T-Framework

Overview

T-Framework (also referred to as Framework, T-USFG, or T-FW) is a topicality argument designed to answer non topical critical affirmatives. In most topicality debates, both debaters agree that the affirmative should be topical, but disagree on whether the affirmative is topical. However, many critical affirmatives will contest whether the affirmative should have the burden to be topical in the first place. Because of this, T-Framework is a unique topicality argument, as most 2NRs on T-Framework will not focus on proving the aff is not topical, but rather on proving debates about the resolution are valuable and topicality is a norm worth preserving. Like most topicality shells, T-Framework arguments in the 1NC include definitions of words in the resolution to prove the affirmative has not defended the precise meaning of the topic.

Core Standards and Offense

While many different standards and justifications for T-Framework have been read, most standards fall into 1 of 3 different core categories of offense: Fairness, Clash, and Skills. Most 2NRs on T-Framework will collapse to one of these standards.

Fairness

This category of offense will argue that non topical affirmatives place an unfair burden on the negative. Common internal links to a fairness impact include:

• Limits - if the affirmative is not constrained by the resolution, they could defend anything in their 1AC. There is no way for the negative to reasonably anticipate and prepare for this massive amount of possible affirmatives, skewing the debate in the affirmative's favor.
• Ground - if the affirmative can defend anything, then they have a competitive incentive to defend uncontroversial proposals with very little neg ground. An extreme example might be a 1AC that defends a truism like "racism bad".
• Prep Skew (also referred to as the Library Disadvantage) - if the affirmative is not constrained by the topic, they can read the same or similar affirmatives topic after topic and specialize in only 1 type of argument or literature base. Even if the negative is able to engage with the affirmative, the deck will be stacked against them because the aff has far more experience , given the length of time they could have been learning and reading their 1AC.

However, unlike most theory and topicality debates where both debaters assume fairness is an important impact, many critical affirmatives will argue that ensuring the debate is fair for the negative is unimportant. Because of this, a crucial component of winning fairness offense when reading T-Framework is proving fairness is an important impact. Common arguments that attempt to prove this include:

• Competition - the reason debaters do things like spread, read new affirmatives, and make countless other strategic decisions is because the way we debate is ultimately motivated by a desire to win. Debate is distinct from a non adversarial forum like a book club or discussion group because its a competitive game where participants try to win, and all external benefits of the activity like education or friendships are byproducts of debaters trying to win. This model of competitive incentives can only function if all parties involved think they have a shot at winning, which requires some degree of fairness. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that the affirmative cannot disregard fairness, the thing that coheres debate as a competitive activity, while also appealing to the competitive aspects of debate by asking to win and by designing their strategy for the purpose of winning.
• Fairness is a side constraint - by asking the judge to evaluate the arguments they read in a fair, non arbitrary way, the affirmative has ceded validity to the importance of fairness.
• Fairness turns all other impacts - if the negative is unable to engage the affirmative and test their idea, or has no incentive to compete in the activity because they know they will lose, then any educational benefits of reading a non topical 1AC in debate are lost because that 1AC cannot be effectively discussed and tested.
• Fairness is the only impact a judge's ballot can resolve - the affirmative might criticize large problems with the topic, society, or debate as an activity, but the debater reading T-Framework would argue that a judge voting affirmative does nothing to resolve any of those problems. However, if the refusal to be topical skewed the negative's strategy and made the round unfair, then the judge voting negative would be able rectify that loss of fairness. In essence, even if the impact to fairness is quite marginal, it is the only impact that matters because it is the only impact the ballot has the potential to solve.

Clash

This category of offense will argue that non topical affirmatives reduce the negative's ability to robustly test and argue against the affirmative. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that this process of competitive deliberation between two well prepared opponents is the most educational model of debate and should be preserved. Common internal links to a clash impact are very similar to the internal links to a fairness impact. Arguments like Limits, Ground, and Prep Skew all try to prove that non topical affirmatives reduce the negative's ability to prepare for and engage in debates. However, the debater reading a clash impact would argue that this reduction in the negative's ability to engage and test the affirmative is bad in and of itself, not simply because it makes the round unfair.

Common impacts to clash include:

• Clash turns the affirmative's impacts - many non topical affirmatives will advocate for some sort of method for combatting oppression. Debaters reading these affirmatives would argue that the judge should vote aff to endorse that method if it is effective. The debater reading T-Framework would argue that the method proposed by the affirmative will be ineffective in bringing about social change unless its advocates know how to rigorously defend it against criticism and convince people who disagree with the method that it is effective. These skills can only be acquired through forms of debate in which the negative can robustly contest and clash with the affirmative's method, forcing the affirmative to robustly defend their ideas.
• Clash prevents dogmatism - dogmatism is the practice of unconditionally believing in certain ideas, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Debaters reading T-Framework would argue that reducing the negative's ability to contest non topical affirmatives creates an echo chamber in which the ideas proposed by these affirmatives are never exposed to rebuttal, therefore encouraging dogmatic belief in those ideas. By allowing the negative to prepare for and robustly challenge these ideas through a stasis point for preparation like the resolution, debaters would be forced to consider many conflicting, well argued ideas. Certain theories, like the marketplace of ideas, would suggest that in this environment, the best ideas would win out.

One reason clash is strategic because it doesn't pass a referendum on what kind of content or skills debate should teach us. Many critical affs are written to criticize the idea we should use debate to learn about the government, the law, international relations, or other common topics in traditional policy debate. Clash offense doesn't argue that debates should be about the state, the law, or any one type of content. Rather, it argues that regardless of the topic we choose to debate about, that topic should be attached to a predictable stasis point for preparation like the resolution because debates in which both sides have robust preparation produce the highest quality clash and nuanced testing of ideas.

Skills

Movements/portable legal knowledge

Critical thinking/IR cards