Framework

​

Framework is the foundation of a debate. Before arguing, the two teams must agree on the guidelines that establish the groundwork of a debate. The first proposition speaker must clearly set the framework at the start of their speech (after the hook and roadmap); a failure to do so allows the first opposition speaker to set the framework, which is to the disadvantage of the proposition. Each side should try to set a framework that works to its advantage. Although the judge should default to the proposition team’s framework, if the opposition successfully argues that the proposition’s framework is unfair/abusive, the judge can instead use the opposition's framework. Framework includes the following aspects:

​

1. Definitions: Provide the definitions for any key terms that appear in the topic. Do not define every term that could come up in the round; instead, clarify the meaning of the motion itself by clearly defining terms that may be ambiguous. To preempt the other team from objecting, you should use a source for your definitions.

2. Limits: If applicable to the topic, limit the debate to a certain geographical region or facet of the issue. Limits must be reasonable and help make a fair, educational debate.

3. Plans/Counterplans: For policy topics, you need to clearly describe how you will implement the topic. The proposition must provide a plan, and the opposition team can either present a counterplan or advocate for the status quo. Plans and counterplans need the following:

   1. Agent: Who/what is implementing the policy?

   2. Mechanism: How is the agent implementing the policy?

   3. Timeframe: When will the policy be implemented?

   4. Funding: How will the policy be funded?

   5. Any other specifics.

4. Burdens/Roles of the Ballot/Weighing Mechanisms: To narrow the focus of the debate, you can tell the judge a specific criterion that they should base their decision on. For example, in a debate about Supreme Court reform, you could argue that the judge should vote for whichever side best preserves the integrity of the Supreme Court. The weighing mechanism that you present can benefit your team but cannot be clearly unfair. You need to provide a justification for your burden.

 

In the event of a dispute over framework, try to resolve it as quickly as possible since framework debates are annoying and uninteresting. To argue in favor of your framework interpretation, you should explain why it is reasonable and allows for a more fair and educational debate.

 

Here are a few more considerations about plans and counterplans:

1. Both teams have what’s called fiat power: the debate assumes that any policy proposed would occur, so you can’t simply argue that a policy—a constitutional amendment, for example—would not happen.

2. If the proposition has an aspect of the plan that is extratopical, meaning that it is not necessary to satisfy the motion, the opposition can permute, which means that the opposition states that they will also implement the extratopical portion of the plan.

3. Generally, the opposition’s counterplan should be mutually exclusive with the proposition’s plan, meaning that you cannot implement both the plan and the counterplan simultaneously. If the opposition presents a counterplan that is not mutually exclusive, the proposition can permute the counterplan, meaning that they say that they will do both the plan and the counterplan.

4. The opposition team can present a plan-inclusive counterplan. A plan-inclusive counterplan is a misnomer; it refers to a counterplan that contains one or more aspects of the plan but not enough to satisfy the motion. For example, if the proposition team proposes to ban all guns, the opposition can have a counterplan that bans only assault rifles.

5. The opposition team cannot present a plan-plus counterplan, which is a counterplan that includes everything in the plan and then some more. Doing so would mean that the opposition team also satisfies the motion. For example, if the proposition team proposes to ban handguns, the opposition cannot have a counterplan that bans handguns and assault rifles.

 

Sample Framework

Proposition on the topic: “The United States should implement compulsory voting.”

“In this round, we are defining “compulsory” as “required by law” (Oxford Dictionary). Furthermore, we are limiting this debate to national elections since we cannot expect all citizens to vote in the countless state and local election. Under the proposition team’s world, all citizens will be required to register to vote at the age of 18, and any citizen who did not vote would be required to do four hours of community service. Every ballot will have a “no candidate acceptable” option, and there will be exceptions for religious objectors, people who are ill, and for other legitimate reasons. To facilitate voting, polling booths will be open for a whole week, early voting would be expanded, and mail-in and online voting would be established. In addition, we will implement a mandatory 14 hour civics course at all high schools and as a requirement for citizenship while sending out non-partisan packets with the political stance of each candidate, a system currently used by California. Given that the United States is founded on democratic principles and democracy is the only political system consistent with human rights, we believe that you as the judge should vote for whichever side best promotes a democratic electoral system.”