Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TheoryAFC GOOD
Lawrence Zhou
-1-
Lawrence Zhou
-2-
Lawrence Zhou
-3-
Lawrence Zhou
-4-
Lawrence Zhou
-5-
Lawrence Zhou
-6-
Lawrence Zhou
AEC SHELL
A-interpretation:
The negative must accept a reasonable or philosophically justified affirmative
ethical standard as contextualized in the 1AC. Lawrence1 clarifes AEC:
The 2010-2011 academic year involved a number of debaters advocating for affirmative framework choice in the 1AC. Given the loaded nature of this term due to its origin in policy
debate, I do not like the name that some debaters are using for it, nor do I think it is appropriate to read ODonnell evidence in an LD round on this issue. Further, in LD I do not think that
we all have a common understanding of what constitutes framework, particularly whether it is inclusive or exclusive of the standard. However, I believe that these arguments are
premised in its fairness given the resolution rather than attempting to prove another ethical approach superior on truth value. *Please note that this article does not necessarily
represent my opinions on this matter, at least not in their final form. It is meant more to be a source of discussion rather than a true call to action. Affirmative Ethics Choice Explained.
AEC would grant[s] the afirmative the right to choose which philosophical
school the round will be debated in, tabling the meta-ethics debate
in favor of a topic-specific debate under a particular ethical
framework. This does not shut down the standards debate. In fact, I would argue that this is the best way to re-invigorate it. Rather than
the standard just becoming a placeholder for a meta-ethics debate,
the standard would revert to being a weighing mechanism under the
afirmative ethic. Granted, net-benefits may be the best consequentialist standard by way of its lack of arbitrary exclusion, there is nothing that prevents debaters from
using more specific standards under the AEC model. Deontological standards debates would be better-developed discussions about which rights are more valuable than others, whose
interpretation of deontology is more correct, etc. Allowing AEC without any check, however, would result in affirmatives establishing debates that provide either very little ground to the
negative or incredibly esoteric ground for them. In this way, affirmatives should be obligated to exercise their right responsibly and lay a fair debate for their opponent. The purpose of
AEC is to table the ethics debate, not to gain a strategic upper-hand. However, it would be nave to assume that people will not attempt to gain a competitive edge. As such, the negative
should be able to indict the fairness of the affirmative ethical system under a reasonability standard. What constitutes a reasonable ethical approach? That is clearly up to the
debaters to decide. At bare minimum the standard would need to be sufficient for both debaters to win the round under. A non-comparative standard would be unreasonable by way of
not providing both debaters the opportunity to win the round. It would be quite asinine to argue that the negative can neither contest ones framework nor win under it. Even if
reasonability is a vague standard, using competing interpretations would hamstring AEC by removing the choice from it and forcing affirmatives to pick the fairest ethic instead of a fair
oppose the expansion of AEC to become inclusive of other aspects of the framework. However, it is beyond the scope of this article.
B-violation:
This theory is preemptive; they violate if they advocate a different
interpretation of ethics or challenge the right of the aff to choose the
necessary and sufficient ethical standard.
C-standards:
1-philosophical education.
AEC increases philosophical and topic education, 3 reasons. Lawrence 2:
1 Affirmative Ethics Choice by Ryan Lawrence. Victory Briefs Daily. March 12, 2012.
http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2012/03/affirmative-ethics-choice-by-ryan-lawrence
-7-
Lawrence Zhou
their time developing a cogent theory of rights, governmental obligations, etc. Under consequentialism, debaters can spend more time comparing impacts and engaging in the weighing
debate that so many judges complain no longer occurs substantively. The question is not whether or not we should debate ethics, but instead how we should debate ethics and how
much of the debate we should allocate to it.
2-time skew.
AEC solves timeskew, prevents mooting 6 minutes of 1AC offense. Lawrence
3:
AEC should also result in fairer debates. There has been much discussion lately of the negative side bias and the huge barriers to affirming. I have no doubt that one of those barriers
will use several strategic tricks in order to make life difficult for the 1AR; however, when the affirmative has a guarantee of functional case offense, dealing with such strategies is far
easier.
-8-
Lawrence Zhou
3-topical clash.
AEC increases clash by forcing debaters to debate the topic. Lawrence 4:
there will also be an increase in clash in debates as the
negative will be required to make their arguments interact with the
1AC. This should be a boon for coaches and judges who are dismayed by the trend toward off-case argumentation that has little or nothing to do with the 1AC.
Debates will once again come down to who has the better
substantive argumentation about the topic instead of who has a
single piece of ofense that links back to whatever ethical
framework ends up being used.
As a consequence of this,
-9-
Lawrence Zhou
that results when the negative refuses to engage the affirmative on its chosen starting point. In this light, AFC may even be viewed as a right similar to the affirmatives right to
define. Although there are several reasons why the affirmative ought to have the right to define, the most persuasive justification recognizes that with the responsibility of initiating the
discussion on the resolutional question comes a concomitant right to offer an interpretation of what those words mean. Of course, it is not an exclusive right because the negative can
always challenge the interpretations. Nevertheless, the affirmatives interpretation carries a certain presumption that is accepted as good for debate unless proven otherwise. The
2-timeskew.
Changing the framework moots 8 minutes of 1AC offense, creating a massive
timeskew and kills temporal ground as we can no longer leverage 1AC
offense. ODonnell 2:
2 And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate
Timothy M. ODonnell Director of Debate University of Mary Washington.
- 10 -
Lawrence Zhou
affirmative into defending their opening speech act against an entirely different framework from the one it was designed to address. Not only does AFC solve these problems, it also
gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their choosing. Allowing the [1AC] first affirmative constructive speech to set the terms for the debate ensures
that teams get to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are
affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every team would
have an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss half the time.
3-strat skew.
Changing the framework skews strategy because we cant adapt. Give us
AFC for this debate and to ensure future debaters get to debate under
different frameworks. ODonnell 3:
Second, AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. When the negative has the option of
changing, or even initiating, the framework discussion, the [1AC] first affirmative constructive speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts the affirmative for two reasons. First, it gives
to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are affirmative. Similarly, if
another team wanted to have a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every team would have an equal opportunity
to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss half the time.
4-philosophy education.
AFC forces debate under multiple frameworks, increasing framework
education and forcing argument development. ODonnell 4:
AFC has substantial educational benefits. To begin with, it would force teams to debate in multiple
frameworks. Too few teams at both the high school and college level have true argument flexibility. It is an undeniable fact
that the debate enterprise would be a more educational undertaking for all involved if teams
had to prepare to debate a variety of diferent frameworks. AFC solves this
problem because the framework, like the case, would be determined at the
beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, in a world where the question of the debate is not resolved prior to the start of the debate, teams
simply pick the framework that they want to defend and advocate it on both the affirmative and the negative. When the negative is
permitted to shift the framework, afirmative teams [cannot] are denied the opportunity to
debate in the framework that they selected. Ceding framework
selection to the afirmative creates a permanent space for the exploration
of multiple frameworks. Indeed, it would allow them to flourish. The fact of the matter is that the creativity which stands behind the wide
variety of argument strategies in contemporary debate ensures that a diverse set of frameworks would continue to be explored. AFC aims to break the idea that teams should
Third,
- 11 -
Lawrence Zhou
a moment many of the diverse negative strategies deployed at the 2004 NDT. Now ask, how much more intellectually rewarding would those debates have been if the framework
discussions were removed from consideration? AFC creates a situation where this is possible.
- 12 -
Lawrence Zhou
**FRONTLINES**
- 13 -
Lawrence Zhou
- 14 -
Lawrence Zhou
- 15 -
Lawrence Zhou
Lawrence Zhou
number and range of questions that the debate could be about is certainly
much greater than the amount of time the affirmative has to prepare. Such a
situation is anathema to any cooperative learning enterprise. If learning is to
be maximized, participants must have a reasonable expectation about what
to prepare for. This is, after all, why everyone who participates in two-person
policy debate thinks there ought to be a topic. Yet, while we seem to agree
that there should be limits placed on the affirmative, the same thinking does
not always seem to apply to the negative. AFC merely recognizes that both
sides need to give something up to have a debate.
- 17 -
Lawrence Zhou
Lawrence Zhou
- 19 -
Lawrence Zhou
ADDITIONAL CARDS
ODonnell3:
When the negative
has the option of changing, or even initiating, the framework discussion, the first
affirmative constructive speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts the affirmative for
two reasons. First, it gives the negative a two-to-one advantage in
constructive speech time for making framework arguments. Second,
the first affirmative framework choice (or lack there of) locks the
affirmative into defending their opening speech act against an
entirely diferent framework from the one it was designed to
address. Not only does AFC solve these problems, it also gives every
debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their
choosing. Allowing the first affirmative constructive speech to set
the terms for the debate ensures that teams get to choose to
debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team
wanted to have a policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so
when they are affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have
a performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity
when they are affirmative. This means that every team would have
an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the
issues they choose to discuss half the time.
Second, AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage.
- 20 -
Lawrence Zhou
Arbitrary means done without principle or logic- aff choice is the only logical
option- we have to talk first. You cant give a speech and make arguments
without implicitly selecting a framework. Since frameworks are often
mutually exclusive the framework we select is the only non arbitrary one- the
negative does not logically need a new framework to refute ours, therefore
lack of affirmative choice is arbitrary.
-Debating the merits of alternative frameworks trades off directly with
topic education- this should be self evident. You can productively decide
whether to eat at McDonalds or Burger King without a metaphysical debate
about western capitalism.
4 Scott Phillips. Throwdown #1: Affirmative Framework Choice Scott's Response. The 3NR.
http://the3nr.com/2009/06/10/aff-choice-throwdown/
- 21 -
Lawrence Zhou
Lawrence Zhou
change that and the neg is like but you dont get your plan!. Now this is
certainly not every k debate ever, maybe its like 20-30% of them at most.
But those debates are so annoying they stick out in my mind. One step
further, if the neg had a sweet K of the word should or substantially they
would own every topic (btw- why is substantially in every topic- in some of
the proposed college wordings its in there like 12 times- does substantially
have lobbyists that wine and dine the topic committee? What is the deal). I
may go into this more in depth later because I do think this is the most
interesting of the arguments, but I will stop here with superficial top level
analysis and absurd analogies.
Lawrence Zhou
- 24 -
Lawrence Zhou
Lawrence:
Ethical framework debates are also particularly prone to unpredictable judge
intervention in debates. Given that the debate is rather irresolvable, judges
will concomitantly find it difficult to resolve the line-by-line debate on similar
issues. In an ideal world where LD rounds had a lot more time and debaters
read better evidence that actually warranted their ethical frameworks, then
maybe judges would be able to make accurate decisions on such an issue.
However, the underdeveloped debates that currently exist usually come
down to opposing cards or analytical claims with little reason to prefer one or
the other.
There is also something to be said about the impact that the ethics debate
has on the community at large. Philosophy articles are not the most
accessible texts for high school students. Surely debaters are thought to be
the best and brightest of high school students, but does that mean that we
should have an expectation that they grapple with literature that many have
trouble with in their pursuit of a graduate degree? I would guess that most of
the people who pretend to understand meta-ethics really dont have a clue,
despite the conviction and resolve that they show in-round. Without access
to a coach that is well-versed in philosophy (I am certainly not one of them!)
many debaters will simply be sidelined by LDs trend toward more and more
advanced meta-ethics debates. Some may argue that the contention-level
debate is more easily won by teams with a lot of card cutters and coaches.
However, evidence is just as important for the ethics debate as it is for the
contention debate. The difference is that is much easier for your average
high school student to cut topic-specific cards than it is for them to cut
philosophical articles. What is more, AEC should help to bridge the gap
between local and national circuits by guaranteeing that local circuit
debaters who may be less familiar with trends towards meta-ethics have an
opportunity to engage in the debate on an equal footing with the rest.
- 25 -
Lawrence Zhou
Implementing AEC
The proliferation of AEC will require action on the part of coaches, judges,
and debaters. Debaters will need to be initially prepared to forward AEC
arguments in their 1AC in order to establish it as the framework for the
round. I expect that many judges will be initially reticent to accept AEC, but
minimally they will need to have an open mind and be willing to accept AEC
if the affirmative is able to appropriately defend it. Ideally, judges will begin
to adopt AEC as a paradigmatic issue so that affirmatives will not need to
spend 1AC time justifying AEC. My fear here is that the ethics debate will
simply be replaced with an AEC debate, short-circuiting both the fairness and
education advantages of the framework. Adjustments to judge paradigms are
consequently the most efficacious form of implementation. Judges will need
to be transparent about their adoption of AEC so as to give debaters an
opportunity to prepare to debate in front of them, and, tournament rules
willing, preference judges accordingly.
Additionally, the LD topic wording committee ought to ensure that topics are
framed so as to allow a fair division of ground for both sides under the most
popular ethical approaches. Topics that do not do so would force the
suspension of AEC and the benefits that it entails. With collective work on the
behalf of all parties involved, AEC may flourish and we can move past the
current ethics deadlock.
Conclusion
It is my belief that Affirmative Ethics Choice would have a positive impact on
the development of LD for the near to long term future. Especially in this
period of growing pains, we need the opportunity to better develop the
theory of LD both in and out of round. Even if AEC is ultimately not the best
solution to the problems identified in this article, it may be valuable as an
interim solution until we as a community can find better ways to maintain
the fairness and relevance of this activity. My hope with this article is to start
a conversation among coaches, judges, and debaters about what we want
the substance of LD rounds to be and how we can re-orient the activity to
allow for that substantive discussion. With any luck, this discourse will
benefit the community regardless of its outcome.
- 26 -
Lawrence Zhou
- 27 -