Framing the Resolution (Part 2)

As noted in my previous blog post, establishing your interpretation of the resolution over your opponent’s can literally win or lose you the round. In this post, I want to go over how you can create a strong framework for your case, which can give you a clear advantage over your opponents. In order to do this, I want to break down this process into 3 different steps.

Step 1: Development

Framework arguments are often going to be the crux of your case because they often 

1) establish the conflict in the resolution and 2) limit the arguments that can be given throughout the debate round. So, when you are starting to write a case, the framework should be the very first thing you think about. Think about it like this: a debate is an extremely broad conversation between two parties, and “technically” you can say whatever you want during the 35-45 minute debate. Now, although one could technically argue about anything, in order to have a fair and educational debate, both sides should stick to arguments that are relevant to the resolution. When you are writing a case, you want to think about what arguments are pertinent to the resolution and how you can set boundaries so that the arguments presented by both sides stay within the confines of those boundaries. Depending on the “type” of resolutional analysis you are running (my previous post goes over 3 common categories), you would obviously have a slightly different approach, but thinking about the whole picture is paramount. If you have a very narrow understanding of the resolution it will be very easy for your opponent to present a stronger, more persuasive framework than you.

Step 2: Implementation

Once you have been able to narrow down the scope of the resolution, you are ready to substantiate your interpretation into an actual argument format. With points of resolutional analysis, just like any other argument you run, you want to break it down into a claim, warrant, and impact. The claim aspect of your analysis should be completely apparent in your tagline. For instance, If you think your opponent’s side of the resolution is too vague and you want to argue that your opponents have a burden to provide a clear brightline, your claim should be tagged just that: “Burden of Brightline”. The warrant or support for your Resolutional Analysis will be greatly enhanced by giving a reason to prefer your interpretation above others that may be given by your opponent. You can do this in numerous different ways, but the key idea is to give the judge a persuasive and legitimate reason to view the resolution a certain way. If you don’t give an explanation as to why we should view the debate a certain way, it leaves room for the judge or your opponent to apply an incorrect or biased framework. The impact should be included to make sure that everyone understands exactly what the result of viewing the resolution a certain way means. Oftentimes debaters will skip this step because they think the implications of their argument are obvious, but by fully fleshing out the impact, you avoid any possible misunderstandings.

A note about impacting your framework arguments: The impact of a resolutional analysis will be fundamentally different from regular arguments because the framework impacts the round as a whole. Let me give you an example. A common resolutional analysis would be the “Government actor,” essentially establishing the government as the entity that should affirm or negate the resolution. The impact of this analysis would simply be that all actions done by entities/bodies of people that are not the government are not topical to the resolution. In this way, you can effectively eliminate vague or abusive arguments from the debate round, and frame the overall debate in a way that allows you to gain an upper hand more easily.

Step 3: Defending your Framework

Your opponents will inevitably try to attack and invalidate your framework, so knowing how to defend and push your argumentation is an absolute necessity. The way I have been able to do this in round is by weighing the warrants of the analysis. You have probably heard of the term “impact calculus,” the strategy where you weigh two conflicting arguments and determine which one is stronger by looking at the probability and magnitude of impacts. Within framework arguments, however, impact calculus doesn’t work. At the core of a resolutional analysis, you are not necessarily arguing that your interpretation is more impactful than your opponent’s but rather that it is a more reasonable and coherent analysis. If you are able to demonstrate that your view on the resolution is more relevant, logical, and consistent than your opponent’s view, you have a huge advantage. As long as the rest of your arguments remain in tandem with your framework, it will be very difficult for your opponent to bounce back. 

Learning to quickly develop, implement, and defend the framework to your debate cases is possibly one of the most important skills in a debate. However, more importantly, this skill is useful in real life. Being able to fully analyze issues that may initially seem difficult gives us the ability to see the bigger picture as a whole, which is valuable in itself.