← Back to Blog

Framing Framework Debates: Work Smart, Not Hard

By Christian Chessman

Public Forum Debate topics typically last only one month to ensure topics remain timely and to expose debaters to a broad swath of current events. In 2013, the National Speech and Debate Association modified the Public Forum topic schedule slightly, and extended the first topic length from one month (September) to two months (September and October). Their public rationale included, among other reasons, the assertion that extending the length of the first topic could help introduce novice debaters to the concepts, skills, and practices underlying effective Public Forum Debate without worrying about the need to cut new evidence contemporaneously. In that vein, the September/October topic presents an important opportunity for introducing novice debaters to the conventions that underlie Public Forum Debate.

The 2014 September/October topic is especially well suited to introduce novice debaters to the concept of "framework". For debaters who are young – or young at heart – the term "framework" refers to the series of criteria offered to the judge for evaluating and prioritizing otherwise-irreconcilable argument impacts. For example, the affirmative literature on the topic discusses "civic pride" – an abstract, personalized concept – as an advantage. The negative literature simultaneously discusses "economic harm" – a concrete, generalized concept – as a disadvantage. When these two arguments clash, they offer little common ground for evaluation. If both the "civic pride" and "economic harm" arguments are true, which argument is more important? Who wins? A "framework" attempts to answer that question by offering the judge a method explaining how to evaluate the round. On the 2014 September/October topic – because of the disparate types of impact on each side of the debate – winning the framework debate is perhaps the most effective way to win rounds.

Why framework?

The core empiricalⁱ facts on this topic are largely uncontested and roughly divisible into two categories of impact: quantitative and qualitative. The central quantitative discussion spurred by the resolution regards economic growth, spending, and loss. Though certain outlier studies find that public subsidies benefit economic growth, the overwhelming consensus of social and political scientists who study the issue is that subsidies are net-harmful economicallyⁱⁱ. Conversely, the central qualitative discussion is subject to similar overwhelming consensus: sports organizations overwhelmingly increase aggregate and individual levels of public happiness, public pride, and public unityⁱⁱⁱ. Though affirmative debaters may choose to argue quantitative impacts, and negative debaters may choose to argue qualitative impacts, both choices likely resemble – in the words of Wesley Snipes – "[people] always trying to ice skate uphill"; possible, but unnecessarily difficult and dangerous. Counter-intuitive arguments (to put complex arguments simply: affirmative "spending is actually saving" and negative "people do not likes sports" arguments) are less likely to resonate with judges, and less likely to win ballots.

Debaters – much like the public policy advocates who discuss this issue – must turn to framework discussions to control the nexus of the debate.

Winning Frameworks Generally

Debaters who are making framework arguments are fundamentally engaging in a meta-discussion; a debate about debate. Affirmatives and negatives should not shy from that fact, but rather explicitly front it: it may be valuable to start framework discussions with the sentence, "judge, you have a choice to prioritize X impact or Y impact and we'll tell you why X is most important". Being explicit about the nature of the arguments in play will lead to less confusion (for both your judge and opponent), and diminishes the uncertainty and unpredictability involved in making framework arguments. Though explicit explanation helps reduce the unpredictability of judge responses to any argument, such explanation is especially important in cases where the argument is complicated. There is also little disadvantage to an explicit caveat, because it takes nearly no time to articulate.

Once the judge is aware of the nature of the arguments, there are two routes that debaters can take to win a framework discussion. First, debaters can argue that their framework is normatively preferable. These arguments encompass any assertion which justifies their particular framework; for example, "the loss of human life has higher moral significance than financial loss" is a normative justification for prioritizing death impacts over economic impacts.

The second way debaters can win a framework discussion is to argue that their framework encompasses the framework of the opponent of their opponent and is therefore superior. For example, negative debaters could argue that economic arguments outweigh affirmative arguments whose terminal impact is happiness (such as "civic pride") because basic financial security is a necessary pre-requisite to luxury good happiness. In that sense, a cross-pollination argument attempts to find common ground between competing frameworks, and then asserts that the common ground supports one particular side.

Even imperfect access to an impact may be sufficient to win. In other words, even if the affirmative creates higher levels of happiness, the fact that the negative creates some level of happiness and an independent benefit is sufficient to award them a ballot. These argument can be deployed with whatever level of complexity the debaters feel appropriate for the round, including arguments as simple as a negative argument that "the affirmative framework only accesses social goods while the negative framework accesses social goods and economic goods, and is therefore superior".

Cross-Pollinating

The quantitative and qualitative impact frameworks are not without some level of overlap, despite substantial differences. This section will outline several literature areas which might facilitate "cross-pollination" style arguments.

Cross-Pollinating on the Affirmative

1. "Social Capital": This is a conceptual tool designed by economists to analyze the economic impact associated with various as intangible emotional states such as happiness, community loyalty, and community investment. Economists have analyzed the effect that each has on economic growth, and found a measurable relationship between increased indicators of social welfare and increased growth. For example, "happier" people are typically more productive at work, and people who are "invested" in their community are more likely to spend money locally. A brief literature review on the subject of social capital is available here^iv
2. "Psychic income": This concept attempts to define indicators which measure individual happiness and quality of life, and then attempts to statistically relate those indicators to the presence of professional sports organizations. This gives affirmative debaters inroads into quantitative, statistical assertions by showing the precise increase in social goods resulting from public spending. One such academic analysis is available here

Cross-Pollinating on the Negative

While many negative articles will discuss economic loss in abstract or impersonal terms ("each stadium costs taxpayers 250 million dollars"), negative debaters should capitalize on the opportunity to generate a powerful and persuasive affect by personalizing economic losses. Substantial negative literature discusses the deleterious effects on local communities caused by stadium construction; homelessness, wage depression, job loss, and more.

The negative should leverage these abstract facts into a concrete narrative about the ills of poverty. Perhaps the most powerful negative argument is that poverty controls individual quality of life. Debaters should exit the sports-specific literature to examine the vast, diverse, and powerful ways in which the mere stress of living in poverty can literally kill, how it destroys educational retention and even subjects children to a slow and merciless starvation. Debaters have the ability to tell powerful narratives about the effect of poverty on human life and quality of life, and should take the opportunity to do so both for normative and strategic reasons. Affirmative debaters will be hard pressed to show how the happiness from abstract "civic pride" outweighs the misery of helplessly watching your children starve to death.

Conclusion

Framework is an essential element of any debate, whether competitive, professional, or even legal. Framework arguments determine the scope and parameters of relevant information, and help judges sort competing, otherwise-irreconcilable value systems. In that sense, framework is strategic because it minimizes the inherent unpredictability of judge argument reception by requiring fewer logical leaps to accept an argument. On a topic like the 2014 Sports topic, where impacts are both disparate by type and by normative evaluative system, framework debates will inevitably play a central role in distinguishing champion debaters.

Notes & Citations

[i] The term "empirical" refers to any evidence based on experience and perception. Debaters often misuse the term "empirical" by incorrectly conflating it with the term "statistical", which refers to the mathematical analysis of operationalized data points. Examples of non-statistical though still empirical research and evidence include: direct observation, anecdotes, case studies, structured and unstructured interviews, and concept modeling.

[ii] Coates, Dennis and Brad Humphreys. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events?" International Association of Sports Economists. August 2008. http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/CoatesHumphreys_LitReview.pdf

[iii] Owen, Jeffrey. "The Intangible Benefits of Sports Teams". Public Finance and Management. Vol. 6. Iss. 3. pp. 321-345, 321. 2006. http://www.cas.unt.edu/~jhauge/Teaching/Sports/Owen.pdf

[iv] Note: this link lists academic sources discussing social capital. Do not cite the information contained in the link itself, but rather use it to find academic articles which merit citation in debate rounds.

---