# Framework Weighing Ways to Weigh Magnitude The severity

• Slides: 14
Download presentation

Framework & Weighing

Ways to Weigh ● ● Magnitude: The severity of the impact Scope: The number affected Timeframe: ○ The time it takes for an impact to occur ○ The time/order needed to act ○ How long an impact can occur (short term/long term) Probability: ○ How likely something is to occur ○ The validity of an argument/probability of it being true

Metrics to Weigh ● ● ● Prerequisite ○ My argument is necessary before your argument Reversibility ○ My argument can not be reversed/ the damage cannot be undone Root Cause ○ My argument solves the root of your argument Urgency ○ My argument happens right now, your argument can wait Stronger Link ○ My argument has one link, your argument requires multiple links to work Obligation ○ My argument aligns with legal/moral obligations

Weighing with Evidence ● ● ● ● ● Recent Topical Empirical Quantitative Comparative Long term vs short term Conclusive Large scope Unbiased/legitimacy Meta-Analysis

When Should I Weigh? ● ● ALWAYS Weighing can be fit into every speech ○ ○ ○ The earlier you weigh, the ‘cleaner’ the round is for the judge--many teams don’t begin explicitly weighing until Final Focus Weighing in Summary is especially important…. . . and if you can weigh in rebuttal (think second rebuttal especially, but first rebuttal is even better), you’re really doing well

Comparative Weighing ● There is a distinction between just weighing your own arguments, and doing the comparative worlds analysis ○ What does this mean? ● Comparative Worlds: Contextualizing your impacts ○ This is the best way to weigh

Fallacies Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C, . . . , X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Circular Argument/Reasoning: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it.

Framework ● ● The lens by which the judge should evaluate the round What type of impacts or arguments should the judge look to/care about first? Giving yourself a strategic advantage: set up the round’s priorities in your favor Your framework needs a warrant ○ ○ ● ● Why we should buy your framework What is the justification? Not just a definition Strategic way to frame and view the round

Types of Framework ● Burdens (The affirmative must prove…) ● Argument Weighing (Cost-benefit analysis) ● Round Contextualization (Utilitarianism, deontology)

Burdens ● ● ● These are things that they need to prove in order to begin debating in the round. ○ Ex: Our opponents must prove not only that we morally should, but also that we feasibly could. It very well can/should restrict your opponents’ options Do not burden yourself. Don’t make the burden only defense Give yourself goals, but don’t limit the ways you could win

Argument Weighing ● ● Frame the debate to from as soon as possible so that the framework makes judges prefer your arguments from the beginning. ○ Give justifications as to why your impacts are preferable for the round Ex: Helping the economy is the most important in this round because a healthy economy is necessary for a strong, stable government.

Round Contextualization ● ● How the round should technically go and how the judge can vote What common metric should both teams use to evaluate the round Cost-Benefit-Analysis versus Comparative Worlds ○ CBA = Default Which perspective to look at ○ Ex: US or China ○ Utilitarian vs. Deontological

How to Respond to Framework ● ● Is it worth responding to? ○ Does it hurt you? ○ Does it help you? How to respond: ○ Does it have proper justifications? ○ Does it limit the debate? ○ Alternative analysis/framework

When is Framework Abusive? When it. . . ● ● ● Reduces the odds of winning substantially Fails to provide a reasonable justification Limits the scope of the debate (or the clearly intended debate of the resolution) Creates an unfair advantage or disadvantage Impossible to prove, or disprove.