One of the biggest fears I had as a novice debater was hitting a case that deviated from the standard Aff or Neg because it often meant my opponent would interpret the resolution in ways I had never considered. Unique resolutional interpretations can be daunting for any debater. That is why learning to navigate through the framework of a debate round is one of the most crucial skills you can develop. 

If you have a decent amount of debate experience, chances are you have already been exposed to “framework debating”; you just haven’t realized it. While there are indirect ways to imply framework throughout a debate round, points of Resolutional Analysis will be the most common way you can establish the framework of a debate. That’s what I want to focus on in this post.

What is Resolutional Analysis?

Let’s kick this off by defining “the framework of a debate.” Framework is simply your understanding of the debate resolution, including the boundaries of that resolution. In other words, it is the lens through which you view the resolution. For instance, if you are having a debate on cats vs dogs, it is implied the conflict in the debate is strictly limited to cats and dogs. It wouldn’t make sense to compare dogs and horses because that is outside the scope of the resolution. The Resolutional Analysis, or RA, allows you and your opponent to understand the debate and its limits clearly. 

Uses of Resolutional Analysis

Now that we have a better understanding of framework debating, let’s look into the different ways these points of analysis can be employed in actual rounds. RA’s have the singular goal of setting the boundaries of the debate, and there are multiple methods you can use. However, I have noticed that all RA’s can be grouped into one of three categories.

1. Conflict Analysis

Conflict analysis is simply a clarification point on the main difference between voting affirmative or negative. This is one of the most troublesome methods because it is easy to interpret the resolution in a way that favors one side over the other. The critical thing to remember is that there is no one correct way to interpret the clash in a debate. A conflict analysis will often attempt to pose a singular question that establishes the conflict in an extreme situation, such as: In most circumstances, these two ideas are not in conflict, so the resolution implies that we debate in an extreme situation where these two ideas contradict each other. This strategy allows a debater to restrict the debate to grounds where their side has a clear advantage.

2. Burdens Analysis

The purpose of a burden analysis is to establish the burden of proof each side must fulfill in order to win. While burden analysis can also require a bit of interpretation, it is less argumentative than conflict analysis. No matter what rhetoric your opponent uses, your burden will always be the same: to prove your side of the resolution. An example of a burden analysis could be the standard “value not replace” argument. The resolution specifies we need only to value one side above the other; therefore, neither debater has to prove their side is true all the time, just more times than not. Remember that a burden analysis will often go two ways. If it applies to one debater, then the other debater must also have an equal burden. Aff isn’t the only side that has a burden to prove. Rather, it is a contest to see who fulfills their burden better.

3. Actor Analysis

While more abstract than Team Policy, Lincoln Douglas debate still requires some real-world application. In order to prove the relevance of the resolution, debaters often bring up “actors” or entities that take action. While this analysis might often seem insignificant, specific actors can actually play a huge role in your overarching understanding of the resolution. For instance, in this year’s resolution, the affirmative might argue that the government is the actor or the one making the arbitrary decision. If you concede this point, that would allow aff to paint a narrative of a government that can take away human rights on a whim. Do you see how that could be dangerous? Such a concession also limits your arguments because now you have to debate within the context of a government making unilateral decisions.

Debating the framework of a case can be complicated. However, ignoring your opponent’s interpretations could lead to an instant defeat. Learning how to argue against the fundamental structure of any case can uplevel even newer debaters to advanced debaters very quickly. Don’t be intimidated. In my next blog article, I will go into more detail on exactly how to defend and contest Resolutional Analysis in the most practical context: a debate round.