Your framework is the lens through which the judge evaluates the round. It consists of two parts: a value and a value criterion (also called a standard). Together, they tell the judge what matters most in the debate and how to measure which side better achieves it.
Value: The ultimate goal or ideal you're trying to achieve (e.g., Justice, Morality, Human Dignity)
Criterion: The specific way to measure or achieve that value (e.g., Protecting Individual Rights, Maximizing Utility, Upholding Human Rights)
Your value should be relevant to the resolution and broad enough to encompass multiple arguments. Common values in LD include:
While these are common, don't be afraid to use other values if they're more strategic for your case. What matters is that you can justify why your value is the most important consideration for the resolution.
Your criterion is more specific than your value—it's the standard or method by which we achieve or measure that value. A strong criterion should:
Core Idea: The right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or wellbeing.
Criterion: Maximizing utility, Promoting the greatest good for the greatest number
Key Thinkers: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill
Use When: Your contentions focus on consequences, outcomes, and aggregate benefits
Core Idea: Some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of consequences. People should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means.
Criterion: Respecting human dignity, Upholding the categorical imperative, Protecting autonomy
Key Thinker: Immanuel Kant
Use When: Your arguments focus on rights, duties, and treating people as rational agents
Core Idea: Legitimate government and moral obligations arise from agreements among free individuals.
Criterion: Upholding the social contract, Maximizing freedoms, Ensuring consent
Key Thinkers: John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls
Use When: The resolution deals with government legitimacy, rights, or social obligations
Core Idea: Certain fundamental rights are inviolable and should be protected above other considerations.
Criterion: Protecting individual rights, Ensuring negative rights, Respecting natural rights
Key Thinkers: John Locke, Robert Nozick
Use When: The resolution involves conflicts between individual liberties and other values
When selecting your framework, consider:
What does the resolution really ask? Look at key terms:
Your framework should align with your arguments. If all your contentions are about protecting freedoms, don't use a utilitarian framework that focuses on aggregate welfare.
Think about what framework your opponent might run. Can your framework beat theirs? Does it give you defensive arguments against their case?
Resolution: "Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified."
Task: Create two complete frameworks (value + criterion) for the affirmative side. For each, write:
Then, identify which framework would be more strategic and explain why.
Simply stating a framework isn't enough—you need to justify it. In your case, include:
Now that you understand frameworks, the next lesson will teach you how to construct complete cases—building contentions that connect to your framework and support the resolution. You'll learn the structure of effective cases and how to organize your arguments for maximum impact.