1. Observations By Chanise

2. Observation One Definitions

3. Structure of Definitions State the word from the resolution that you are defining Give a short precise definition (otherwise the judge wont care) Then state source You can also give a description with it. (Example 2) Examples: - Harms: actual or potential ill effects or danger from Oxford Law - Mandate: an authoritative command from Merriam Webster. This term will be used to describe the government requiring citizens to have health insurance.

4. Purpose of Definitions Your case should structure to use these as a benefit. Therefore be cautious about agreeing your opponents definitions You can define things to protect yourself Don’t define something you aren’t going to be debating about- that is a waste of time and you will lose judges attention If you feel as though a definition debate may come up but it is not inevitable, save it for your second speech to bring it up if your opponents challenge you.

5. Observation Two Framework

6. Including into a Framework In Constructive Provide a Weighing Mechanism like a scale Then put it in context of the resolution -Why does the resolution ask someone to prove this? Why to prefer your framework over your opponents Framework should be offensive.

7. Weighing Mechanisms There has to be a scale or a way to weigh your impacts Usually no matter what scale you use it is going to be a cost versus benefit. Sometimes it is called On balance. Every framework must have a weighing mechanism!

8. After there is a scale you must tell the judge what matters most The reason for this is if you get to the end of the round and the judge has two impacts- one of you saves 100 lives and one of you saves 1 trillion dollars, how do they know what to vote on? IT is going to end up leaving it to their personal preference and that is never good. Options for scales: -Quality to life -Lives -Health -Economy -Hard power/soft power Example: Comparing lives v. Quality to life (valuing quality of life over life) Would you rather live your whole life imprisoned being beaten in a cell with no loved ones, no happiness, no freedom, constantly in pain or would you rather die?

9. Having a weighing mechanism does not necessarily exclude other impacts. “Prefer” frameworks are usually the way to go. Make sure that all of your framework has a point to it. – Make it jive with your case Do not make a framework that says lives only and then has a monetary impact – Make it offensive – Do not use some random framework as a preempt to something that you are expecting to come up. That is a waste of time and can just be brought up in the next speech. (not a bad idea to write out answers to other framework though)

10. Structure Examples Resolved: The Benefit of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. Observation two: Framework Aff- On a cost benefit analysis, whoever saves the most amount of American lives should win this round as life is a prerequisite to freedom. Neg- On a cost benefit analysis, whoever provides the most freedom and rights should win this round. Rights increase quality of life and should be valued above life. ??

11. Resolved: The Benefit of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. Observation two: Framework Aff- On a cost benefit analysis, whoever saves the most amount of American lives should win this round as life is a prerequisite to freedom. Neg- On a cost benefit analysis, whoever provides the most freedom and rights should win this round. Rights increase quality of life and should be valued above life. Green: Weighing Mechanism Blue: What to value above another Red: Why this matters and should be preferred. Underlined: Context of the resolution.

12. Context of the Resolution Come up with a framework in context of the resolution. Easy: Resolved: The cost of a college education outweigh the benefits. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system. Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to National security than Iran.

13. Context of the Resolution (cont.) Come up with a framework in context of the resolution. Harder Resolved: The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United states.

14. Philosophical Frameworks These are types of framework that are based in philosophical ideas and tell the judge how to evaluate the round as a whole. They can be both a weighing mechanism and in lieu of a cost benefit analysis Most common types are… – Utilitarian – Deontological

15. How to argue Philosophy Frameworks Read up on philosophy Understand most common uses Understand counter philosophies to most commonly used arguments Ask a lot of questions in cross fire if you do not understand it. (chances are that they don’t either and that will show) Do not call abuse based on your lack of knowledge. It is better to just ask in cross fire how you do not meet the framework and then debate it on those grounds.

16. Ground Rules NEVER accept a framework you know you cant meet. It is better to show that their framework is stupid or doesn’t fit the resolution than it is to accept their framework because you WILL lose the round. Make sure the framework helps your case. Use framework in every speech, describe why you win under your framework and if you can meet your opponents, why you meet under theirs. (put it at the top of your speech)

17. Judge Adaptation Traditional Most traditional judges NEVER want to hear the word framework!! It can cause them to view you as someone trying to change public forum into policy. This DOES NOT mean you need to take it out of your case what it means is that you need to adapt it in a non policy fashion. The best way to do this is by calling it a Resolutional Analysis- this phrase means you are breaking down what the resolution is asking, which is essentially what you are doing. They will accept this much easier than calling it framework. Make cases that you can win on without your framework

18. Judge Adaptation (cont.) Lay These judges arent specifically opposed to framework but the terminology will confuse them as they don’t know what it means. There are two things you can do: 1.Call it a Resolutional analysis. 2.(Disclaimer: This should be used for lay judges who have probably judged several rounds but are not experienced, it will act as a reminder of what it is in case they forgot) Call it framework if that is what you are more comfortable with but then follow it with an explanation statement. Ex: Our framework or in other words the way you as a judge should evaluate the round is…. *Either way* You must explain in each speech your framework thoroughly unless it is not being used in the round. Although I would advocate always sticking to and using your framework, when used right, it will always give the judges an easy way to vote for you.

19. Judge Adaptation (cont.) Progressive Many of these judges love framework as it gives them something to judge off of. IF YOU USE IT RIGHT. They are used to a different type of framework if they are policy judges so you have to show the distinction between pf and policy. General rule, progressive judges want framework and want you to use it throughout the round. They want, what I call, ink on the framework at the top of their flows – I’ll explain this in a second.

20. Ink on Framework -What this means is that teams will always say “Use our framework” “Ours is better” “Throughout our case and theirs we win on framework”- but they never shows specifics therefore judges have to piece it together and will most the time miss what you are wanting them to see. -Therefore put ink on the flow at the top. What this means is you are going to do a couple of things. 1.Show why you should use your framework (we will do more depth on that later) 2.Give four or five reasons from your case and the attacks you put on their case of how you meet the framework, as well as how you meet it BETTER than your opponents. - Right there at the top of the flow the judge already has 5 reasons to vote for you spelled out for them.

21. Debating Framework! (Now this is where the fun starts)

22. Basics Framework makes or breaks rounds. Debating framework is tricky. I would advocate ALWAYS having ink on the top of the flow on framework.

23. Direct Attack There are three reasons why you would contest their framework: 1.You cant meet it 2.You gain more offense from your framework as opposed to theirs 3.Its not what the resolution is asking for If one of those is the case you are going to directly attack their framework. Use logic first as to why it doesn’t meet the resolution is asking. Then tell what yours does that meets the resolution and how that will be better for the round. For example: This allows for us to better evaluate the costs and the benefits based on what the resolution is asking us to debate.

24. Abuse I was once told that a bad debater simply calls abuse, a good debater calls abuse and then also counters the framework but a great debater just debates against it. From that you can see I never advocate a team calling abuse in some circumstances it is necessary to show the judges why you cant meet their framework. There are two circumstances where you call abuse. 1.It doesn’t have anything to do with the resolution to a point where it is impossible to prove. 2.They put so many burdens on you that it is impossible to prove. The best way to deal with abusive frameworks that put too many burdens on you is to force them to have equal burdens as you. If you have to prove everything they advocate then so do they. ALWAYS TRY TO DEBATE FIRST BEFORE CALLING ABUSE EVEN IF IT EXISTS.

25. Accepting Opponents Framework NEVER. NEVER ACCEPT A FRAMEWORK YOU CANT MEET. Always tell the judge to weigh your framework heavier even though you meet theirs, because your framework should be catered to your case. Put ink on BOTH frameworks on the top of flows. You can use evidence to show why they don’t meet their framework- say they have a framework of saving lives and their vaccine saves millions- you can come back with evidence saying it doesn’t actually save lives and tell the judge right there that there is no way they can win if they don’t meet even their own framework.