"...what is revolutionary is excess, overflow, and power. This is junkspace seen from outside: a disequilibrium and rupture multiplied on the indefinite space of the metropolis. But this is also where the multiplication of obstacles, borders, lines of fracture and walls can no longer be regarded as simply blocks dropped down by power or as swamps that one gets stuck in: they are interfaces that polarize relations."
Negri, Antonio. "On Rem Koolhaas."
February 1, 2011
had to talk about debate
This one's for the k pledges, and people who want to run a k aff yet don't really no what they're doing yet.
the gonzaba's guide to answering framework
I should start off by saying that the key to success when answering framework is not what blocks you have, how many blocks you have, nor is it the quantity or quality of the evidence you use (if any). The key to answering framework is about a couple things including but not limited to the quality of argumentation, the intelligence of your arguments, but most importantly it is about what you as an individuals/two debaters in a room can bring to the debate space as well as the world around us. What is it you can give the people in the room that shows us the path to a brand of life affirmation that we can find to be most preferable. One more thing to remember is that your k is the first interpretation of framework created in the round (don't let them tell you that you have no counter interpretation)
The levels of the framework debate
Try this… imagine the framework debate as a staircase with three levels. The concept of these three levels will be an important reoccurring concept through out this lesson.
The levels are as followed:
1.The level of the criticism
2.The level of the debate space
3.The level of the world around us
The first level- the first step in this imaginary staircase is the criticism that you presented in the 1ac/1nc. The most important factor of your criticism is exactly that…your criticism. Often times in a framework debate your opponents will attempt to guide the debate away from the issues you presented in the first constructive, as a means of making your criticism look like the least important thing in the round. Some of the best framework debaters don’t allow the opponents to do this. Usually in my experience the first answer on my framework blocks is always an extension of at least one of the pieces of evidence or even just an argument from the first constructive that makes it look as if the framework debate has already been answered. This also involves taking some of your impacts and linking your opponents to the criticism. This process on the fist level is what allows you to have the first impact to the framework debate, and it allows you to remind your judge/ opponents to remember the k flow and not disregard it during the round.
Properly utilizing this level of the debate also sets up the following situation… WINNING THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE MEANS YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN THE CRITICISM AND THE WHOLE DEBATE (for the most part still try to win the k too results may vary).
The second level- the next step on the set of stairs that is the framework debate is the debate space itself. The literal actions that are contained within the walls of the room you are debating in. The round that is going on has just as much importance for the debate as any other part does. Remember that what your opponents say on this flow are fighting words and if you feel that your criticism is important and personal then make it that way. Although they will say that they aren’t, what they are really saying is that the activity of debate doesn’t have room for your criticism or it just doesn’t want it (wither they really believe this argument or not). Your job on this level is to prove not only that the community has room for the criticism but also more importantly that it needs to be exposed to what it is you had to say. I often find that a reference to the actions of exclusion in the debate round just creates more proof to your point that in the status quo your methodology or philosophy has yet to be accepted in both the world of politics and academia. This is what created probably my most use catch phrase in the round “their framework proves the exact thesis of our criticism”. Remember the first level because just like stairs there is a connection between every single one of the steps, the levels shouldn’t remain separated from each other and each step should have references to the previous one, this all meaning that once you reference the impact in the debate space itself you should also connect it to the impacts of your 1st constructive too.
When this level is used to it’s full potential it is able to make your criticism look more important, and it shows a real life example of your impacts to the judge within the rounds.
The third level- the third and final level of the stairs is the world around you. How does what happen in this round affect the rest of the world? Even if you argue that the k stays in the room, the question still needs to be answered about how we can take what we learned in this round and apply it to the demands of real world situations. This is a concept that Paulo Friere calls Praxis: the ability to turn thought into action (action by any definition you make it to be). What is it about your criticism that can be converted into a reality-changing concept? For example even if you are running a capitalism k with a reject alt, what is it we can remove from this round and remember later? It could be something like resisting the call to capitalist totalitarianism by not giving into the demands of all political status quo policy making, or it could be something as simple as learning and choosing wisely what aspects of a political project to accept and not to accept.
Another main goal of this level is to provide an external net benefit to solve for, or an impact that happens in the real world after the debate is done. This is usually an explanation of the bad things that happen when your criticism is either not adopted or even just not accepted. Normally I find it important to talk about the way education, politics, and/or community is affected after the round if people in the world don’t listen to what I have to say. Once again this should be referencing the impacts you stated in the 1st and 2nd steps.
If this is utilized correctly it should give you the upper hand in the magnitude discussion i.e. the impacts to their framework vs. the impacts to your framework. Also you would hands down win the probability and timeframe debate because it is undeniable (although they will deny it) that your impacts are occurring right now (or at least a couple internal links), while their impacts have yet to happen.
Remember to use these steps when answering the standards debate too ( the staircase applies to every aspect of the debate round)
The thought experiment- Remember that the key to using all these steps in the best way possible is to continue to tie them all together and not engage them all separately. We are now going to engage in a little thought experiment and imagine a few different things about what it is you where just told.
First, imagine the set of stairs I just told you about as if it where a literal set of stairs that you would see in a house or something
Next, imagine that the staircase has an infinite amount of steps, which are levels one through three just repeating themselves going up and not stopping.
Then imagine the stair set as if it looked like the picture above:
Both going up and down at the same time
Now imagine this image as if it where a three dimensional model made out of paper
Then imagine taking the 3-D model and crumpling it into a ball
Next flatten out that ball, until it then becomes a circle
Also, imagine that circle on a piece of paper
Finally, imagine the circle as if it had no barrier or markings defining it as such, then it no longer a circle, for a circle cannot exist without a barrier that defines it as such… it then becomes blank and nothing, all you see is a blank page.
This is how you answer framework now use the blank page you imagined and write some fucking blocks… and create the staircase which sparks the process all over again.