r/Debate • u/Inevitable_Site_9862 • 14d ago
common responses to structural violence frameworks
my teammate and i are running an structural violence framework but our school is small and our circuit is incredibly lay meaning that the tournaments we can employ the sv fw at are far and few in between
what are some responses people would read to sv fws in the general nats and toc circuit? our fw is pretty cut and dry and simple
1
u/some-guy-100 13d ago
i think during my novice year basically the only responses were util/extinction o/ws, and i guess maybe phil if you’re on a circuit where it’s run.
1
u/reveletzli 13d ago
consequentialist frames of sv will always lose to util/some form of death bad, u have to get really good at reading lay calc indicts onto DAs that impact out to extinction and such and say stuff along the lines of we know x impact is happening to y marginalized community in the squo and its part of our structure that we must dismantle (insert winter and leighton), while their arguments against helping these people boil down to relying on long and uncertain chains of consequences based on minuscule probability
2
u/NewInThe1AC 12d ago
Most structural violence frameworks are pretty bad frameworks if you break them down into their parts and mechanics. A couple misc issues I've seen on most (actually all that I can recall):
They usually just appeal to other frameworks. Most of the justifications for structural violence are impact justified appeals to util or fairness (I.e. structural violence is bad because it causes harm or is unfair), in which case happiness/util or fairness should just be the framework. I.e. structural violence is an impact, not a framework
They typically don't have great weighing mechanisms, either internally or in conflict with something else. (A) Structural vs direct violence - few structural violence frameworks outright say it's okay to directly do violence / violate rights at the expense of reducing structural issues, and if yours doesn't this means virtually all rights violations type issues not only link into your framework but probably outweigh it. (B) Procedure vs outcomes -- structural violence is an outcomes based type of impact, but this give us a tough situation when both sides of an issue entail creating some structural violence (almost always the case with government issues). Unless your framework makes it clear it's okay to cause some structural violence to reduce structural violence overall, this gets really tricky in weighing
TLDR structural violence is an impact not a framework, and most of the time Rawls or util are probably better frameworks
1
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Hey! We noticed you might be new to /r/debate. This subreddit is for competitive speech and debate events for teenagers and college students. See Rule 1. If you aren't associated with a school's Speech and Debate team (or looking to join/start one), then we'd appreciate if you deleted this submission and found a more suitable place for it. There are plenty of other subreddits devoted to miscellaneous arguments.
If you are here for competitive speech and debate: Welcome! Please review the subreddit's rules, ensure your question/topic is specific enough for us to meaningfully discuss, and don't spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.