Framing and Weighing

Hebron Daniel and Harry Bagenstos What is a Framework?

● The lens by which the judge should evaluate the round ● What type of impacts or arguments should the judge look to/care about first? ● Giving yourself a strategic advantage: set up the round’s priorities in your favor ● Your framework needs a warrant ○ Why we should buy your framework ○ What is the justification? ● Not just a definition ● Strategic way to frame and view the round Types of Frameworks

● Definitions ● Evaluative standards ○ Can use moral justifications ○ Sometimes based on impacts ● Burdens How to Respond to Framework

● Is it worth responding to? ○ Does it hurt you? ○ Does it help you? ● How to respond: ○ Does it have proper justifications? ○ Does it limit the debate? ○ Alternative analysis/framework When is Framework Abusive?

When it... ● Reduces the odds of winning substantially ● Fails to provide a reasonable justification ● Limits the scope of the debate (or the clearly intended debate of the resolution) ● Creates an unfair advantage or disadvantage ● Impossible to prove, or disprove. Utilitarianism

● Greatest good for the greatest number of people ● Different things are different amounts of good ● A subset of consequentialism Critiques of Utilitarianism

● Requires actively doing harm to innocents ● Aggregative; uses people as means and doesn’t respect individuals ● Incommensurability ● Often ignores distribution ● Utility monster ● Ignores relationships ● Predictions can be unreliable ● Debate-specific reasons? “Fundamentally, when we think about what we value, we are interested in something more than measurement. We want to know something about the character of the goods and the bads; we want to know in what way something is better or worse. We need a richer description of things than one can furnish through a language that reduces all terms of value to pluses and minuses. We need to think in terms of justice, dignity, fairness, equality, democracy, respect, humanity. We need narratives to help us negotiate complex moral quandaries. We need conversation.”

- Joseph William Singer, “Something Important in Humanity” (2002) Alternatives

● Other types of consequentialism ● Deontology ● Contractarianism ● Difference principle ● Care ethics ● Literally so many things -- read more! Weighing What is Weighing?

● Reasons to prefer one argument over another ○ Impact calculus: different terminal impacts ○ Link comparison: different links into the same terminal impact ■ Can often reframe impact calc as link comparison ○ Warrant comparison: comparing different warrants to determine direction of a link ○ Do any and all of these when necessary What is Good Weighing?

● Uses the right mechanism ● Starts early ● Comparative ● Warranted ● Implicated Magnitude

● Severity of the impact

● Generally relies on a util framework Scope

● How many are affected? ● Who is affected? ● Which groups should we prioritize impacts to? Probability

● How likely is it? ● Can make connections to the real world Timeframe

● When does the impact start to happen? ● If there is a long time before the impact begins, will there be other means to solve the impact? ● If the impact is scheduled to begin tomorrow, does the case have a chance of solving it before it becomes inevitable? ● How long does the impact last? Link Comparison

● Often more common than straight-up impact calculus, since PF teams run very similar impacts. ● Good comparison of competing links draws heavily on the warrants behind how those links achieve their effects to explain why one link is superior to the other. ● Three additional metrics for comparison: ○ Topicality: Not commonly used, but can be used for probability/risk of offense analysis when there’s a messy definition debate in the round. ○ Uniqueness: Can be used to strengthen the relative magnitude of your link to theirs. ○ Solvency/Strength of link: Can be used to outweigh in terms of both probability and magnitude. Most link comparison debate ends up being a solvency debate. Warrant Interaction

● Necessary to resolve competing opposite claims. ● Good warrant interaction requires an understanding of the various effects that a given policy/action can produce, which of these effects are stronger, and how those different effects might interact/weigh against one another. ○ E.g. Impact of drones on terrorism: the deterrent effect versus the recruitment effect. ○ Are more people deterred or inspired to join terrorist groups because of drones? Why? ● Also requires a good understanding of the various incentives faced by the actors (people/leaders/governments) involved in the arguments that you/your opponents are making. Evidence Comparison

● Dates ● Qualifications ● Relevance ● Peer-reviewed studies ○ Sample size ○ Limitations ○ Time period Metrics to Weigh

● Prerequisite ○ My argument is necessary before your argument ● Reversibility ○ My argument can not be reversed/ the damage cannot be undone ● Root Cause ○ My argument solves the root of your argument ● Urgency ○ My argument happens right now, your argument can wait ● Stronger Link ○ My argument has one link, your argument requires multiple links to work ● Obligation ○ My argument aligns with legal/moral obligations Weighing Drill

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

NUKE WAR

CLIMATE CHANGE

TECH INNOVATION