And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate

Timothy M. !Donnell
"
Director of Debate
#niver$ity of Mary %a$hin&ton
Com'etitive academic debate i$ in a $tate of intellectual cri$i$. There i$ ne(t to no
con$en$u$ amon& 'artici'ant$ about the normative a$$um'tion$ that ou&ht to &overn
debate 'ractice and 'eda&o&y. More $'ecifically) there i$ little a&reement about the
*ue$tion that a debate $eek$ to re$olve. +t wa$n!t alway$ like thi$. A few decade$ a&o there
wa$ con$iderable coale$cence around the belief that the *ue$tion of the debate wa$
whether or not the re$olution wa$ true. vertime) with $everal $tart$) $to'$) and $'in,
off$ alon& the way) that *ue$tion &ave way to another that a$ked if the 'olicy advocated
by the affirmative team wa$ de$irable. And thou&h $ome $till adhere to the 'olicy analytic
'er$'ective) which wa$ *uite 'o'ular in the clo$in& decade$ of the la$t century) it ha$ now
been $u''lanted to a con$iderable de&ree) by what may be$t be de$cribed a$ a 'o$tmodern
'aradi&m. Many involved in academic debate now think that anythin& &oe$ and that the
*ue$tion it$elf i$ o'en for debate. A $hort li$t of the many and varied *ue$tion$ which are
vyin& for contention include:
+$ the 'lan de$irable relative to the $tatu$ *uo or a com'etitive 'olicy alternative-
+$ the rhetoric.lan&ua&e u$ed in the 're$entation of the affirmative ca$e de$irable-
Are the re're$entation$ contained in the affirmative!$ $'eech de$irable-
+$ the 'erformance of the affirmative team de$irable-
Are the 'olitical con$e*uence$ of the affirmative 'lan de$irable-
+$ the activi$m of the affirmative team de$irable-
+$ the methodolo&y of the affirmative de$irable-
Are the 'hilo$o'hical.di$ci'linary moorin&$.a$$um'tion$ of the affirmative
de$irable-
/iven that advocate$ on all $ide$ have du& in their heel$) it doe$ not take much to ima&ine
that if the current $ituation continue$ to 'er$i$t) the debate community will eventually
$'linter alon& ideolo&ical line$ with break out &rou'$ formin& their own or&ani0ation$
de$i&ned to $afe&uard their own $acro$anct a''roache$ to debate. +t ha$ ha''ened before.
1et) while debate ha$ witne$$ed $uch cri$e$ in the 'a$t) the 're$ent era of di$content
$eemin&ly threaten$ the very e(i$tence of the activity a$ both a coherent) com'etitive
enter'ri$e and a rewardin&) educational co,curricular activity. The ori&in$ of the 're$ent
cri$i$ have many contributin& cau$e$) includin& the advent of mutual 'reference 2ud&in&)
the 'o$tmodern) 'erformative) and activi$t turn$ in $cholarly circle$) the dawn of the
information revolution and it$ attendant technolo&ie$) a$ well a$ a &rowin& re$ource
di$'arity between lar&e and $mall debate 'ro&ram$. There a''ear$ to be no mutually
a&reeable $olution. Sim'ly 'ut) there i$ little con$en$u$ about what ou&ht to be the focu$
of debate) or even what con$titute$ &ood debate. Moreover) there a''ear$ to be no
a&reement about what *ue$tion the 2ud&e ou&ht to be an$werin& at the end of the debate.
+n the 're$ent milieu) the$e *ue$tion$ and many more are literally u' for &rab$.
The 'roduct of thi$ di$a&reement ha$ been a veritable boon for the ne&ative. %e need to
look no further than the ca$eli$t from the 3445 6ational Debate Tournament 76DT8
3
to
witne$$ the wide variety of $trate&ic tool$ that the ne&ative now ha$ in it$ ar$enal. +n one
or more debate$ at thi$ tournament) the ne&ative team attem'ted to alter the &round for
evaluatin& the debate by critici0in&: the u$e of 'roblem,$olution thinkin& 7or the lack
thereof8) the will to control 're$ent in the affirmative!$ o'enin& $'eech act) the reliance
on and u$e of the $tate) the illu$ory belief in fiat) the affirmative!$ relation$hi' to the
other) the embracin& or e$chewin& of 'olicymakin&) the ethic$ of the affirmative) the
rhetoric of the affirmative) the re're$entation$ of the affirmative) the debate community
a$ a whole) the debate community!$ 'ractice$) the affirmative!$ $tyle of debate) the ty'e of
evidence the affirmative u$ed 7includin& an over or under reliance on e('ert$8) the
affirmative!$ failure to focu$ on the body) the revolutionary or anti,revolutionary nature
of the affirmative) the 'iecemeal 7or lack there of8 nature of chan&e advocated by the
affirmative) the de$ire$ emanatin& from the affirmative debater$ and.or their o'enin&
$'eech act) the identify formation in$tantiated by the affirmative) the meta'hor$ in$'ired
by the affirmative) and the very act of votin& affirmative. And thi$ i$ only a 'artial li$t.
To make the 'oint another way) it i$ *uite likely that an affirmative team on the 3449,
3445 colle&e to'ic who advocated that the #nited State$ $hould cede 'olitical control
over recon$truction in +ra* to the #nited 6ation$ : certainly one of the mo$t 're$$in&
i$$ue$ of the day : could have made it throu&h whole tournament$) indeed lar&e 'ortion$
of the whole $ea$on) without ever di$cu$$in& the merit$ of #.S. 'olicy in +ra* after the
o'enin& affirmative $'eech. Such a $ituation $eem$ 'roblematic at be$t. That the
ne&ative!$ $trate&ic ar$enal ha$ &rown $o lar&e that ne&ative team$ are tem'ted to e$chew
con$ideration of the im'ortant i$$ue$ of the day 7in the ca$e of +ra*) an i$$ue with
&eo'olitical re'ercu$$ion$ that will echo for the re$t of our live$8 for com'etitive rea$on$
$eem$ more than 'roblematic. +n fact) it i$ downri&ht tra&ic.
%hat i$ $o tra&ic about all of thi$ i$ that a debater could &o throu&h an entire debate
career with very little effort to &o beyond meta,ar&ument or ar&ument$ about ar&ument
7i.e. debate theory8. The $ad fact i$ that) more often than not) the outcome of any &iven
debate today hin&e$ le$$ on the $ub$tantive i$$ue$ introduced by the affirmative!$ fir$t
$'eech) than it doe$ on the re$olution of the$e meta,ar&ument$. The$e $o,called
framework debate$ about what the *ue$tion of the debate ou&ht to be) while $omewhat
intere$tin&) have little 'ractical a''lication to the circum$tance$ of our time$ and in my
2ud&ment) at lea$t) are le$$ intellectually rewardin& than their counter'art$. +n fact) in a
$ituation where the merit$ of the 'ublic 'olicy i$$ue$ $taked out by the year!$ re$olution
alon& with the critical i$$ue$ that tho$e 'olicie$ rai$e are no lon&er the focu$ of the debate
: becau$e the ne&ative can $hift the *ue$tion : why have a re$olution at all- The
di$a$trou$ im'lication$ of thi$ trend in academic debate are a''earin& at the very moment
that the academy i$ bein& ur&ed to take $eriou$ly the &oal of educatin& citi0en$.
9

+n a world where 'ro'onent$ for any one of the varied *ue$tion$ are e*ually $trident in
$takin& out their view$ about what the debate ou&ht to be about) a&reement $eem$ to be
im'o$$ible. To be $ure) there i$ value in each of the$e view$. ;ublic 'olicy i$ im'ortant.
The 'olitical con$e*uence$ of 'olicie$ are im'ortant. The lan&ua&e u$ed in con$tructin&
'olicie$ i$ im'ortant. The 're$entational a$'ect$ of 'olicy are im'ortant. The
e'i$temolo&ical) ontolo&ical) and ethical under'innin&$ of 'olicie$ are im'ortant. And $o
on. %hat are we to do then in $ituation$ where advocate$ on all $ide$ make more or le$$
e*ually com'ellin& claim$- A$ an educator) + am intere$ted in havin& the $tudent$ that +
work with a$k and an$wer all of the$e *ue$tion$ at one time or another. A$ a coach) + am
intere$ted in havin& them have a 'redictable $et of ar&ument$ to 're'are for. Thu$) the
*ue$tion for me i$) how can we have a &ame in which they have $uch an o''ortunity-
The ar&ument of thi$ e$$ay $eek$ to chart a 'artial an$wer to thi$ *ue$tion. +t involve$
$takin& out a com'romi$e 'o$ition that reco&ni0e$ that there i$ value in a wide variety of
'er$'ective$ and that all de$erve an e*ual o''ortunity to be re're$ented in com'etitive
debate$.
Accordin& to the Oxford English Dictionary, a framework con$i$t$ of a $et of $tandard$)
belief$) or a$$um'tion$ that &overn behavior. %hen we $'eak of framework$ in
com'etitive academic debate we are talkin& about the $et of $tandard$) belief$) or
a$$um'tion$ that &enerate the *ue$tion that the 2ud&e ou&ht to an$wer at the end of the
debate. /iven that there i$ no a&reement amon& 'artici'ant$ about which $tandard$)
belief$) or a$$um'tion$ ou&ht to be univer$ally acce'ted) it $eem$ that we will never be
able to arrive at an a&reeable normative a$$um'tion about what the *ue$tion ou&ht to be.
So the i$$ue before u$ i$ how we 're$erve community while a&reein& to di$a&ree about
the *ue$tion in a way that reco&ni0e$ that there i$ richne$$ in an$werin& many different
*ue$tion$ that would not otherwi$e e(i$t if we all adhered to a rule which $tated that
there i$ one and only one *ue$tion to be an$wered. More im'ortantly) how do we $to'
talkin& 'a$t each other $o that we can have a &enuine conver$ation about the $ub$tantive
merit$ of any one *ue$tion-
The an$wer) + believe) re$ide$ dee' in the rhetorical tradition in the often overlooked
notion of $ta$i$.
5
Althou&h the conce't can be traced to Ari$totle!$ Rhetoric) it wa$ later
e('anded by <erma&ora$ who$e thinkin& ha$ come down to u$ throu&h the =oman
rhetorician$ Cicero and >uintillian. Sta$i$ i$ a /reek word meanin& to $tand $till. +t ha$
&enerally been con$idered by ar&umentation $cholar$ to be the 'oint of cla$h where two
o''o$in& $ide$ meet in ar&ument. Sta$i$ reco&ni0e$ the fact that interlocutor$ en&a&ed in
a conver$ation) di$cu$$ion) or debate need to have $ome level of e('ectation re&ardin&
what the focu$ of their encounter ou&ht to be. To reach $ta$i$) 'artici'ant$ need to arrive
at a deci$ion about what the i$$ue i$ 'rior to the $tart of their conver$ation. ;ut another
way) they need to mutually acknowled&e the 'oint about which they di$a&ree.
%hat ha''en$ when 'artici'ant$ fail to reach a&reement about what it i$ that they are
ar&uin& about- They talk 'a$t each other with little or no awarene$$ of what the other i$
$ayin&. The oft u$ed clich? of two $hi'$ 'a$$in& in the ni&ht) where both are in the dark
about what the other i$ doin& and neither $tand$ $till lon& enou&h to call out to the other)
i$ the ima&e mo$t commonly u$ed to de$cribe what ha''en$ when 'artici'ant$ in an
ar&ument fail to achieve $ta$i$. +n $uch $ituation$) &enuine en&a&ement i$ not 'o$$ible
becau$e 'artici'ant$ have not reached a&reement about what i$ in di$'ute. For e(am'le)
when one advocate $ay$ that the #nited State$ $hould increa$e international involvement
in the recon$truction of +ra* and their o''onent re'lie$ that the #nited State$ $hould
abandon it$ 'olicy of 'reem'tive military en&a&ement) they are talkin& 'a$t each other.
%hen $uch a $ituation 'revail$) it i$ hard to $ee how a 'roductive conver$ation can en$ue.
+ do not mean to $u&&e$t that dialo&ic en&a&ement alway$ unfold$ alon& an ideal 'lain
where 'artici'ant$ alway$ can or even ou&ht to a&ree on a mutual $tartin& 'oint. The
reality i$ that many do not. +n fact) refu$in& to acknowled&e an adver$ary!$ $tartin& 'oint
i$ it$elf a 'owerful $trate&ic move. <owever) it mu$t be acknowled&ed that when $uch
$ituation$ ari$e) and 'artici'ant$ cannot a&ree on the i$$ue about which they di$a&ree) the
chance$ that their e(chan&e will re$ult in a 'roductive outcome are dimini$hed
$i&nificantly. +n an enter'ri$e like academic debate) where the &oal$ of the encounter are
ca$t alon& both educational and com'etitive line$) the need to reach accommodation on
the $tartin& 'oint i$ ur&ent. Thi$ i$ e$'ecially the ca$e when time i$ limited and there i$ no
'o$$ibility of e(tendin& the clock. The $ooner $uch a&reement i$ achieved) the better.
Sta$i$ hel'$ u$ under$tand that we $tand to lo$e a &reat deal when we refu$e a &enuine
$tartin& 'oint.
@

<ow can $ta$i$ inform the i$$ue before u$ re&ardin& contem'orary debate 'ractice-
%hether we reco&ni0e it or not) it already ha$. The idea that the affirmative be&in$ the
debate by u$in& the re$olution a$ a $tartin& 'oint for their o'enin& $'eech act i$ nearly
univer$ally acce'ted by all member$ of the debate community. Thi$ i$ born out by the
fact that affirmative team$ that have i&nored the re$olution alto&ether have not &otten
very far. Aven team$ that u$e the re$olution a$ a meta'horical conden$ation or that
affirm the re$olution a$ $uch u$e the re$olution a$ their $tartin& 'oint. The $i&nificance
of thi$ in$i&ht warrant$ re'eatin&. De$'ite the numerou$ difference$ about what ty'e$ of
ar&ument$ ou&ht to have a 'lace in com'etitive debate we all $eemin&ly a&ree on at lea$t
one 'oint : the vital nece$$ity of a $tartin& 'oint. Thi$ common $tartin& 'oint) or to'ic) i$
what $e'arate$ debate from other form$ of communication and &ive$ the e(chan&e a
directed focu$.
B
+ 'ro'o$e that we carry our reco&nition of the $i&nificance of $ta$i$ one $te' further. 6ot
only $hould it e(tend to the to'ic under di$cu$$ion in any &iven debate) but it al$o
ou&ht to e(tend to the framework that $hould o'erate in any &iven debate. +n thi$ view)
the affirmative would not only be&in the debate by layin& out the to'ic to be di$cu$$ed
but al$o the *ue$tion that the 2ud&e $hould an$wer at the end of the debate. Stated
differently) 2u$t a$ the affirmative &et$ to choo$e the ca$e) they al$o ou&ht to be allowed to
choo$e the framework. The remainder of thi$ e$$ay i$ dedicated to detailin& the
advanta&e$ of affirmative framework choice 7AFC8 and an$werin& the mo$t likely
ob2ection$.
The rationale for affirmative framework choice.
There are $everal rea$on$ why the affirmative $hould &et to choo$e the framework for the
debate. Fir$t) AFC 're$erve$ the value of the fir$t affirmative con$tructive $'eech. Thi$
$'eech i$ the $tartin& 'oint for the debate. +t i$ a function of nece$$ity. The debate mu$t
be&in $omewhere if it i$ to be&in at all. Failure to &rant AFC i$ a denial of the $ervice
rendered by the affirmative team!$ labor when they crafted thi$ $'eech. Further) if the
affirmative doe$ not &et to 'ick the $tartin& 'oint) the o'enin& $'eech act i$ e$$entially
rendered meanin&le$$ while the re$t of the debate become$ a debate about what we
$hould be debatin& about. <i$tory i$ in$tructive here. The brief and undi$tin&ui$hed life of
both counter warrant$ and 'lan,'lan have am'ly demon$trated the chao$ that re$ult$ when
the ne&ative refu$e$ to en&a&e the affirmative on it$ cho$en $tartin& 'oint.
+n thi$ li&ht) AFC may even be viewed a$ a ri&ht $imilar to the affirmative!$ ri&ht to
define. Althou&h there are $everal rea$on$ why the affirmative ou&ht to have the ri&ht to
define) the mo$t 'er$ua$ive 2u$tification reco&ni0e$ that with the re$'on$ibility of
initiatin& the di$cu$$ion on the re$olutional *ue$tion come$ a concomitant ri&ht to offer
an inter'retation of what tho$e word$ mean. f cour$e) it i$ not an e(clu$ive ri&ht
becau$e the ne&ative can alway$ challen&e the inter'retation$. 6everthele$$) the
affirmative!$ inter'retation carrie$ a certain 're$um'tion that i$ acce'ted a$ &ood for
debate unle$$ 'roven otherwi$e. The rationale for AFC follow$ a $imilar line of thinkin&.
The affirmative $hould be able to choo$e the *ue$tion for the debate becau$e they are
re*uired to $'eak fir$t.
Second) AFC en$ure$ com'etitive e*uity. Ceavin& the framework o'en to debate 'ut$ the
affirmative at a $i&nificant com'etitive di$advanta&e. %hen the ne&ative ha$ the o'tion of
chan&in&) or even initiatin&) the framework di$cu$$ion) the fir$t affirmative con$tructive
$'eech i$ rendered meanin&le$$. Thi$ hurt$ the affirmative for two rea$on$. Fir$t) it &ive$
the ne&ative a two,to,one advanta&e in con$tructive $'eech time for makin& framework
ar&ument$. Second) the fir$t affirmative framework choice 7or lack there of8 lock$ the
affirmative into defendin& their o'enin& $'eech act a&ain$t an entirely different
framework from the one it wa$ de$i&ned to addre$$. 6ot only doe$ AFC $olve the$e
'roblem$) it al$o &ive$ every debater an o''ortunity to have debate$ in the framework of
their choo$in&. Allowin& the fir$t affirmative con$tructive $'eech to $et the term$ for the
debate en$ure$ that team$ &et to choo$e to debate in their framework half of the time. For
e(am'le) if one team wanted to have a 'olicy debate) AFC would allow them to do $o
when they are affirmative. Similarly) if another team wanted to have a 'erformance
debate) AFC would &ive them a $imilar o''ortunity when they are affirmative. Thi$
mean$ that every team would have an e*ual o''ortunity to have fulfillin& and en&a&in&
debate$ on the i$$ue$ they choo$e to di$cu$$ half the time.
Third) AFC ha$ $ub$tantial educational benefit$. To be&in with) it would force team$ to
debate in multi'le framework$. Too few team$ at both the hi&h $chool and colle&e level
have true ar&ument fle(ibility. +t i$ an undeniable fact that the debate enter'ri$e would be
a more educational undertakin& for all involved if team$ had to 're'are to debate a
variety of different framework$. AFC $olve$ thi$ 'roblem becau$e the framework) like the
ca$e) would be determined at the be&innin& of the debate. #nfortunately) in a world
where the *ue$tion of the debate i$ not re$olved 'rior to the $tart of the debate) team$
$im'ly 'ick the framework that they want to defend and advocate it on both the
affirmative and the ne&ative. %hen the ne&ative i$ 'ermitted to $hift the framework)
affirmative team$ are denied the o''ortunity to debate in the framework that they
$elected. Cedin& framework $election to the affirmative create$ a 'ermanent $'ace for the
e('loration of multi'le framework$. +ndeed) it would allow them to flouri$h. The fact of
the matter i$ that the creativity which $tand$ behind the wide variety of ar&ument
$trate&ie$ in contem'orary debate en$ure$ that a diver$e $et of framework$ would
continue to be e('lored. AFC aim$ to break the idea that team$ $hould debate only one
way. +n$tead) it em'ower$ alternate 'er$'ective$ on debate and &ive$ each an e*ual
footin&.
+n addition) AFC would have the educational benefit of 'romotin& ar&ument
develo'ment. +f widely acce'ted) it would have the effect of bracketin& framework
di$cu$$ion$. Such a move would nece$$arily focu$ the debate on i$$ue$ &ermane to the
framework $elected by the affirmative. Thi$ would 'rovide more time to e('lore the$e
i$$ue$ in &reater com'le(ity. =ecall for a moment many of the diver$e ne&ative $trate&ie$
de'loyed at the 3445 6DT. 6ow a$k) how much more intellectually rewardin& would
tho$e debate$ have been if the framework di$cu$$ion$ were removed from con$ideration-
AFC create$ a $ituation where thi$ i$ 'o$$ible.
Fourth) AFC create$ a com'romi$e that allow$ different 'er$'ective$ on the *ue$tion of
the debate to coe(i$t. The 'roblem with leavin& the framework o'en to debate i$ that it
make$ a $chi$m in the community inevitable. Such a $'lit) if it were to ha''en) would
have $eriou$ lon& term con$e*uence$ for the e(i$tence of com'etitive debate.
#nfortunately) the hi$tory of intercolle&iate debate i$ a hi$tory marked by fi$$ure$ that
have $een &rou'$ of like minded 'eo'le 'eel away from the lar&er community becau$e of
their di$a&reement$ about what count$ a$ e(cellence in debate.
D
Thi$ 'roce$$ ha$
ha''ened before and it i$ likely to ha''en a&ain. +ndeed) + $u$'ect that it i$ already
underway a$ one or more 'ocket$ lament the $eemin& intran$i&ence of their com'etitive
counter'art$ in comin& around to their 'er$'ective on what the activity of debate ou&ht to
be about. AFC i$ a com'romi$e 'o$ition that &ive$ everyone an e*ual $take in the &ame.
Finally) AFC) if widely acce'ted) ha$ the 'otential to chan&e the nature of 2ud&in& and
would 'ut debatin& back into the hand$ of the debater$. +f one con$ider$ the wide variety
of claim$ that 2ud&e$ today make in their 2ud&in& 'hilo$o'hie$ about what they will and
will not tolerate) it i$ clear that there are $i&nificant cleava&e$ in the 2ud&in& 'ool. The
rea$on for thi$ i$ that 2ud&e$ 7my $elf included8 have different di$'o$ition$ toward the
*ue$tion of the debate and they are often willin& to im'o$e tho$e view$ in the debate in a
variety of way$. AFC envi$ion$ a $ituation in which 2ud&e$ could mutually a&ree to
di$arm.
Would affirmative framework choice hurt negative ground?
There are) of cour$e) a number of ob2ection$ to thi$ 'ro'o$al. Fir$t) $ome will ob2ect that
AFC would hurt ne&ative &round. The$e ob2ection$ can be ea$ily an$wered. Fir$t) &round
i$ not an all or nothin& i$$ue. The affirmative!$ choice of framework 'rovide$ 'lenty of
ne&ative &round. +f the affirmative choo$e$ a 'olicy framework) then the ne&ative &et$
'olicy &round. +f they choo$e a 'erformance framework) then the ne&ative &et$ to criti*ue
their 'erformance and offer a counter 'erformance. Second) the 'roblem of ne&ative
&round e(i$t$ in the $tatu$ *uo. /iven the wide variety of framework$ advocated in
affirmative con$tructive $'eeche$ today) ne&ative team$ already have to be 're'ared to
debate multi'le framework$. Thi$ 'ro'o$al would not im'o$e a lar&er burden on the
ne&ative than already e(i$t$. Third) framework debate$ them$elve$ are not critical to
ne&ative &round. +f the ne&ative i$ only 're'ared to en&a&e in framework debate$) then
they are obviou$ly not well 're'ared to be ne&ative. Fourth) it could be ar&ued that the
ne&ative ha$ too much &round in the $tatu$ *uo. Affirmative framework choice level$ the
'layin& field. /iven the e('an$ive ran&e of &eneric ne&ative $trate&ie$ that the ne&ative
ha$ at it$ di$'o$al) it i$ not an e(a&&eration to $ay that ne&ative team$ today clearly have
the u''er hand. Finally) and 'erha'$ mo$t im'ortantly) the &round lo$$ under the 're$ent
$y$tem i$ wor$e for the affirmative. +n $ituation$ where the ne&ative $hift$ the debate to
it$ de$ired framework) the affirmative i$ at a much &reater di$advanta&e becau$e they
have made time allocation and advocacy choice$ that are not ea$ily rectified.
Would !" foreclose framework de#ates which themselves have value? ;erha'$. Thi$
critici$m brin&$ into focu$ the locu$ of the educational dilemma. The 'o$ition $taked out
in thi$ article i$ that framework debate$ have le$$ educational value than their
counter'art$. Framework debate$ divert the focu$ away from debatin& the $ub$tantive
i$$ue$ contained in any framework. +n the $tatu$ *uo) the team that win$ the framework
debate win$ the debate. The 'roblem i$ that $o much 'reciou$ $'eech time i$ $'ent on the
framework debate that many debate$ never &et to the intellectually and 'eda&o&ically
valuable di$cu$$ion of the i$$ue$ them$elve$. More im'ortantly) affirmative framework
choice ca'ture$ all of the benefit$ of framework debate$ with none of the down$ide.
Different affirmative team$ will advocate different framework$ which mean$ all of the
*ue$tion$ that currently &et a$ked would inevitably &et a$ked.
Would !" mean the negative could never $uestion affirmative assum%tions? There are
at lea$t two an$wer$ to thi$ ob2ection. Fir$t) not nece$$arily. The ne&ative would $till have
&round to criti*ue the a$$um'tion$ embedded in the framework advocated by the
affirmative team. For e(am'le) if the affirmative advocated cedin& 'olitical control in
+ra* to the #nited 6ation$ throu&h a 'olicy framework) the ne&ative could $till *ue$tion
all of the 'olicy a$$um'tion$ which $'eak to the 'lan!$ de$irability. AFC only con$train$
the ne&ative to the e(tent that they are limited to the $tartin& 'oint $elected by the
affirmative. Thi$ mean$ that the ne&ative would be forced to bracket *ue$tion$ re&ardin&
the de$irability of the affirmative with re$'ect to it$ lan&ua&e) it$ re're$entation$) it$
'olitic$) it$ 'erformance) it$ 'hilo$o'hy) etc. Similarly) if the affirmative advocated
cedin& 'olitical control in +ra* to the #nited 6ation$ throu&h a 'erformance framework)
the ne&ative could *ue$tion all of the a$$um'tion$ behind their 'erformance in addition to
to'ically derived core ne&ative ar&ument$ 7althou&h tho$e ar&ument$ would have to be
ada'ted to the framework advanced by the affirmative8. +n $uch $ituation$) &round lo$$
would be minimal becau$e the &round that the ne&ative lo$e$ would not be &ermane to
either the re$olutionally derived *ue$tion or the affirmative framework. Thu$ the only
thin& that the ne&ative lo$e$ under AFC i$ the ability to $hift the *ue$tion of the debate
throu&h criti*ue$ of the affirmative framework. Eiewed thi$ way) the ne&ative!$
com'laint i$ that they don!t &et to talk about everythin& but the affirmative. Fut why
$hould they-
Second) the benefit$ &ained by ado'tion of AFC outwei&h what would be lo$t. Cimitin&
ne&ative &round focu$e$ the di$cu$$ion and &enerate$ richer debate$ within the
framework cho$en by the affirmative. There i$ no $ub$tantial benefit to allowin& the
ne&ative to *ue$tion every a$$um'tion $ince the emer&ence of critical affirmative$
en$ure$ a 'lace at the table for the$e ty'e$ of ar&ument$.
Third) the ne&ative doe$ not have a ri&ht to *ue$tion every a$$um'tion. +nfinite
're'aration time for the affirmative i$ a myth. Affirmative team$) only have a fi(ed
amount of time to 're'are to debate. +f they are forced to defend any and all a$$um'tion$
that they are heir to by virtue of their e(i$tence at the end of thou$and$ of year$ of human
civili0ation there i$ no rea$onable e('ectation that they could ever be 're'ared to debate.
The number and ran&e of *ue$tion$ that the debate could be about i$ certainly much
&reater than the amount of time the affirmative ha$ to 're'are. Such a $ituation i$
anathema to any coo'erative learnin& enter'ri$e. +f learnin& i$ to be ma(imi0ed)
'artici'ant$ mu$t have a rea$onable e('ectation about what to 're'are for. Thi$ i$) after
all) why everyone who 'artici'ate$ in two,'er$on 'olicy debate think$ there ou&ht to be
a to'ic. 1et) while we $eem to a&ree that there $hould be limit$ 'laced on the affirmative)
the $ame thinkin& doe$ not alway$ $eem to a''ly to the ne&ative. AFC merely reco&ni0e$
that both $ide$ need to &ive $omethin& u' to have a debate.
Would !" ti% the #alance too much in the affirmative&s favor? Thi$ i$ 'otentially the
mo$t $eriou$ ob2ection to the 'ro'o$al advanced here. After all) why wouldn!t an
affirmative advocate a framework that made it im'o$$ible for the ne&ative to win- The
$hort an$wer i$ that $ome affirmative$ mi&ht try. <owever) thi$ char&e i$ not uni*ue to the
'ro'o$al contained herein. The affirmative already ha$ free rei&n to introduce a
framework for evaluatin& the debate) and many of them do. Furthermore) while the ri$k
of creatin& a com'etitive imbalance in favor of the affirmative mi&ht $eem likely) thi$
critici$m i$ more hy'othetical than real. The $ame communal notion$ that have &enerally
$erved to limit affirmative ca$e $election with re$'ect to to'icality could al$o function
with AFC. f cour$e) ne&ative team$ would have to be 're'ared to ar&ue that the
framework 're$ented by the affirmative i$ untenable for com'etitive and.or educational
rea$on$. Fut) thi$ i$ no different than what they already 're'are to do with to'icality.
There i$ a rea$on why the va$t ma2ority of team$ do not run the be$t affirmative$ from
'a$t to'ic$ year after year. 6e&ative team$ are more often than not) able to ea$ily defeat
tho$e affirmative$ with to'icality ar&ument$. %hy- Fecau$e virtually every 'artici'ant in
the &ame ha$ an intuitive $en$e that we mu$t reach $ta$i$ to even have a debate. AFC
merely carrie$ that notion one $te' further by reco&ni0in& that to have a debate we mu$t
a&ree on both the to'ic and the *ue$tion that the 2ud&e $eek$ to re$olve with re$'ect to
that to'ic.
The a''ro'riate inventional re$ource for creatin& ar&ument$ about the le&itimacy of the
affirmative framework i$ to'icality theory. +n 're'arin& to craft ar&ument$ a&ain$t
ille&itimate affirmative framework$) there are $everal $tandard$ which the ne&ative could
u$e. Fir$t) the framework $hould be 'redictable. The ne&ative need$ to be able to have
$ome ba$i$ for 're'arin& to debate the ran&e of 'o$$ible affirmative framework$. Since
the re$olution i$ the only $table indicator of what the ne&ative need$ to 're'are to debate)
it $eem$ that a rea$onable e('ectation i$ that the affirmative!$ framework $hould be
&ermane to the re$olution. That i$ to $ay) the re$olution $hould function a$ a &enerative
tool not only for a li$t of affirmative ca$e$) but al$o a li$t of affirmative framework$.
Second) the framework $hould be educational. The framework cho$en by the affirmative
ou&ht to be educationally beneficial. At a minimum thi$ im'lie$ that the 'o$$ibility for
critical thou&ht re$ide$ in the framework. Third) the framework $hould be debatable. Thi$
i$ another way of $ayin& that the framework $hould be com'etitively balanced or
e*uitable. There ha$ to be a rea$onable 'o$$ibility that the ne&ative can win. To thi$
e(tent) the burden of e('lainin& what the ne&ative need$ to do to win re$t$ with the
affirmative. They ou&ht to be able to offer a clear rationale or $et of condition$ in which
the 2ud&e would vote ne&ative. Finally) the framework $hould be fi(ed. nce the
affirmative introduce$ it$ framework into the debate) they $hould not be 'ermitted to alter
or chan&e it in any way. The a''ro'riate theoretical analo&$ here are the rea$on$ why
affirmative conditionality i$ ille&itimate.
What will it take?
AFC im'lementation will re*uire action by both debater$ and 2ud&e$. From debater$ it
will re*uire both willin&ne$$ to com'romi$e and reco&nition that learnin& to debate in
different framework$ ha$ value. + envi$ion a world where 'rior to the $tart of the debate)
the affirmative would di$clo$e to the ne&ative team what it i$ that they wi$h to talk about
7the ca$e.'lan8 a$ well a$ the *ue$tion that the 2ud&e ou&ht to an$wer at the end of the
debate. +n addition) they $hould be 're'ared to be&in their fir$t affirmative con$tructive
$'eech with a rationale for the *ue$tion which let$ the ne&ative know what it i$ that they
need to do to win the debate. AFC will al$o re*uire a $imilar move on the 'art of 2ud&e$.
6ot only will we need to lay our framework 'redi$'o$ition$ at the door$te') we will al$o
need to e('lain to debater$ that we endor$e the idea of AFC.
"onclusion
Com'romi$e i$ never an ea$y thin&. Some com'romi$e$ are un$ati$fyin&) to one or more
'artie$ to a controver$y. ther$ are down ri&ht ob2ectionable. 1et) $ometime$ com'romi$e
i$ nece$$ary if a &rou' i$ to remain to&ether. +n my view) academic debate ha$ reached a
cro$$road$ where failure to com'romi$e will mean the end to community. Sta$i$ tell$ u$
that we cannot continue on the 're$ent cour$e much lon&er. n the other hand) if enou&h
'artici'ant$ are willin& to leave $omethin& at the curb) we mi&ht be $tron&er becau$e of
it. Arrivin& at mutual a&reement concernin& the advanta&e$ of AFC i$ one $uch
com'romi$e that will allow the twain to meet in a way that debate can flouri$h well into
the 3"
$t
century.
"
The author would like to thank Carly %ood$) Clint %ood$) and G.;. Cacy for their hel'ful $u&&e$tion$ on thi$ 'a'er.
3
See www.ndtca$eli$t.com.
9
See Colby) Anne) et al. 734498. Educating "iti'ens, Go$$ey,Fa$$.
5
For further di$cu$$ion of the theory of $ta$i$) $ee: Cun$dorf) Andrea A. and Gohn G. =u$0kiewic0. 7344"8. Everything&s an
rgument, Fedford.St. Martin$H Eancil) David C. 7"II98. Rhetoric and rgumentation) Allyn and FaconH <ill) Fill and
=ichard %. Ceeman. 7"IID8. The rt and (ractice of rgumentation and De#ate) Mayfield ;ubli$hin&.
@
For further di$cu$$ion of the im'ortance of acknowled&in& a &enuine $tartin& 'oint) $ee Aemeren) F. <. van) and
/rootendor$t) =. 7"II38. rgumentation, "ommunication and !allacies) (ragma*Dialectical (ers%ective) Cawrence
Arlbaum A$$ociate$.
B
See for e(am'le: Snider) Alfred and Ma(well Schnurer. 734438. +any ,ides) De#ate cross the "urriculum) 6ew 1ork
+nternational Debate Aducation A$$ociation.
D
Such $'linterin& ha$ ha''ened in each of the 'a$t three decade$. +t be&an when in the "ID4$ when the Cro$$ A(amination
Debate A$$ociation 7CADA8 wa$ formed a$ a break away &rou' from the 6DT. +t continued in the "IJ4$ with the creation
of the American Debate A$$ociation 7ADA8) a rule$ ba$ed or&ani0ation that ke't the 6DT to'ic) but crafted a $erie$ of
content rule$ to &overn the conduct of debate$. And it occurred a&ain in the "II4$ with the formation of the 6ational
Aducational Debate A$$ociation 76ADA8 which wa$ it$elf a reaction to the trend toward 6DT $tyle debatin& in CADA.
<owever) $'lit$ in the lar&er debate community) are not alway$ 'ermanent a$ the reunion of 6DT and CADA in the mid,
"II4$ demon$trate$.