People have asked me why I think a wide framework is a goodstrategy. I understand their confusion, since preclusive standards have suchobvious strategic merits that may never seem worth sacrificing. I don't think awide framework is always strategic, but its strategic virtues include thefollowing:
1. You can avoid many objections to theories that are entirelyoutcome-based or entirely rule-based. Under a wide framework, you can sometimesjust "no link" these objections, and other times you can just concedethe objections and impact to your standard in the means-based or ends-based waythat the objections permit. If your position's offense includes both kinds ofimpacts, you can win this time tradeoff.
2. Your framework can be both shorter and more difficult toanswer. Shorter, because it takes less time to establish that something isvaluable (e.g., human dignity) than to establish that we must treat that valuein only one specific way (e.g., maximizing it). More difficult to answer, fortwo reasons. First, some of the objections which you can avoid are thestrongest ones. There are more and better objections to the view that we arealways obligated to maximize the sum total of wellbeing in the universe (e.g.,anti-aggregation, repugnant conclusion) than there are to the view thatwellbeing is intrinsically good. Second, you will often have access tobetter arguments for the standard. There are good topic-specific reasons whythe criminal justice system should care about consistency, which do not saythat consistency is the only thing that matters, or thatconsistency is only valuable as a means-based constraintrather than an end.
3. Framework debate on the national circuit today is, by andlarge, pretty bad in a few ways. Let me preface my explanation by saying: it'sreally good in the sense that it's impressive that debatersare familiar with philosophical arguments that they might otherwise notencounter -- although it's unclear how much that's due to reading and research,as opposed to merely recycling. :( But it's bad in that it's often a battle ofcompeting assertions, bastardizations, implausible claims, and lines andarrows. The cards are often read way too fast for someone who's never heardthem to understand them -- a practice which judges shouldn't accept, even ifthey understand the cards after much repetition. The arguments are rarelytailored to the topic, they usually trade off with substantive argumentation,and the weighing debate is often just rhetoric and sophistry. My point is thatyou can please your judges and win their ballots by making plausible frameworkarguments that are germane to the resolution's context, reflect thephilosophical literature more accurately, and return the debate to theresolution's conflict scenario. Even if you don't share these complaints, youshould agree that a lot of judges are reasonably frustrated aboutframework debate in the status quo.
4. Wide frameworks increase your flexibility in the rebuttals.In a plan debate, why have more than one impact scenario? Because you can weighbetween the scenarios and prioritize the advantages in the 1AR. Thesame flexibility comes with wide frameworks. You can weigh between yourcontentions in the rebuttal with philosophical argumentation. Of course, thenegative can start the weighing debate early -- and you can preemptit with weighing arguments in the AC. But that's also true for policyaffirmatives with multiple advantages. This strategy is, in functional terms,no different.
I think the above considerations show that wideframeworks have a strategic place in LD, without giving an illegitimateadvantage to one side.