FrameworkSCFI 2011

SJK

Lecture ObjectivesO Understand the nature of a

resolution and its various components.

O Understand the nature of truth and the way in which we prove things true and false

O Discover the purposes of frameworkO Learn to construct a framework

based on the nature of truth and valuation

O Learn to debate and answer framework

What is a resolution?O A statement that will be proven

true or false in the course of the debate round

Types of ResolutionsO Positive

O “In the United States, juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.”

O NegativeO “Economic sanctions ought not be used to

achieve foreign policy objectives.”O Choice

O “When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over it’s national interest.”

Components of a ResolutionIn the United States

juveniles charged with violent felonies

ought to be

treated as adults

in the criminal justice system

Qualifying mechanisms

Subject

Evaluative mechanism

Defining the Components of a Resolution

O SubjectO Just like it sounds; the subject of the

resolution – what you are debating aboutO Qualifying Mechanism

O Sets the parameters of the roundO Example: the juvenile crime topic, without

“In the United States,” the topic would be much broader to include any nation

O Another example: “When forced to choose” in the human rights/national interest topic

Defining the Components of a Resolution

O Evaluative MechanismO The MOST IMPORTANT part of any

resolution – it is the means by which you prove the resolution true or false

O Common evaluative mechanismsO OughtO Just/Justify

Our camp topic…O What is the subject?

O Targeted killingO The qualifying mechanism?

O Foreign policy toolO The evaluative mechanism?

O Morally permissible

The Nature of TruthO What is truth?

O How do we prove a statement true or false?

How do we prove a statement true?

O Example: “People ought not kill others”O How can we prove this statement true

or false?

So, what exactly IS framework?

O Means of “framing” the resolutionO Agent specificationO DefinitionsO Resolution AnalysisO Parameters

O Means of defining status of relevant pre-fiat implications (will discuss later)

O Means of meeting evaluative mechanismO Creating a lens through which to view

arguments and weigh their implications

Defining the Value Premise

O What is a value?O Values probably aren’t what you think they are

O Just something valuable?O How to we judge which value is more important?O How do we know which value indicates truth in a

resolution?O Intrinsic links to evaluative mechanism

O If something else is valuable, how does that prove something true?

O Why is one value more important?O VPs MUST link to eval mech. Otherwise your

constructive does not affirm or you have to take unnecessary steps. I’m warning you, it’s usually the former.

Defining the Value PremiseO Every resolution has a handful of IMPLIED value premises

O What values are implied by “ought”?O MoralityO DesirabilityO Fulfilling Obligations

O What about “justified”?O “But Steve! My coach taught me differently and I don’t like

these values! Can I use values that aren’t these?”O You can but you shouldn’t, because it just makes you take an

extra step. It’s like making a plane connection. If your destination is St. George but you choose to fly through another airport first when the direct flight was cheaper, it’s just unnecessary extra steps. You still have to get to St. George somehow.

O Often, when people pick different VPs, they never get to St. George

Finding a ThesisO When you get a new topic:

O Research!O Brainstorm!O Create a list of arguments, both aff and

neg, that you could formulate into casesO What are the implications? Why do these

reasons matter?O Deontological?O Utilitarian?O Both?

O Multiple implications?

Defining the StandardO What is the implication of your

constructive?O How can this implication be

formulated into a standard for evaluation?

O You can usually formulate any implication into a standard; there is literature for almost everything

Defining the StandardO What is a standard?

O Means of testing achievement of the value premiseO Types of standards

O NecessaryO Sufficient

O A standard MUST contain a verb! Otherwise how are you measuring achievement of the value premise?O An abstract theory is NOT a standard

O “How do you know Steve won that race?”“Locke’s social contract.”

O “How do you know that debate is awesome?”“Categorical Imperative”

Selecting a StandardO Find the implications of your contentions

O Examples:O Deontological

O Violates rights – Protection of RightsO Violates Constitution – Maintaining the ConstitutionO Dehumanizes – Minimizing DehumanizationO Treats people as means to an end – Treating people

as endsO Utilitarian

O Causes Terrorism – Maximizing net benefitsO Causes War – Protection of lifeO Environment harms – Maximizing net benefitsO Nuclear war – etc. O Genocide – etc.

Selecting a StandardO Decide why these implications violate the

VALUE PREMISEO Examples

O Nuke war kills people, in order to be moral the government must not kill innocent people, thus you affirm/negate

O Targeted killing treats people as a means to an end, treating people as a means to an end is immoral, thus you affirm/negate

O Find literature that warrants and defends the standard and links it to the VP

So, Constructing a Case:

O Start by determining the implied value premise in the evaluative mechanism

O Figure out what your thesis will beO Structure your points into contentions and

subpointsO Determine the implications of the contentions

O Find a standard that provides the bridge between the implications of your thesis and the implied Value Premise, and card some literature that provides you with the warrants for this link

Debating FrameworkO Winning a round depends almost

exclusively on knowing framework!O Best strategy: win BOTH frameworks

O Link turns: I achieve opponent’s framework betterO “Even if you don’t buy that…”

O Outweighing on strength of link: I have a stronger link and thus better risk of offense to my opponent’s standard

Debating FrameworkO Other strategies

O De-linking framework from the EMO Challenging value premise’s linkO Challenging evidence connecting the VP and the

VCO Challenging meta-ethical underpinnings of the

F/WO My framework is better because…

O Better evidence/Strength of link to VP and EMO Theory

O My opponent’s framework sucks because…O Bad implicationsO Bad evidenceO Bad judging standardO Theory

Other Purposes of Framework

O Agent specificationO Is there a specific actor working in the

resolution?O Government?

O Federal/National?O Government in general?

O Are we policy makers? Observers?O Are we fiating a change in the status

quo?

Other Purposes of Framework

O DefinitionsO Clears up any small ambiguities in the text

of the resolutionO AMBIGUOUS or NEEDED terms ONLY!!

O We all know what the United States is…O Resolution Analysis

O Usually related to the qualifying mechanism

O Narrows parameters of resolution and avoids confusion, expands or limits ground

Other Purposes of Framework

O ParametricizationO Narrows topic to one specific instance (usually)

O “Moses ought to buy a red car” still affirms the resolution “Moses ought to buy a colored car.”

O Other examples: O On the nuke weapons topic, many isolated certain

nations that ought not possess nukes.O On the sanctions topic, certain countries and

sanctions policies were isolated.O Sometimes, some logical jumps are required to

parametricize, so how do we resolve some of the logical discrepancies?

O Theoretical justifications