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