Hijacks

Hijacks are a philosophical argument read (generally on neg) to prove that one framework (Framework A) ends in the conclusion of another (Framework B), and that Framework B negates. These are strategic because (1) they’re relatively less common and throw others off guard (2) it technically concedes the aff framework but results in the conclusion that their framework negates, getting out of a lot of theory shells that phil debaters often read like aff-framework-choice (3) it’s a way for affs to read multiple frameworks because they are not saying a framework is true, but that their opponent’s framework justifies a different one and (4) there are no “generic” responses to hijacks–it’s all specific to the specific one read by their opponent. An example is put below:

​​Kant collapses to contractarianism, the idea that ethics are based on mutual agreements: 1–Performativity - you agree to prep time, speech times, the res, etc - proves debate requires the existence is mutual agreements to function - means responses to my fw presume its true and absent contracts we can’t express Kantian obligations 2–Bindingness - theories cannot be legitimate absent a motivation to follow it - only a theory that we have consented to can take into account our own desires and give us a reason to follow it - otherwise Kantianism would never be considered legitimate 3–Restraint - their theory presumes a contract with others to mutually follow their theory, so we’re a side constraint - if the other is not bound by mutual restraint - then they did not make a choice to follow a framework freely since there was no consent which is coercion That negates–[insert topic specific reasons]