Encountering Kritiks

What if they endorse counter sabotage of capitalism? Or argue that the affirmative should fail the economy to end racism? Framework is your answer to kririks, which argues for how debate should be run and intereperted.

Two key ideas

There are few, if any rules in debate, just timers ⏱️
Framework is basically a debate about debate 🗣️

<aside> <img src="/icons/arrow-right_yellow.svg" alt="/icons/arrow-right_yellow.svg" width="40px" /> Topicality and framework both answer Kritiks by arguing they need to abide by the rules, so they are often grouped together and referred to as “T”

</aside>

What’s the point of policy debate?

The value of policy debate is the research which occurs leading up to a specific debate, and the argumentative test of logic, reasoning, and speed that happens within debate which is good for correcting and testing your prerequisite world views.

It teaches us economics, government, and policy making
We should focus on education instead of just arguing fiat which adds nothing of benefit to the debate

Framework parts (1NC)

Interpertation - The AFF must defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical government policy.
Violation - The AFF doesn’t have a plan, doesn’t defend FIAT, and isn’t a normative defense of fiscal redistribution.
Standards / RTP - The NEG’s interpenetration is good for debate (fairness, education. clash, etc.)
Voters - Framework implicates how and what we debate, so it’s a primary voting issue