Josh Zoffer Harvard University 14 Framework in Public Forum One of the more recent developments in Public Forum Debate

is the appearance of framework as a central part of many rounds. While framework has traditionally been the domain of Lincoln Douglas, many Public Forum debaters have adopted it as a way to frame their rounds and make weighing and comparative analysis easier for themselves. As this trend has become more common, framework has gone from a novel concept to what in many cases, particularly on the national circuit, can be considered a necessity. At all levels, however, framework can serve debaters as a valuable tool to carve out their ground and debate on their terms. From a mechanics perspective, framework is relatively easy it handle. The mantra for any team attempting to run framework should be early and often: explain your framework early, and extend it often. A framework should always be presented at the top of the first constructive, both so that it appears as credible as possible and so that your judge will view the rest of your remarks in light of it. The simplest way to present your framework is as an observation. After stating whether you are affirming or negating, you can immediately introduce your framework by saying we offer the following observation and then reading your framework. This clearly indicates to the judge that you are presenting a framework and allows you to smoothly introduce it before moving to your contentions. From a content perspective, however, framework becomes a bit more difficult. There are three basic types of framework that Public Forum debaters may employ: resolutional analysis, weighing framework, and theory framework. Resolutional analysis is the most straightforward of the three. The goal of this type of framework is to present your interpretation of the resolution at hand and frame the rest of this debate with your interpretation. This type of framework is often useful for defining key terms in a way that benefits your side and for precluding arguments that you find abusive but expect to hear from your opponents. For example, on that February 2009 resolution Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States, a useful framework was one that precluded arguments with future impacts. The phrase has had indicated that to be resolutional, impacts had to have occurred in the past, and so this framework proved useful in precluding many common, nonresolutional impacts. When running resolutional analysis, however, it is very important to make sure that your interpretation is not abusive. While your framework should benefit you, you should also try to ensure that you are creating the fairest debate possible. A good rule of thumb is always to think about whether a judge might easily accept your interpretation or whether they might be skeptical. With these caveats in mind, though, resolutional analysis can prove incredibly useful for putting a debate on your terms starting in the first speech and keeping it there throughout the round. The second major type of framework is a weighing framework. The goal is this type of framework is to establish weighing mechanism for the round at the top

of your case, much like the criterion in Lincoln Douglas Debate. While this type of framework is easy in theory, it can be difficult to come up with a weighing mechanism that fits your entire case, has a good logical grounding, and is not abusive. When thinking about this type of framework, you should keep a few considerations in mind. First, what is the central conflict of the resolution? For example, on the September 2010 resolution, Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States, the central conflict was often between economic impacts on the affirmative and environmental impacts on the negative. A weighing mechanism that gives logical warrants as to why one of these impacts should be preferred over the other often proved very useful in allowing teams to win rounds that might otherwise have been inconclusive. Second, what are the types of evidence that each side might prefer? On the February 2010 resolution, Resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good, the affirmative often preferred a few very impactful anecdotes, while the negative often favored empirical and long-term evidence. A framework that explains why one type of evidence should be preferred over the other was very helpful in guiding judges votes. Finally, what arguments do you think are the most important? If you think you have one contention that you think will trump all the others in your rounds and it has a different impact from many other contention, then it is wise to say so in your framework. Logically justifying why a particular impact matters most before you read the impact will make your weighing look much stronger later in the round. As a result, your ability to win important rounds will be greatly enhanced. Finally, theory framework can also play an important role in many rounds. However, this is often the most difficult type of framework to run. Theory framework entails providing some sort of overarching theory to explain the actions of different agents on a given resolution. For example, theory frameworks can be very useful on international relations topics because they can provide a theory to explain why other countries take the actions they do. On the November 2009 resolution, Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations, an international relations theory framework was very useful for explaining why countries like Russia and China might or might not seek to undermine the hegemony of the United States. While theory frameworks can be very useful, there are two pitfalls that you should always be sure to avoid when running them. First, be sure your theory does not contradict other arguments you will make later. While this might seem obvious, it is very easy to ignore the potential implications of a given theory until a savvy opponent points them out. Second, be sure your theory is believable. Again, this may seem obvious, but there are multitudes of theories championed by respected academics that are just not believable to the average judge. Always remember that you might have a parent judge, and consider what they might and might not believe. These three types of framework, resolutional analysis, weighing framework, and theory framework, will come in useful in many of your rounds. When run carefully and correctly, they will put the judge on your ground from the outset of the round and keep them there until they sign the ballot for you. To learn more about framework and other advanced debate tactics, I encourage all of you to contact the staff of the National Debate Forum debate

institute or attend the institute yourself this summer. We look forward to hearing from you this year and will hopefully see you next summer.