Often abbreviated to “FW” in flow.

A framework defines how a judge should evaluate the round. It establishes:

• Standards: the criteria for evaluating arguments and the angle of the debate
• Prioritization: the order of importance of arguments and impacts
• Scope: the bounds of the debate (e.g., morality, practicality, legality, etc.)

• What is the primary goal of the debate?
• Should the debate focus on morality, practicality, legality, or another metric?
• How will this framework guide the judge in evaluating the round?
• Is this framework accessible to the judge, or does it require specialized knowledge?
• KEEP IN MIND: What is favorable to my side but still appears fair to the other side?

Introduced at the beginning of a constructive, after intro and before points:

1. Clearly define your framework: explain what it means and why it matters
2. Justify the framework: Use philosophy, common sense, or debate norms
3. Apply the framework: throughout all of your impacts, connect to how it weighs under the framework

If both sides present frameworks:

• Show why your framework is superior (e.g., more inclusive, universal, better logic, etc.)
• Or show how your arguments win under both frameworks

• Tips: quantify impacts and outweigh using weighing mechanisms, usually magnitude and scope
• Note: Utilitarianism is the default if no framework is given in a round.

• Tips:
  • Defend the universality of the principle
  • Argue why moral obligations outweigh practical consequences, or manifest in practical benefits

• Tips:
  • Link obligations of governments to their constituents
  • Emphasize fairness and societal trust
  • Link nations to their international obligations (ex: The US as a superpower)