Dissonance, framework, and calendars.

“You can’t outsmart the test, you can only be smarter than the test” – George Rimakis

Policy debate affirmatives have five main parts:

  1. Inherency, or why finding and implementing your solution matters
  2. The plan, which is what the affirmative proposes to fill a set resolution
  3. Harms, or downsides to your plan and why the benefits outweigh the negatives
  4. Solvency, which is how your plan will solve the problem and who can corroborate your reasoning
  5. Framework, which is how models of debate should work.
For example, suppose the issue is climate change, to which you propose running every AC in the world on max power as a solution. In that case a disadvantage argument would be that the fossil fuels consumed to power each AC would outpace any potential cooling benefit expediting extinction instead of averting it. The important component is that the world is actively left worse off than if nothing was done at all.

An adjacent argument can be made for using rhetoric that contradicts its meaning/impact, such as by asking a series of questions about how good it would be if nobody ever asked questions again. Remember, there are no rules in policy debate, only timers. METAs (most effective tactics available, or what people logically gravitate to in order to win consistently) can however still form based on ballots, or how judges tend to vote. Thus, while a ballot doesn't have a real world impact in policy (as the debate structure is supposed to follow), it does have an impact on the types of arguments and rhetoric people run, which leads to the norms of that debate circuit.

This is what drives the heart of framework, integrating philosophy and rhetorical analysis into policy debate.

While the affirmative team always needs to pick something to advocate for with the benefits and impacts already calculated, the negative team gets unlimited flexibility to run as many arguments as they want to refute the AFF, as even if it works 95% of the time, you might not take the chance if 5% of the time the AFF causes global extinction. While the negative can argue the AFF is a bad idea alone, e.g., doing nothing is better than doing something, the negative can also argue for disadvantages (unintended negative consequences), or counterplans (alternative plans that solve the problem better than the base plan).

Now that you have an idea of how debate works, I’ll share one of the most out-of-pocket disadvantage arguments I’ve heard regarding date formats. Do you write your dates out in the MM/DD/YYYY format? According to the Gregorian dates disadvantage, that is a reason to vote against you.

In a nutshell, the Gregorian date format was created using a different base than other calendars, creating a division in formats. The Romans would then use it as a form of cultural hegemony to prove their supremacy, deeming other calendar formats inferior and demanding adoption of the new system. The Gregorian Calendar DA argues that you are perpetuating their displacement of other cultures by continuing to use their format without question.

The irony?

When making arguments about cultural hegemony, it’s important to counter them with diffusion/addition arguments that cultures can add to one’s overall experience rather than necessarily conflicting with each other.

By saying your voice should be removed from the debate tournament because of the date format you're using, the opposing team is exercising exclusion the same way the Romans did, turning the disadvantage.

Link them on Framework, and it looks like they can’t kick the argument anymore. The ballot is yours.

Exclusion as a form of cultural hegemony is not solved by omitting anyone who uses fragments of that culture, but rather by inclusivity and creating spaces where cultures can diffuse and build on each other instead of competing.
“me when I’m in a debate about calendars and my opponent whips out the Roman empire” - Athena
Cognitive dissonance can cost you more than just a ballot, so take some time to reflect on what matters to you, what you’re doing to support that, and, more importantly, what you may be unconsciously doing, which furthers the opposite.


If you would like to learn more about debate, my notes are available here.

Back to articles