Framework Debates
How to argue about what the judge should evaluate — the clash between traditional policy frameworks and critical approaches.
What Framework Arguments Do
Framework arguments define the judge's role and the criteria for winning the debate. In their most basic form, they answer the question: what should the judge vote on? A policymaking framework asks the judge to evaluate the costs and benefits of competing policy options and vote for the team whose world produces better outcomes. A critical framework might ask the judge to evaluate the methodology, epistemology, or ethical commitments of each team's arguments.
Framework becomes contested most sharply when one team runs a traditional policy case and the other runs a kritik or performance argument. The traditional team argues the judge should require a topical plan and evaluate on policy outcomes. The critical team argues the judge should evaluate the round on different terms — perhaps which team's approach better addresses structural violence, or which methodology produces more ethical knowledge.
Framework debates are often the most important part of the round because they determine which arguments even count. If the negative wins a policymaking framework, the affirmative's performance may be rendered irrelevant. If the affirmative wins a critical framework, the negative's disadvantages may be dismissed as complicit in the systems being critiqued.