...what exactly do you mean by "a new framework"? You don't seem to be referring to the literal definition (an alternate mechanism for evaluating the round, like "discourse shapes reality.")
I pretty much am, but for a K debater a framework means more than that. It structures how issues should be viewed overall (not just in terms of weighing arguments), and that structure is used to inform how a decision is made in the round.
And if you were in a doctor's council because this is a celebrity—so she wants 10 opinions on what to do—and one person had made the Thetans argument, what language would you use to categorize your counter argument?
I'd say it'd be in the language of "that won't work, because Thetans don't exist and there are alternate superior explanations."
As long as we can agree on that, let's all call it whatever name we want It's the essence of one of the types of solvency, in my mind (structural).
You could make that argument, but it wouldn't be kritiking anything, it'd just be running a solvency that Thetans are not real. To kritik the Thetans, you'd have a thesis that scientology is a nonsensical compilation of science-fiction ideas. Framework would have some points about traditional medicine being the best way to find cures for problems, and scientology distorts your view of reality. Links that your solution relies on the truth of scientology, impacts that belief in scientology results in dehumanization of those who do not, because they are viewed as uninitiated and inferior, and dehum is the root of all violence. Alt is to reject scientology and use standard cures for PTSD.
Really, either method works, it's just whether you want a straight up debate or a k debate. (this is usually a strategic decision, how good are you straight-up/K compared to your opp)
But attacking the entire concept of Thetans is just further along on the systemicity continuum. Where does "specific solution" stop and "entire mindset" begin? It doesn't - it just gradually transitions.
NANO-SYSTEMIC: The technology in the filters doesn't work.
MICRO-SYSTEMIC: The filters won't be installed correctly due to workforce problems.
SYSTEMIC: The filters are attacking the wrong kind of pollution.
MEGA-SYSTEMIC: Attacking pollution at all is useless, containment just incentivizes more pollution.
ULTRA-SYSTEMIC: Technology is fundamentally destructive, we must Become One With Nature.
LUDICROUSLY SYSTEMIC: Reality doesn't exist, proposing solutions at all just discourages us from realizing that and being Enlightened.
At what point does this go from being a solvency argument to being a kritik? (Bearing in mind that, whatever step you pick, I can come up with an intermediary step that is even trickier to distinguish. )
(P.S. For ZaR, note that all of these options on the continuum have implied alternatives - ranging from "don't do that, then" to "stop believing reality exists.")
Starting with the end, they may all have implied alternatives, but for the k, the alternative is more than just you don't want to do that bad thing, it's on a larger scale, which follows from the impacts-more on that in a bit.
I don't think the scale is really the right way to find the brightline. It's not "how systemic is the argument". It's whether the argument is claiming that you misunderstand THIS problem, or whether you misunderstand ALL problems. In the air filters, it's not a K to just say the problem is in the water. The K would be saying that air filters would never work, no matter where pollution is coming from, and continuing to try only makes things worse. In theory, there could be a scale of how much ALL is meant, but it should be easy in any specific argument to look at the impacts and see if they exist because of what you do to this problem or what your (claimed) mindset would cause in any situation. So, as I was saying above, the impacts are on a different scale from a DA/solvency, which is what makes the alternative of a K fundamentally different than the implied alt of a DA. K alts also can get pretty crazy to have better solvency, for example a classism K might have an alt "The people in this room will reject the plan and live simply, to express solidarity with the poor". Basically, the alt has a more important role than just stating the obvious of avoiding the impact.
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!debatecamp.pssda.net