homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:51 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Framework
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
I can't remember...I think it was npda 09 finals; the motion was about us policy towards the EU and the opp ran a "logocentrism critique" (it was squirrely and odd, but anyway) - I'm just looking for that video. I had it before; I can't remember where I found it though. The reason I'm looking for it is because I like the framework that they used.

Oh, and, I figured I'd sit down sometimes and write out a f/w for critiques, so I'll try this: (I need a lot of help here. Any and all suggestions very welcome)

A. (or D.) Framework
--1. Discourse is indicative of ideology
----a) Language and thought come from the same source - one cannot say anything about anything without always already having made assumptions about it.
----b) Our assumptions are what construct our view of the world - e.g. if I assume that a woman's brain is smaller than a man's in general, then I'm going to view them as less than a man.

--2. Ideology defines how we relate to the world
----a) Everything we think and everything we see is tainted by our assumptions and presuppositions. Our responses to the world are literally defined by how we view the world.
----b) We construct our reactions with our ideologies - e.g. viewing women as less than men is going to make someone treat them worse.

--3. The way in which we relate to the world... somethingsomethingsomething


I'm not sure; I think I'm over-analyzing the f/w, but I really don't know. Like I said, any and all comments would be appreciated.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1272804600

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
Ahh, thank you.
How's this?
A. F/w
1. Language is key: In debate questions of language and discursive analysis comes first because discourse is the necessary condition of debate. Rhetoric is primary and absolute – language also functions to serve as a looking glass into what we view as individuals – language provides our outlook on reality.
2. the k comes first –
--a. The ontological question of ideology is a pre-consequentialist test of the plan text or of their advocacy as a whole – the plan does not change the world but the language does. Therefore we must interrogate the rhetoric from the PMC.
--b. the plan text does not change anything about the world but the language does – proposing a hypothetical change in the US or etc. does nothing towards us in the room because it can’t change anything about how we live our life or how we view the world but the methodology BY WHICH THAT HYPOTHETICAL CHANGE IS PRESENTED CAN.
--c. Even if they are able to leverage the content of their impacts it doesn’t matter because we are questioning the method by which they present those impacts because it affects us all; they are unable to weigh those impacts against the impacts of the k.

2b. & c. are different though they sound the same. a. is rhetoric, b. is methodology.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
Blarg. How about this.

A.F/w
1. Language comes first: In debate questions of language and discursive analysis comes first because discourse is the necessary condition of debate. Rhetoric is primary and absolute; language functions to serve as a looking glass into what we view as individuals – our outlook on reality and what we are thinking will inevitably be revealed in some manner in the language that we use or what we endorse knowingly or unknowingly through our rhetoric.
2. The critique comes first: every instance during which language is used is an instance in which we must examine the ideology behind it or the motivations for presenting that rhetoric.
a. Fiat is an illusionary construct necessitated from the political implications of the resolution – we may think we can change or we may pretend we can place our hands on the levers of power to control a governing body but in the end what we are left with is a glamorized game of “playing house.”
b. The ontological question of ideology is a pre-consequentialist test of the plan text or of their advocacy – the plan text does not change the world but the language does: therefore we must interrogate the rhetoric found in the PMC from a standpoint that does not evaluate the effects in the physical world but rather what they justify as it relates to everyone in this room.
c. Even if they are able to leverage the content of their impacts on an existentialist level it doesn’t matter because we are questioning the method by which they present those impacts because it is what affects us all in the room: their focus on the physical necessarily distracts us from the moral or ethical implications of the rhetoric that we use – any impacts they present are inherently unable to contest with moral implications; they are unable to weigh those impacts against the impacts of the k.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
on a, fiat isn't necessitated by the resolution at all, just by tradition....

on b, what's "pre-consequentialist?" before evaluating impacts of case? that doesn't make sense, b/c if the K has impacts, you're not evaluating a "pre-impact" level; just prioritizing impacts. the K is just as consequentialist as case. the point is sound, this term is tripping me up.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
ldrox wrote:
on a, fiat isn't necessitated by the resolution at all, just by tradition....

I would disagree though - it comes from the word "should" or "would". TH SHOULD do this.

ldrox wrote:
on b, what's "pre-consequentialist?" before evaluating impacts of case? that doesn't make sense, b/c if the K has impacts, you're not evaluating a "pre-impact" level; just prioritizing impacts. the K is just as consequentialist as case. the point is sound, this term is tripping me up.

Consequentialist meaning the end justifying the means - pre-conseq is looking not at the end but at the means justified. The K is consequentialist insofar as we say that the ethics are bad and the alt solves, but pre-conseq when compared to the case.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
should could mean "moral necessity"; doesn't mean you have to present a plan or assume that it gets passed.

willmalson wrote:
Consequentialist meaning the end justifying the means - pre-conseq is looking not at the end but at the means justified. The K is consequentialist insofar as we say that the ethics are bad and the alt solves, but pre-conseq when compared to the case.

lol i know what consequentialism is, and that made no sense.

if you're looking at the means, then it's not "pre-consequentialist," it's deontological ethics, which is the opposite of consequentialist ethics.

then you say the K is consequentialist and not consequentialist. (in your terms, consequentialist and "pre-conseq")

then you say that something can be consequentialist, but non consequentialist when compared relative to something else.

none of which makes sense.

just take out "pre-consequentialist," which has zero literature backing it and has a total of four results on google, one of which is your posts on another debate forum about this very same framework

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
ldrox wrote:
should could mean "moral necessity"; doesn't mean you have to present a plan or assume that it gets passed.

that's a general meaning, sure, but this is specific to what most people would consider a policy resolution, usually with a plan, so...

ldrox wrote:
willmalson wrote:
Consequentialist meaning the end justifying the means - pre-conseq is looking not at the end but at the means justified. The K is consequentialist insofar as we say that the ethics are bad and the alt solves, but pre-conseq when compared to the case.

lol i know what consequentialism is, and that made no sense.

if you're looking at the means, then it's not "pre-consequentialist," it's deontological ethics, which is the opposite of consequentialist ethics.

But I'm not looking at how it relates to a truth, I'm looking at how it impacts the real world. I agree with your earlier statement that with the argument we're prioritizing impacts - that's why I called it pre-conseq and not conseq or deont (and it's not just me; I grabbed a lot of this including that term from the round I mentioned in the OP).

ldrox wrote:
then you say the K is consequentialist and not consequentialist. (in your terms, consequentialist and "pre-conseq")

then you say that something can be consequentialist, but non consequentialist when compared relative to something else.

none of which makes sense.

I was expounding in a different way upon what you said about prioritizing impacts.
Relative to the debate world of hypothetical argumentation, it's pre-conseq, because it's looking at the k impacts before we evaluate the implications of the plan. Another reason why I say "pre" and not deont. pre- implies (means) before, and we're looking at the k before the case, so.

ldrox wrote:
just take out "pre-consequentialist," which has zero literature backing it and has a total of four results on google, one of which is your posts on another debate forum about this very same framework

Upon first reading/hearing it, what did it strike you as?

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
willmalson wrote:
that's a general meaning, sure, but this is specific to what most people would consider a policy resolution, usually with a plan, so...

...so just say 'fiat is illusory.' bam. done.

willmalson wrote:
I was expounding in a different way upon what you said about prioritizing impacts.
Relative to the debate world of hypothetical argumentation, it's pre-conseq, because it's looking at the k impacts before we evaluate the implications of the plan. Another reason why I say "pre" and not deont. pre- implies (means) before, and we're looking at the k before the case, so.

I understand that max alderman likes to use it, but that's not a reason it exists. pre-consequentialism has no. relationship. to consequentialism, in any. meaningful. way. if you consider the impacts of something, it's consequentialist. period. if you consider the impacts of something before something else, that's still consequentialist.

just say a priori.

willmalson wrote:
Upon first reading/hearing it, what did it strike you as?

i had no idea, but in context of your sentence and the way frameworks usually function, i assumed it meant a priori. why use a different, made-up word that doesn't mean what you want it to mean when one already exists that does?

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
ldrox wrote:
willmalson wrote:
that's a general meaning, sure, but this is specific to what most people would consider a policy resolution, usually with a plan, so...

...so just say 'fiat is illusory.' bam. done.

but I feel like I actually know what I'm talking about when I expound upon it in a little paragraph. ; )

Quote:
willmalson wrote:
I was expounding in a different way upon what you said about prioritizing impacts.
Relative to the debate world of hypothetical argumentation, it's pre-conseq, because it's looking at the k impacts before we evaluate the implications of the plan. Another reason why I say "pre" and not deont. pre- implies (means) before, and we're looking at the k before the case, so.

I understand that max alderman likes to use it, but that's not a reason it exists. pre-consequentialism has no. relationship. to consequentialism, in any. meaningful. way. if you consider the impacts of something, it's consequentialist. period. if you consider the impacts of something before something else, that's still consequentialist.

well, the only reason I put pre- in there is because (well his idea) of it being a priori, but I didn't know if people didn't use that, or what...I mean, not that I've been around a lot, but in the dozen-ish rounds I've seen (with ks or t I mean) no one said it. but if that's all I need, okay.

Quote:
willmalson wrote:
Upon first reading/hearing it, what did it strike you as?

i had no idea, but in context of your sentence and the way frameworks usually function, i assumed it meant a priori. why use a different, made-up word that doesn't mean what you want it to mean when one already exists that does?

because it feels so much cooler.'


but really - I guess that can help cut it back too.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
willmalson wrote:
but I feel like I actually know what I'm talking about when I expound upon it in a little paragraph. ; )

there are ways to expound on "fiat is illusory" that actually make sense, like, "we may think we can change or we may pretend we can place our hands on the levers of power to control a governing body but in the end what we are left with is a glamorized game of 'playing house.'"

willmalson wrote:
well, the only reason I put pre- in there is because (well his idea) of it being a priori, but I didn't know if people didn't use that, or what...I mean, not that I've been around a lot, but in the dozen-ish rounds I've seen (with ks or t I mean) no one said it. but if that's all I need, okay.

because it feels so much cooler.'

but really - I guess that can help cut it back too.

as cool as the word "pre-consequentialist" is, i'd probably stick with one that actually exists, oh, maybe just, a priori. :P

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
Thoughts?

FRAMEWORK FILE

A.F/w
1. Language comes first: In debate questions of language come first because discourse is the necessary condition of debate. Rhetoric is primary and absolute; our outlook on reality and what we are thinking will inevitably be revealed in some manner in the language that we use or what we endorse knowingly or unknowingly through our rhetoric.
2. The critique comes first:
a. Fiat is an illusionary construct necessitated from the resolution – we may think we can change a governing body but in the end what we are left with is a glamorized game of “playing house.”
b. The question of ideology is an a priori test of their advocacy – the plan text does not change the world but the language does: therefore we must interrogate the rhetoric found in the PMC from a standpoint that does not evaluate the effects in the physical world but rather what they justify as it relates to people here.
c. Even if they are able to leverage the content of their impacts on a physical level it doesn’t matter because we are questioning the method by which they present those impacts because it is what affects us all in the room: they are unable to weigh those impacts against the impacts of the k.


PMR Overview:
Language is the most important thing in this debate round because that is the only thing we can legitimately take away from it. The gov’t doesn’t change, the world doesn’t change, EXCEPT THROUGH HOW WE VIEW IT, which is why we criticize their rhetoric in the first place. The critique is thus the most important argument in the round and should be looked to FIRST before we even consider the Gov case.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Framework
PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
Nice.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited