Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Framing With George

- Framework is ran when the method of the 1AC is not a

traditional legislative policy
- Framework sets the parameters of the debate as a whole
- There are different framings. Debate is a game, a classroom,
social activism, civil advocacy, etc.
- Framework poses the question of the burden of the Aff
- Interpretation/violation, the words are defined, resolved, usfg, should
- Reasons to prefer
- Theoretical, sounds like T
- Substantive, what model of debate can best transform to material
change. Adapt to the specifics of the K aff.
- Impact, explain the significance and implication of your model- not just
a DA to the aff. Why is your version of the game preferable?
- The affirmative should defend the desirability of a topical plan that
affirms the United States federal government should substantially
increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary
education in the United States.
Switch Side Debate
- Good
- Learning to debate both sides of a controversy
- Makes us more empathetic in understanding individuals
- Ideological thinking is a bad mode of politics
- Empowers skepticism, stops bad policies
- Deliberative dialogue

- Bad
- Liberal subject making
- Speech and conviction shouldnt be separate
- Policy debate is public debate
- Should not value technique over substance
- Dont need to say racism/sexism/ableism good to fully understand its
- Much like topicality (fairness, education, predictable limits)
- Harder to win independently against K affs
- Theres no debate rulebook, just norms and dominant culture.
- Whats your debate curriculum? Why should the judge prefer it to the
Method Engagement
- Value of institutional knowledge
- Lack of political knowledge creates social disengagement
- Fosters deliberative dialogue but needs a balance
- Apply these arguments to the specificity of the affirmative.
- What policies could they be discussing? Find concrete examples of the
valuable debates that could be had.
Malcolm X vs Martin Luthor King JR