outweighs your philosophy claims- I could have learned about different frameworks a while ago but the rotation of topics is the only thing that garners fresh knowledge. They might frame the impacts, but the impacts themselves are what matters. Even if this isn’t true in a general sense, prefer AFC independently because this is TFA State and since it’s most likely the only tournament on the topic, it encourages lazy debate—we’re given a topic and this is our one shot to talk about it, let’s do it.

The C point is philosophy education. AFC increases philosophy education because smart affirmatives won’t choose the same goddamn framework every round or negs will crush them every time by shitting 12 DAs on case. Aff choice encourages 1ACs to come up with new fair frameworks to surprise negs with, and negs have to do more philosophy research to have turns and keep up with the trends. This isn’t defensive—without AFC, cool aff

- 5 -


frameworks can be mitigated by negs uplayering with metaethics and triggers. Key to education to understand the normative basis for why we think certain actions are good. And, no predictability deficit since I have no idea what prep circles my opponent’s a part of, so they could very much know what’s coming so don’t buy unabashed abuse claims.

Fairness is a voter since the ballot makes debate a competition which must be constrained by rules as people only debate with an understanding of competitive equity. Voter for education as judges have an obligation to promote practices with the ballot that have a lasting impact outside the round.

- 6 -


AEC SHELLA-interpretation:

The negative must accept a reasonable or philosophically justified affirmative ethical standard as contextualized in the 1AC. Lawrence1 clarifes AEC: The 2010-2011 academic year involved a number of debaters advocating for “affirmative framework choice” in the 1AC. Given the loaded nature of this term due to its origin in policy debate, I do not like the name that some debaters are using for it, nor do I think it is appropriate to read O’Donnell evidence in an LD round on this issue. Further, in LD I do not think that we all have a common understanding of what constitutes “framework,” particularly whether it is inclusive or exclusive of the standard. However, I believe that these arguments are

oriented correctly and in this article advocate a form of affirmative choice which I shall call Affirmative Ethics Choice (AEC). AEC entails allow[s]ing the affirmative to determine what interpretation of ethics will be used for the debate - consequentialism or deontology, for example - within the constraints of [while] providing a reasonable amount of ground for the negative. Responses to the affirmative ethical framework would need to be premised in its fairness given the resolution rather than attempting to prove another ethical approach superior on truth value. *Please note that this article does not necessarily represent my opinions on this matter, at least not in their final form. It is meant more to be a source of discussion rather than a true call to action. Affirmative Ethics Choice Explained.

AEC would grant[s] the affirmative the right to choose which philosophical school the round will be debated in, tabling the meta-ethics debate in favor of a topic-specific debate under a particular ethical framework. This does not shut down the standards debate. In fact, I would argue that this is the best way to re-invigorate it. Rather than the standard just becoming a placeholder for a meta-ethics debate, the standard would revert to being a weighing mechanism under the affirmative ethic. Granted, net-benefits may be the best consequentialist standard by way of its lack of arbitrary exclusion, there is nothing that prevents debaters from using more specific standards under the AEC model. Deontological standards debates would be better-developed discussions about which rights are more valuable than others, whose interpretation of deontology is more correct, etc. Allowing AEC without any check, however, would result in affirmatives establishing debates that provide either very little ground to the negative or incredibly esoteric ground for them. In this way, affirmatives should be obligated to exercise their right responsibly and lay a fair debate for their opponent. The purpose of AEC is to table the ethics debate, not to gain a strategic upper-hand. However, it would be naïve to assume that people will not attempt to gain a competitive edge. As such, the negative should be able to indict the fairness of the affirmative ethical system under a reasonability standard. What constitutes a “reasonable” ethical approach? That is clearly up to the debaters to decide. At bare minimum the standard would need to be sufficient for both debaters to win the round under. A non-comparative standard would be unreasonable by way of not providing both debaters the opportunity to win the round. It would be quite asinine to argue that the negative can neither contest one’s framework nor win under it. Even if reasonability is a vague standard, using competing interpretations would hamstring AEC by removing the “choice” from it and forcing affirmatives to pick the fairest ethic instead of a

fair one. The ethics debate would just shift from a philosophical one to a theory one, mooting any benefit of AEC . It is important to note that AEC does not include definitions and other framework issues . I do not necessarily condone or oppose the expansion of AEC to become inclusive of other aspects of the framework. However, it is beyond the scope of this article.

B-violation:

This theory is preemptive; they violate if they advocate a different interpretation of ethics or challenge the right of the aff to choose the necessary and sufficient ethical standard.

C-standards:

1-philosophical education.

AEC increases philosophical and topic education, 3 reasons. Lawrence 2: 1 Affirmative Ethics Choice by Ryan Lawrence. Victory Briefs Daily. March 12, 2012. http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2012/03/affirmative-ethics-choice-by-ryan-lawrence

- 7 -


Benefits of AEC. The most obvious benefit of embracing AEC [allows us] is that we get to avoid the same deontology vs. utilitarianism vs. contractualism debate that populates almost every LD round. To some, this may seem like a disadvantage rather than a benefit, but consider the following. First, the ethics debate has been going on for several hundred years and has not come even close to being resolved. [It is delusional] To think that the

discussion that happens in a 45 minute debate has any educational value on an issue that is so deep, nuanced, and irresolvable is delusional. Any education [on]to be derived

from this issue is best accessed by just reading articles. To call the dilapidated ethical

discussions that currently occur in most LD rounds “good debate” is a giant misnomer. Second, the ethics debate trades off with a discussion of the resolution. Since debaters have a limited window of opportunity to debate the topic, we should prefer topic-specific discussions over generic ethics. Squads should not be able to run the same argument(s) for five years on the negative in LD

instead of making new arguments on each resolution. What is more, if debate is supposed to educate its participants to become better-informed citizens and critical thinkers, an ivory tower discussion of meta-ethics has little practical value for high school debaters moving forward into college and beyond. Third, AEC does not make the discussion of ethics disappear; it just shifts its focus.

Instead of debating about which ethical framework is better, we can have more nuanced and interesting debates about how we should interpret a particular ethical framework. Relieved of the burden of having to defend deontology vs. consequentialism, debaters can instead spend their time developing a cogent theory of rights, governmental obligations, etc. Under consequentialism, debaters can spend more time comparing impacts and engaging in the weighing debate that so many judges complain no longer occurs substantively. The question is not whether or not we should debate ethics, but instead how we should debate ethics and how much of the debate we should allocate to it.

2-time skew.

AEC solves timeskew, prevents mooting 6 minutes of 1AC offense. Lawrence 3: AEC should also result in fairer debates. There has been much discussion lately of the “negative side bias” and the huge barriers to affirming. I have no doubt that one of those barriers

has been the ethics debate. When the negative gets to provide[s] an alternative system of ethics off-case and then move on to construct[s] offense under the affirmative’s system on-case or with additional off-case[s] argumentation, then the affirmative is always forced to jump through the ethics debate hoop before accessing any of their offense, and then still must deal with the negative strategy under that system. Of course, the affirmative can concede the ethics debate and try to construct offense under the negative

framework, but a 4 minute 1AR makes that task nearly impossible,

especially with the 6 minutes of the 1AC being mooted. What is more, the negative’s ability to collapse in the NR means that the affirmative will always be facing an NR that gets to capitalize on whatever strategic choice the 1AR makes. AEC has the immediate benefit of guarantee[s]ing that the 1AC offense will be functional in the 1AR and beyond. Certainly the negative will still have 7 minutes to construct offense and will use several strategic tricks in order to make life difficult for the 1AR; however, when the affirmative has a guarantee of functional case offense, dealing with such strategies is far easier.

- 8 -


3-topical clash.

AEC increases clash by forcing debaters to debate the topic. Lawrence 4:

As a consequence of this, there will also be an increase in “clash” in debates as the negative will be required to make their arguments interact with the 1AC. This should be a boon for coaches and judges who are dismayed by the trend toward off-case argumentation that has little or nothing to do with the 1AC. Debates will once again come down to who has the better substantive argumentation about the topic instead of who has “a single piece of offense” that links back to whatever ethical framework ends up being used.

- 9 -


POLICY VERSION SHELLA-interpretation:

The negative must accept the affirmative’s choice of paradigm that refers to the role of the ballot, which includes the right of the 1AC to select the necessary and sufficient mechanism by which the judge will evaluate the debate.

B-violation:

This violation is preemptive. They neg violates if they advocate a different paradigm by which the judge evaluates this debate.

C-standards:

1-constructive ground.

AFC key for our constructive ground; also key to clash, otherwise the debate becomes what we should be debating about. O’Donnell2 1:

There are several reasons why the affirmative should get to choose the framework for the debate. First, AFC preserves the value of the first affirmative constructive speech. This speech is the starting point for the debate. It is a function of necessity. The debate must begin somewhere if it is to begin at all. Failure to grant AFC is a denial of the service rendered by the affirmative team’s labor when they crafted this speech.

Further, if the affirmative does not get to pick the starting point, the opening speech act is essentially rendered meaningless while the rest of the debate becomes a debate about what we should be debating about. History is instructive here. The brief and undistinguished life of both counter warrants and plan-plan have amply demonstrated the chaos that results when the negative refuses to engage the affirmative on its chosen starting point. In this light, AFC may even be viewed as a “right” similar to the affirmative’s right to define. Although there are several reasons why the affirmative ought to have the right to define, the most persuasive justification recognizes that with the responsibility of initiating the discussion on the resolutional question comes a concomitant right to offer an interpretation of what those words mean. Of course, it is not an exclusive right because the negative can always challenge the interpretations. Nevertheless, the affirmative’s interpretation carries a certain presumption that is accepted as “good for debate” unless proven otherwise. The

rationale for AFC follows a similar line of thinking. The affirmative should be able to choose the question for the debate because they are required to speak first.

2-timeskew.

Changing the framework moots 8 minutes of 1AC offense, creating a massive timeskew and kills temporal ground as we can no longer leverage 1AC offense. O’Donnell 2:

2 “And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate” Timothy M. O’Donnell Director of Debate University of Mary Washington.

- 10 -


Second, AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. When the negative has the option of changing, or even initiating, the framework discussion, the [1AC] first affirmative constructive

speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts the affirmative for two reasons. First, [because] it gives the negative a two-to-one advantage in constructive speech time for making framework arguments. Second, the first affirmative framework choice (or lack there of) locks the affirmative into defending their opening speech act against an entirely different framework from the one it was designed to address. Not only does AFC solve these problems, it also gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their choosing. Allowing the [1AC] first affirmative constructive speech to set the terms for the debate ensures that teams get to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every team would have an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss half the time.

3-strat skew.

Changing the framework skews strategy because we can’t adapt. Give us AFC for this debate and to ensure future debaters get to debate under different frameworks. O’Donnell 3: Second, AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. When the negative has the option of changing, or even initiating, the framework discussion, the [1AC] first affirmative constructive speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts the affirmative for two reasons. First, it gives

the negative a two-to-one advantage in constructive speech time for making framework arguments. Second, the first affirmative framework choice (or

lack there of) locks the affirmative into defending their opening speech act against an entirely different framework from the one it was designed to address. Not only does AFC solve these problems, it also gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their choosing. Allowing the first affirmative constructive speech to set the terms for the debate ensures that teams get to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every team would have an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss half the time.

4-philosophy education.

AFC forces debate under multiple frameworks, increasing framework education and forcing argument development. O’Donnell 4:

Third, AFC has substantial educational benefits. To begin with, it would force teams to debate in multiple frameworks. Too few teams at both the high school and college level have true argument flexibility. It is an undeniable fact that the debate enterprise would be a more educational undertaking for all involved if teams had to prepare to debate a variety of different frameworks. AFC solves this problem because the framework, like the case, would be determined at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, in a world where the question of the debate is not resolved prior to the start of the debate, teams

simply pick the framework that they want to defend and advocate it on both the affirmative and the negative. When the negative is permitted to shift the framework, affirmative teams [cannot] are denied the opportunity to

debate in the framework that they selected. Ceding framework selection to the affirmative creates a permanent space for the exploration of multiple frameworks. Indeed, it would allow them to flourish. The fact of the matter is that the creativity which stands behind the wide

- 11 -


variety of argument strategies in contemporary debate ensures that a diverse set of frameworks would continue to be explored. AFC aims to break the idea that teams should

debate only one way. Instead, it empowers alternate perspectives on debate and gives each an equal footing. In addition, AFC would have the educational benefit of promoting argument development. If widely accepted, it would have the effect of bracketing

framework discussions. Such a move would necessarily focus the debate on issues germane to the framework selected by the affirmative. This would provide more time to explore these issues in greater complexity. Recall for a moment many of the diverse negative strategies deployed at the 2004 NDT. Now ask, how much more intellectually rewarding would those debates have been if the framework discussions were removed from consideration? AFC creates a situation where this is possible.

- 12 -


**FRONTLINES**

- 13 -


A2: HURT NEG GROUNDGround is easily answered, 4 reasons. O’Donnell:

There are, of course, a number of objections to this proposal. First, some will object that AFC would hurt negative ground. These objections can be easily answered. First, ground is not an all or nothing issue. The affirmative’s choice of framework provides plenty of negative ground. If the affirmative chooses a policy framework, then the negative gets policy ground. If they choose a performance framework, then the negative gets to critique their performance and offer a counter performance. Second, the problem of negative ground exists in the status quo. Given the wide variety of frameworks advocated in affirmative constructive speeches today, negative teams already have to be prepared to debate multiple frameworks. This proposal would not impose a larger

burden on the negative than already exists. Third, framework debates themselves are not critical to negative ground. If the negative is only prepared to engage in framework debates, then they are obviously not well prepared to be negative. Fourth, it could be argued that the negative has too much ground in the status quo. Affirmative framework choice levels the playing field. Given the expansive range of generic negative strategies that the negative has at its disposal, it is not an exaggeration to say that negative teams today clearly have the upper hand. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ground loss under the present system is worse for the affirmative. In situations where the negative shifts the debate to its desired framework, the affirmative is at a much greater disadvantage because they have made time allocation and advocacy choices that are not easily rectified.

- 14 -


A2: NO FRAMEWORK DEBATEO’Donnell: Would AFC foreclose framework debates which themselves have value? Perhaps. This criticism brings into focus the locus of the educational dilemma. The position staked out in this

article is that framework debates have less educational value than their counterparts. Framework debates divert the focus away from debating the substantive issues contained in any framework. In the status quo, the team that wins the framework debate wins the debate. The problem is that so much precious speech time is spent on the framework debate that many debates never get to the intellectually and pedagogically valuable discussion of the issues themselves. More importantly, affirmative framework choice captures all of the benefits of framework debates with none of the downside. Different affirmative teams will advocate different frameworks which means all of the questions that currently get asked would inevitably get asked.

- 15 -


A2: NO QUESTIONING AFF ASSUMPTIONS

Would AFC mean the negative could never question affirmative assumptions? There are at least two answers to this objection. First, not necessarily. The negative would still have ground to critique the assumptions embedded in the framework advocated by the affirmative team. For example, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in Iraq to the United Nations through a policy framework, the negative could still question all of the policy assumptions which speak to the plan’s desirability. AFC only constrains the negative to the extent that they are limited to the starting point selected by the affirmative. This means that the negative would be forced to bracket questions regarding the desirability of the affirmative with respect to its language, its representations, its politics, its performance, its philosophy, etc. Similarly, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in Iraq to the United Nations through a performance framework, the negative could question all of the assumptions behind their performance in addition to topically derived core negative arguments (although those arguments would have to be adapted to the framework advanced by the affirmative). In such situations, ground loss would be minimal because the ground that the negative loses would not be germane to either the resolutionally derived question or the affirmative framework. Thus the only thing that the negative loses under AFC is the ability to shift the question of the debate through critiques of the affirmative framework. Viewed this way, the negative’s complaint is that they don’t get to talk about everything but the affirmative. But why should they?

Second, the benefits gained by adoption of AFC outweigh what would be lost. Limiting negative ground focuses the discussion and generates richer debates within the framework chosen by the affirmative. There is no substantial benefit to allowing the negative to question every assumption since the emergence of critical affirmatives ensures a place at the table for these types of arguments.

Third, the negative does not have a right to question every assumption. Infinite preparation time for the affirmative is a myth. Affirmative teams, only have a fixed amount of time to prepare to debate. If they are forced to defend any and all assumptions that they are heir to by virtue of their existence at the end of thousands of years of human civilization there is no

- 16 -


reasonable expectation that they could ever be prepared to debate. The number and range of questions that the debate could be about is certainly much greater than the amount of time the affirmative has to prepare. Such a situation is anathema to any cooperative learning enterprise. If learning is to be maximized, participants must have a reasonable expectation about what to prepare for. This is, after all, why everyone who participates in two-person “policy” debate thinks there ought to be a topic. Yet, while we seem to agree that there should be limits placed on the affirmative, the same thinking does not always seem to apply to the negative. AFC merely recognizes that both sides need to give something up to have a debate.

- 17 -


A2: TOO MUCH AFF GROUND O’Donnell:

Would AFC tip the balance too much in the affirmative’s favor? This is potentially the most serious objection to the proposal advanced here. After all, why wouldn’t an affirmative advocate a framework that made it impossible for the negative to win? The short answer is that some affirmatives might try. However, this charge is not unique to the proposal contained herein. The affirmative already has free reign to introduce a framework for evaluating the debate, and many of them do. Furthermore, while the risk of creating a competitive imbalance in favor of the affirmative might seem likely, this criticism is more hypothetical than real. The same communal notions that have generally served to limit affirmative case selection with respect to topicality could also function with AFC. Of course, negative teams would have to be prepared to argue that the framework presented by the affirmative is untenable for competitive and/or educational reasons. But, this is no different than what they already prepare to do with topicality. There is a reason why the vast majority of teams do not run the best affirmatives from past topics year after year. Negative teams are more often than not, able to easily defeat those affirmatives with topicality arguments. Why? Because virtually every participant in the game has an intuitive sense that we must reach stasis to even have a debate. AFC merely carries that notion one step further by recognizing that to have a debate we must agree on both the topic and the question that the judge seeks to resolve with respect to that topic.

The appropriate inventional resource for creating arguments about the legitimacy of the affirmative framework is topicality theory. In preparing to craft arguments against illegitimate affirmative frameworks, there are several standards which the negative could use. First, the framework should be predictable. The negative needs to be able to have some basis for preparing to debate the range of possible affirmative frameworks. Since the resolution is the only stable indicator of what the negative needs to prepare to debate, it seems that a reasonable expectation is that the affirmative’s framework should be germane to the resolution. That is to say, the

- 18 -


resolution should function as a generative tool not only for a list of affirmative cases, but also a list of affirmative frameworks. Second, the framework should be educational. The framework chosen by the affirmative ought to be educationally beneficial. At a minimum this implies that the possibility for critical thought resides in the framework. Third, the framework should be debatable. This is another way of saying that the framework should be competitively balanced or equitable. There has to be a reasonable possibility that the negative can win. To this extent, the burden of explaining what the negative needs to do to win rests with the affirmative. They ought to be able to offer a clear rationale or set of conditions in which the judge would vote negative. Finally, the framework should be fixed. Once the affirmative introduces its framework into the debate, they should not be permitted to alter or change it in any way. The appropriate theoretical analogs here are the reasons why affirmative conditionality is illegitimate.

- 19 -


ADDITIONAL CARDS

O’Donnell3:

Second, AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. When the negative has the option of changing, or even initiating, the framework discussion, the first affirmative constructive speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts the affirmative for two reasons. First, it gives the negative a two-to-one advantage in constructive speech time for making framework arguments. Second, the first affirmative framework choice (or lack there of) locks the affirmative into defending their opening speech act against an entirely different framework from the one it was designed to address. Not only does AFC solve these problems, it also gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their choosing. Allowing the first affirmative constructive speech to set the terms for the debate ensures that teams get to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every team would have an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss half the time.

Fourth, AFC creates a compromise that allows different perspectives on the question of the debate to coexist. The problem with leaving the framework open to debate is that it makes a schism in the community inevitable. Such a split, if it were to happen, would have serious long term consequences for the existence of competitive debate. Unfortunately, the history of intercollegiate debate is a history marked by fissures that have seen groups of like minded people peel away from the larger community because of their disagreements about what counts as excellence in debate.i This process has 3 “And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate” Timothy M. O’Donnell Director of Debate University of Mary Washington.

- 20 -


happened before and it is likely to happen again. Indeed, I suspect that it is already underway as one or more pockets lament the seeming intransigence of their competitive counterparts in coming around to their perspective on what the activity of debate ought to be about. AFC is a compromise position that gives everyone an equal stake in the game.

Finally, AFC, if widely accepted, has the potential to change the nature of judging and would put debating back into the hands of the debaters. If one considers the wide variety of claims that judges today make in their judging philosophies about what they will and will not tolerate, it is clear that there are significant cleavages in the judging pool. The reason for this is that judges (my self included) have different dispositions toward the question of the debate and they are often willing to impose those views in the debate in a variety of ways. AFC envisions a situation in which judges could mutually agree to disarm.

A2: Aff Choice is arbitrary

Phillips4: Scott Phillips. Throwdown #1: Affirmative Framework Choice – Scott's Response. The 3NR. http://the3nr.com/2009/06/10/aff-choice-throwdown/

Arbitrary means done without principle or logic- aff choice is the only logical option- we have to talk first. You can’t give a speech and make arguments without implicitly selecting a framework. Since frameworks are often mutually exclusive the framework we select is the only non arbitrary one- the negative does not logically need a new framework to refute ours, therefore lack of affirmative choice is arbitrary.

-Debating the “merits” of alternative frameworks trades off directly with topic education- this should be self evident. You can productively decide whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King without a metaphysical debate about western capitalism.

-Alternative frameworks avoid clash- they sidestep the central questions posed by the affirmative. You can easily clash without needing your own framework.4 Scott Phillips. Throwdown #1: Affirmative Framework Choice – Scott's Response. The 3NR. http://the3nr.com/2009/06/10/aff-choice-throwdown/

- 21 -

http://the3nr.com/2009/06/10/aff-choice-throwdown/

http://the3nr.com/2009/06/10/aff-choice-throwdown/


A2: Negative frameworks are relevant opportunity costs

-if frameworks trade off so to speak, that proves our point-the negatives framework will exclude 8 minutes of affirmative arguments, which is unfair (obviously done for strategic benefit) and anti educational (since the 1AC is the only thing close to being about the topic in most debates)

-Impact framing solves offense- if there are logical kritik arguments that respond to the 1AC you should not need a new framework- i.e. if threats are not real, that is a substantive response to the china war advantage, the only reason you need an alternate framework is to artificially inflate the worth of bad arguments and exclude reasonable affirmative claims with argumentative sleight of hand.

-There are many opportunity costs, not all of which are relevant- reading mead 92 instead of Bearden is a tradeoff- that doesn’t mean the neg should win if they convince the judge bearden is a better card. This theory of opportunity costs logically supports one of my least favorite arguments deployed with the reps K- do the plan but for different reasons. Debates, like economic hypotheticals, are improved when we assume away many tedious questions to focus on more interesting issues.

“definitions prove the aff must defend”

-This argument is interesting but I think would result in the most generic and irrelevant kritiks being unbeatable (like the “the”pic). I don’t think that because the affirmative defends the resolution, they must defend each word in a vacuum. If the resolution said “we should fight Nazis” and the neg read a k that argued Nazis were evil and we should not use that word, that would seem to miss the point of the resolution entirely, but if the aff is forced to defend the word nazi without reference to the rest of their 1AC it is pretty dicey. Obviously an extreme example, but is kind of what happens in a lot of instances I can think off where the resolution is “change X” and the neg K says “traditional notions of X are bad” and the aff is all like “uhh, but we change that” and the neg is like “but you don’t get your plan!”. Now this is certainly not every k debate ever, maybe its like 20-30% of them at most. But those debates are so annoying they stick out in my mind. One step

- 22 -


further, if the neg had a sweet K of the word should or substantially they would own every topic (btw- why is substantially in every topic- in some of the proposed college wordings its in there like 12 times- does substantially have lobbyists that wine and dine the topic committee? What is the deal…). I may go into this more in depth later because I do think this is the most interesting of the arguments, but I will stop here with superficial top level analysis and absurd analogies.

“No neg resolution… no reason to constrain neg etc”

-CP’s are different- I understand that an agent cp may “moot” the 1AC in some way by solving an advantage for instance. But the solvency of the CP is debatable, the aff can still win its relevant. Framework arguments try to definitionally exclude things- this may be a thin distinction but I think its relevant and meaningful. I think just due to the strategic benefit it grants the neg it is obvious that these two args are different, though close together theoretically. I think your military/philosophers example is a good example of the way this can be dealt with in an alternate way- its just a qualifications issue where the biased ev should be discarded. That doesn’t require a framework that says “anyone who read biased evidence should have all of their arguments excluded”. I guess maybe this begs the question of what exactly is a “framework” and what is impact/argument comparison. When I think framework I think like, conceptual schema, not like util vs deontology. Aff framework choice doesn’t exclude arguments it just exclude the exaggerated impact claims about XYZ coming first. If you can prove that your argument is relevant to the aff (that it indicts or undermines their claims) you can still read it. Maybe I’m an old curmudgeon, but if you can’t prove its logically relevant without recourse to framework I think that’s probably a lame arg you have there. I think your china threat arg is illustrative- you can prove china is a threat in a realist AND constructivist “framework”- it just requires radically different arguments. So if the aff is realist, and you read a china threat K, the aff can elaborate on their 1AC and respond. If instead you make a framework argument about how reps of china come first, and they already made bad reps of china so even if they make alternative reps they are SOL since they said a “dirty word” or something like that, that stifles debate instead of encouraging it.

- 23 -


there are a lot of disads

-disads don’t fundamentally alter the question being asked/answered in the debate so they don’t moot the 1AC

“you only need one block defending yours- no research burden”

-it will be difficult to win vs a prepared neg when you have no specific responses to their framework. Just think about debates where the aff is like “policy good” and the neg says “policy bad and reps good”- when the aff has no reps cards they usually lose.

“in what other area do we protect one side to not engage”

-topicality

-you do it all the time when you arbitrarily exclude dropped arguments that you don’t personally agree with

“the aff doesn’t get to chose XYZ”

-they do get to defend their plan. If your framework makes their plan irrelevant, then they get to chose nothing, and there is no point in them being involved in the debate

- 24 -


Lawrence:

Ethical framework debates are also particularly prone to unpredictable judge intervention in debates. Given that the debate is rather irresolvable, judges will concomitantly find it difficult to resolve the line-by-line debate on similar issues. In an ideal world where LD rounds had a lot more time and debaters read better evidence that actually warranted their ethical frameworks, then maybe judges would be able to make accurate decisions on such an issue. However, the underdeveloped debates that currently exist usually come down to opposing cards or analytical claims with little reason to prefer one or the other.

There is also something to be said about the impact that the ethics debate has on the community at large. Philosophy articles are not the most accessible texts for high school students. Surely debaters are thought to be the best and brightest of high school students, but does that mean that we should have an expectation that they grapple with literature that many have trouble with in their pursuit of a graduate degree? I would guess that most of the people who pretend to understand meta-ethics really don’t have a clue, despite the conviction and resolve that they show in-round. Without access to a coach that is well-versed in philosophy (I am certainly not one of them!) many debaters will simply be sidelined by LD’s trend toward more and more advanced meta-ethics debates. Some may argue that the contention-level debate is more easily won by teams with a lot of card cutters and coaches. However, evidence is just as important for the ethics debate as it is for the contention debate. The difference is that is much easier for your average high school student to cut topic-specific cards than it is for them to cut philosophical articles. What is more, AEC should help to bridge the gap between local and national circuits by guaranteeing that local circuit debaters who may be less familiar with trends towards meta-ethics have an opportunity to engage in the debate on an equal footing with the rest.

- 25 -


Implementing AEC

The proliferation of AEC will require action on the part of coaches, judges, and debaters. Debaters will need to be initially prepared to forward AEC arguments in their 1AC in order to establish it as the framework for the round. I expect that many judges will be initially reticent to accept AEC, but minimally they will need to have an open mind and be willing to accept AEC if the affirmative is able to appropriately defend it. Ideally, judges will begin to adopt AEC as a paradigmatic issue so that affirmatives will not need to spend 1AC time justifying AEC. My fear here is that the ethics debate will simply be replaced with an AEC debate, short-circuiting both the fairness and education advantages of the framework. Adjustments to judge paradigms are consequently the most efficacious form of implementation. Judges will need to be transparent about their adoption of AEC so as to give debaters an opportunity to prepare to debate in front of them, and, tournament rules willing, preference judges accordingly.

Additionally, the LD topic wording committee ought to ensure that topics are framed so as to allow a fair division of ground for both sides under the most popular ethical approaches. Topics that do not do so would force the suspension of AEC and the benefits that it entails. With collective work on the behalf of all parties involved, AEC may flourish and we can move past the current ethics deadlock.

Conclusion

It is my belief that Affirmative Ethics Choice would have a positive impact on the development of LD for the near to long term future. Especially in this period of “growing pains,” we need the opportunity to better develop the theory of LD both in and out of round. Even if AEC is ultimately not the best solution to the problems identified in this article, it may be valuable as an interim solution until we as a community can find better ways to maintain the fairness and relevance of this activity. My hope with this article is to start a conversation among coaches, judges, and debaters about what we want the substance of LD rounds to be and how we can re-orient the activity to allow for that substantive discussion. With any luck, this discourse will benefit the community regardless of its outcome.

- 26 -


- 27 -

i

Documents

AFC Good File.docx