Intermediate Text — Kritiks as Affirmative Arguments and Framework

Kritiks as Affirmative Arguments

Although they are usually discussed as such, critiques are not only negative arguments. Most obviously, affirmative teams can easily engage in second and third generation critiques and argue that the negative should lose for talking fast, using gendered language, or reading traditional (or non-traditional) evidence.

Affirmative teams may often kritik the assumptions of negative arguments. They can critique politics disadvantages by arguing that good ideas shouldn’t be beholden to political calculations and they can critique disadvantages by arguing that war impacts to disadvantages create a security obsession.

Framework Questions

One type of kritik related argument that is gaining in popularity, and will help you answer  kritiks when you see them, is “framework.” The issue of framework relates to the question of how should the judge decide the debate – by assessing the net-benefits of a policy we assume will pass, by looking at the language choices and behavior of the debater(s), or by evaluating process issues related to how the debate itself is conducted.

You should use evidence to develop a framework for how arguments in the debate should be evaluated that you are comfortable with and serves your competitive purposes – one that would give primary consideration to the style of arguments that you wish to present.  Even if you lack specific answers to many given kritiks, if you can win that all arguments should be evaluated through the framework that you present, you should be able to at least defeat the significance of many kritiks.

It’s wise to begin your explanation and defense of your framework in the 1AC.   After all, you are asking the judge to process every argument in the debate through this lense, and this also has the strategic advantage of forcing the negative to address your framework in the 1NC. If they do not address your framework in the 1AC you can argue that any framework they introduce later in the debate (such as in the 2NC or 1NR) is illegitimate because you do not have a constructive speech to respond to it and you structure your 2AC based on the idea that the negative was agreeing with your framework.