By: Samantha Hom
For debaters looking to improve their framework skills(especially for younger debaters), figuring out how to begin can be a dauntingprocess. Delving into the world of philosophy is one of the most interestingparts of debate, and for some, also one of the most intimidating. However, eventhough a crucial part of becoming a good framework debater is becoming decentlyversed in the canon of LD philosophy, developing good technical skills on the framework level isequally as important. Framework tech skills can be divided up into two maincomponents – tech skills in terms of framework construction, and tech skills interms of framework interaction (i.e. literal framework debate when you leverageyour own framework against your opponent’s). This article will focus onframework construction, and a few of the essential things to do to improve yourframework on a technical level. And although there are many more things you cando (and should be doing) besides the things I’m about to list, here are a fewtips to get you started:
1. The framework is a syllogism…
When trying to transition to varsity, a problem that a lot ofyounger debaters have is that they don’t realize that the framework functionsas a logical syllogism. Many debaters get too caught up in the value/valuecriterion model – when constructing a framework, the approach a lot of youngerdebaters take is to find a value and value criterion that “work” with eachother, and then come up with justifications for why their chosen valuecriterion is “good”. There are a few reasons why constructing a framework inthis matter is problematic.
First, is that many ethical theories don’t really fit neatlyinto this model. While it is possible to derive a value/value criterion from aparticular ethical theory, often times the form of an ethical theory is muchmore complex than that, and forcing it into a value/value criterion becomes anoversimplification. Second, debaters who follow this method of constructiontend to fall victim to making their criterion justifications impact justified.For those of you who may be more unfamiliar with this concept, when a criterionis “impact justified”, you justify your criterion by saying it leads to someother good impact. The problem with justifying a criterion this way is that it lacks a justification for whythe impact it leads to is actually good. An example of this: “My valuecriterion is adherence to democratic principles. Prefer this criterion becausesocieties that adhere to democratic principles tend to flourish more and havebetter societal welfare”. This doesn’t actually explain why it is true that we should adhere to democraticprinciples. All this says is that adhering to democratic principles leads tosocietal welfare, but this would only matter if you prove why societal welfarematters/why we care about it, which requires further justification.
So, instead of doing that, remember that the framework is alogical syllogism and construct it as such. Instead of just picking a value andvalue criterion and coming up with artificial reasons as to why your criterionis good, construct (and view) the framework as a logical syllogism thatterminates in the truth of your standard – Premise A leads to B leads to Cleads to D. Thus the standard is D. If you approach framework construction inthis way, you’ll be proving why your standard (i.e. your value criterion) is true, rather than why it is“good” in terms of something else (therefore avoiding the problems of impactjustifying your standard).
2. …but still give yourself outs
Even though you should be constructing your frameworksyllogistically, the danger to onlyjustifying your standard via the syllogism of the rest of the framework, isthat it’s possible you could lose the framework debate if one (key) part of thesyllogism is taken out by your opponent. Thus, when constructing a framework,in addition to having your ethical syllogism, you should also have independent justificationsfor the standard. An independent justification for your standard is ajustification for it that doesn’t rely on you winning the mainsyllogism. Independent justifications come in many forms. So, when putting yourframework together, have a syllogism, but give yourself outs in the form ofindependent justifications, so that you have more than one way to win yourframework. The idea is that you want to have lots of different types ofjustifications for your framework, while also telling a coherent story.
3. Know thy framework
This seems simple. This seems obvious. And yet there are so manytimes when debaters struggle to coherently explain their own frameworks.Knowing your framework entails a few things – (1) Understanding the content of eachof the individual arguments in your framework. The easiest way to do this is tomake sure you actually have read and have decent comprehension of thephilosophy you’re utilizing. If a card doesn’t seem to make sense by itself,read through the article it came from for context. However, if you’re stillconfused about something you’ve read or carded, don’t ignore it – seek out thehelp of more experienced national circuit debaters (who are known for beinggood at framework) to see if they can help you understand it. (2) Understandinghow those individual arguments function strategically for you in the round.With each argument in your framework, try to isolate the purpose(s) it has. Isit a crucial link in the syllogism of your framework that you need to win? Doesit create a higher layer in the framework/set up a condition that yournormative standard has to meet? Does this prove why your normative standardmeets some sort of condition previously set up? Is this an independentjustification for the standard? Does it explain how your standard solves forsome problem? Etc. (3) Understanding how those arguments interact with eachother to form a coherent framework story. Meaning, that if someone asks youwhat your framework says, you shouldn’t have to go through every individualargument to answer their question, you should be able to give the generalthesis of it/summarize it in a sense. (4) Understanding what links into yourframework and what doesn’t – i.e. to give a very basic example, if you read adeont framework, you’d better make sure you understand why util impacts don’tlink (more on this later). (5) Understanding how your framework arguments (bothholistically and individually) could interact with other frameworks, and (6)Understanding how to explainit in round. Explaining your framework in round doesn’t mean rereading itfrom your case. It means that you know your framework in and out, and feelcomfortable explaining it in your own words. Although there are judges that areextremely well versed in philosophy, and will be fine with you using the samerhetoric as your authors, not all judges are the same. Some who are less fondof philosophy would probably appreciate it if you can break down a complexframework into easier to understand terms. This is particularly important ifyou’re reading a less common framework – even the most well versed judge canhave trouble following a framework read at top speed if they’ve never heard ofit before. This doesn’t mean to dumb down your framework – writing complexframeworks is good – but if you do, just make sure you know how to explain itin such a way that it doesn’t seem quite so complex. You’ll be doing yourself(and your judge) a favor. KNOW YOUR FRAMEWORK, and know how to explain it inround.
To be continued…