Hijacks

Basics

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

4–There are no “generic” responses to hijacks–it’s all specific to the specific one read by their opponent.

Example

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]