By Beth Mendenhall

• • •

Introduction Why you should listen Please ask questions

•

How to write the 1NC

•

What is framework? Types of interpretations

•

Standards/Voters/Impacts

•

What to expect in the 2AC

•

How to give the block

•

How to win on framework

• • •

A debate about the rules

• What are Affs allowed to advocate?

• • What does the ballot signify?

What counts as a reason to vote for you?

A strategic tool

• Not an ideology or a lifestyle • Not an entire 1NC

What its NOT

• Telling someone to “get out of our activity” • • An opportunity to complain about particular teams The utilitarianism/consequences debate about how you weigh advantages

•

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States

• Like topicality, in that it uses the resolution to prove that the 1AC was not a reason to vote Aff • Most people think its different from topicality because it uses the whole resolution, or the notion of a resolution, instead of particular words •

I disagree

• Definition • Interpretation • Standards • Voters • Should I include cards…?

• • • • “The United States federal government” • • The AGENT of the Affirmative Roleplaying – you can’t be yourself, you have to pretend to be the government “Resolved” and/or “Should” • • • The SUBJECT of the Affirmative Policy action? Implementation?

The Affirmative as advocating an action, not engaging in a thought “substantially increase” • • The OBJECT of the Affirmative Allows other actors to increase transportation infrastructure investment in other ways Different standards apply more to different interpretations

• • • The WARRANTS for your CLAIM about what the debate should be about The ADVANTAGES that the judge uses to weigh one interpretation against another The LINKS to your ultimate impacts: education and fairness • Highly inter-related – “limits are key to predictability is key to ground…” • That’s fine, but you have to link it to the IMPACTS: education and fairness

• • The argument: • • our interpretation appropriately limits the number/type of Affs you can win the ballot with their interpretation under-limits the number/type of Affs you can win the ballot with – it allows too many The impacts: • • Allowing too many Aff arguments gives the Aff team a strategic advantage • Places an overwhelming research burden on the Neg Allowing too many Aff arguments undermines education • We would have less debates on the same Affs because Aff teams would switch all the time to seek the element of surprise • More debates on less Affs is better for education than a different Aff every round

• • The argument: • Our interpretation ensures that any Aff that is run could have reasonably been predicted by the neg • Their interpretation allows Affs that the Neg probably won’t have any research on, because they didn’t see it coming The impacts: • Unpredictable Aff arguments gives the Aff team a strategic advantage – they had “infinite prep” to prepare while the Neg has nothing • • This is bad for participation – no one wants to play a rigged game Unpredictable Aff arguments decrease clash – we’ll be forced to run generics • Targeted negatives are better for education on both sides, because they force an in-depth discussion about the Aff

• • The argument: • Our interpretation only allows Aff arguments that give the Neg a sufficient set of responses • Their interpretation allows Affs that the negative does/will not have sufficient responses to The impacts: • Constraining the relative amount of arguments the Neg can make compared to the Aff gives the Aff team a strategic advantage • Makes all Neg arguments predictable for the Aff • Lack of Neg arguments decreases education • • Doesn’t allow the Aff to be tested in multiple ways Limits the amount of arguments the Neg could present at all

• • • An important impact to focus on because its likely to be one of the Aff’s sources of offense Specifically – TOPIC education • Every debate is educational to some degree – why is education about the resolution better than education about anything else?

• It changes – forces us to learn about more things • Its democratic – the topic process allows us to choose what we learn about as a community • This topic is uniquely good – why do we need to learn about transportation infrastructure?

Emphasize – resolution-focused debate has two types of educational advantages over the Aff interpretation • It has a better LINK to education – promotes clash that enhances education for all participants – not just the ones that wrote the 1AC • It has a bigger education IMPACT – promotes a uniquely important TYPE of education

• • • An important impact, but one you should be careful about • Notions of “fairness” are more likely to link to the Affs offense – fair for whom? Who determines what’s “fair”?

• Fairness is hard to quantify – how fair is fair enough, and how fair is too fair?

Links to fairness: • Anything that gives the Aff a strategic advantage over the negative, giving them a higher chance of winning JUST BECAUSE they are Aff Why is fairness important?

• • Participation – no one plays a rigged game Anything else?? Self-evident importance isn’t good enough…

• • • Links to USFG interpretation – you must pretend to be the government Offers unique impacts • • • • Benefit: participatory democracy on the part of citizens Benefit: education about government policies Benefit: teaches us to be future policy-makers Impact: totalitarianism?

Links to Aff exclusion/knowledge production arguments

• • • • • Look to the 1AC We meet • • Usually a stretch, but must be answered Depending on which interpretation they claim to meet, it might be strategic to concede Counter-interpretation • • Make sure to figure out exactly what this is- use CX Almost always more expansive than yours DEFENSE OFFENSE

• • • Predictability is non-unique – new Affs, new Add-Ons • Your answer: those things COULD have been predicted based on the resolution, but weren’t. Your Aff COULD NOT have been predicted at all Our Aff was on the Wiki • Your answer: that doesn’t resolve ALL of our standards, not everyone (novices, small schools) knows about/uses the wiki, and your interpretation justifies new Affs that AREN’T on the Wiki “You could’ve said…” • Your answer: ground is not the same as PREDICTABLE ground – just because we could theoretically have an answer doesn’t mean we should be practically expected to

• • • • Exclusion – you decide who is worthy/able to participate, assigning value to certain groups and no value to others • Excludes those who the government excludes – they can’t role-play • • Identity Politics and Performance Affs Links to limits arguments Knowledge production – you recreate/reinforce bad ideas about reality • The government is the only relevant actor • • • Plans/policies/choices should be determined by consequences Life experience is irrelevant Links to topic education arguments Discipline/Rules • Exploitative power relations • Links to fairness/jurisdiction arguments Other impacts from the Aff

• • • • • • Start with a description of your interpretation – what Affirmatives it includes and excludes Follow with a brief explanation of your best standards/voters Follow the line-by-line (1) AT – “we meet” and counter-interpretation • Explain your standards backwards – “this is unpredictable bc…” (2) AT – their cards • • • READ THEM Don’t ignore cross-applications Extend your offense (3) Read your cards

• • • ACCESS – even if they prove that theoretically their type of education is better, does their interpretation allow everyone to receive that education?

PARTICIPATION – do they promote a type of debate that encourages novices to stay and new programs to join? Or would it be frustrating/confusing/un-rewarding for them THIS TOPIC – what is learning about USFG transportation infrastructure investment important?

• Link it to their impacts – does the status quo USFG transportation system do what they criticize?

• Read cards that every-day people need to learn about this topic or the USFG will control the topic in a bad way

• • • • DO IT ON THE NEGATIVE – solves your offense • • • Why does your argument need to be presented on the Aff to solve its impacts?

Especially persuasive if the Aff criticizes the notion of the resolution – what does it link to? Better link on the Neg List DAs to doing it on the Aff • Lack of Neg preparation = uneducational debate SWITCH-SIDE DEBATE– solves your offense • • • Learning the other side is good – strengthens your argument Key to clash – clash key to education Dogmatism bad TOPICAL VERSION OF THE AFF – solves your offense • Give multiple examples Un-predictability means we don’t have to answer your impact turns • Winning an argument doesn’t mean the ballot should consider it – arguments you shouldn’t get in the first place are irrelevant