Instigator / Pro

Resolved: One should commit to a framework.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

I recommend you watch this 14-minute Youtube video. It's an art piece about this topic, but it does best explain what I mean when I say framework.

One is to describe a hypothetical person.

Pro (me) will defend that committing to a framework is desirable. Con (you) can defend that frameworks are bad, or competitive advocacy, or a Kritik. Have fun with it.

Feel free to comment with questions for me to understand more if it's not clear. I will say that my recent debate with Lemming made me want to discuss this.

Round 1
Thank you Megan for accepting this debate. I will establish how voters should evaluate the round (feel free to contest these) and the Pro case. 

1. Evaluate what is best for the individual before anything else for two reasons.
A. The resolution says One should commit to a framework. This means that the resolution is asking what is best for the individual and not any other level of organization. This means any other argumentation wouldn’t answer the resolution.
B. If every individual is perfect, then society will be perfect. This means that, even if in the short term there is societal issues, personal development will always be better for society in the long term. 

2. Argumentation about specific frameworks being bad or good are irrelevant. Unless Con wants to prove that every framework is bad, then there is always a good one to counter the bad ones. Also, the bad practices of an individual framework can still be done, meaning the negative qualities are not unique to the framework itself.
A. Also, frameworks change over time. This means that practicing being committed to a framework, even if it is to a bad framework, is better for when you have a good framework, than to be unable to commit to a framework. 

3.Finally, what is a framework. A framework could be defined as a “way of being”, worldview, or can be described as philosophies, ideologies, religions, etc. It is possible to have multiple frameworks (like being a determinist and a communist, or being a Buddhist and a neoconservative), and these layers can interact in a multitude of ways. 

Contention 1: Ethical Commitment
If there is a way to engage in ethics that is deemed as good by someone, then the only excuse they have not to follow it is their own personal desires. For example, if someone believes that utilitarianism is the best, but only uses it sometimes, then the times they aren’t using it is when they want to act immorally for personal benefit. This means that, regardless of what the ethical framework is, only by committing can you reach full moral development. Even if the framework is “bad”, cross apply voter 2A. 

Contention 2: Academic Progress
1. Discussion and deliberation is the best way to engage in knowledge production. Two reasons.
A. Dialectics are a good model of knowledge production. Someone posits a thesis, this is combatted with an antithesis, and the ideas are formed into a synthesis. This is where two frameworks are put against one another, and a new framework is developed or one of the originals prevails stronger than before.
B. Best way to evaluate ideas as it isn’t the idea happening in a vacuum, but sees it challenged and forces a justification, not only in a vacuum, but against other justified positions. 

2. Since discussion and deliberation is the best way to engage in knowledge production, then it follows that this can only happen if people have a framework to engage from. If someone attempts to engage in the discussion without a framework, then they will do nothing to create a better understanding because they are not establishing the thesis or antithesis. This makes the discussion useless and us unable to learn anything. 

Contention3: Social Foundations

2. This epidemic can be solved by committing to frameworks. This happens because a framework gives you an ability to engage in a social space of people who have the same shared framework as you. These look like churches, political parties, academic spaces, etc. and give you a place that you can engage with others and work towards a common goal. 

Contention 4: Identity
1. Labeling theory is a sociological theory that says when people are given a label, they are more likely to act in regard to that label. This means that identities can be ascribed onto someone by others. We see this used to explain why those who are labeled troublemakers or criminals engage in more troublemaking or crime.  

2. The only way to fight back against this is to create an internal identity that can be committed to. Even if this doesn’t work perfectly, this allows for one to construct their own choices and actions instead of simply doing what they are constructed to do. This is important to extend agency in one’s life.
Round 2
Round 3
Sorry for the previous round forfeit, however, due to my opponent's forfeits, I'm not that worried about it's effect on the round.

Extend that you should evaluate individualism first.

Extend that individual frameworks good/bad are irrelevant.

Extend that a framework is a worldview.

Extend contention 1 that shows it's better for personal ethics.

Extend contention 2 that shows it's better for academic progress.

Extend contention 3 that shows it's better for creating community.

Extend contention 4 that shows it's better for self identity.

All four are independent reasons you could  vote Pro that are conceded.
Round 4
Extend everything. They forfeited. This will probably be a trend for the debate.
Round 5
Extend the debate. My opponent has only forfeited.