Philosophical Framework is Dead… And We have Killed It 

As I walk out of my round in my local (Lay) Circuit, I am often told by my opponent “that was a weird framework, I've never heard that before”. This statement makes sense, at the average four round tournament, I hear three out of four rounds using a value of morality, or utilitarianism, or justice as dues. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these values, but I am calling for a more conscious selection of what framework you are choosing and why you are choosing it. I get it, Philosophical Debate is way harder, more grindy, your judge might not get it, it's a risk. But in the end, the point of debate is to learn, and the most meaningful thing you can learn in life is to consider something from multiple perspectives. In order to do this, you must get comfortable with these perspectives. That is why it is more important now than it ever has been to reintroduce the framework debate into Lincoln-Douglas. 

What even is a Categorical Imperative? 

One of the largest obstacles to beginning philosophical debate is the variety and complexity of these frameworks. I get that, but it is also the debaters responsibility and their burden to understand and simplify complex ideas and concepts to a judge. I want to be clear, when I say reintroduce philosophy debate, I am not necessarily advocating for everyone running Aff Ks, Theory, or hyper specific and advanced postmodernist concepts. What I am advocating for is writing your case with a value like Governmental Legitimacy, or Freedom, and then actually justifying why this is the case, and using philosophers to do so. For example, on the current 2026 Jan/Feb LD topic on nuclear weapon , I run a Hobbes based case. I do not explain every instance of what Hobbes is or what he advocates for, but I still introduce minor snippets of his philosophy. This is what I want to inspire in you, dear reader, the desire to win a round because of framework, not in spite of it. 

But Util is So Satisfying

I agree, utilitarian frameworks are super clear when it comes to the way to impact out your wins, “38 million people die on my side and 25 million on my opponents, therefore I win”. But at the same time, Utilitarian, and similar frameworks like anything with a criterion to maximize pleasure or minimize suffering or reduce structural violence (when run poorly) only present one side of the story. Is a person’s life worth more than a mere number in my debate case? The answer, if you use those frameworks, is certainly not. There are times where Utilitarianism is best suited to a certain case, but it should not be a default that everyone runs to. The issues with utilitarianism are many and often, and those ought to be explored, but without a conversation or debate about framework that will never happen.

I think therefore I win

At the same time as utilitarianism becomes the default it also has been the case in my experience that it is not often thought about. If someone is using a tailored framework that makes the round substantially easier for them, then they can usually win the framework debate pretty easily. This is also an issue, though, because in this situation, the other framework is not actually examined on its own merits either. While the round becomes fractured and messy because framework debate is not a practiced or used skill, the debaters struggle to actually weigh and explain why they win. In essence, understanding and revitalizing framework debate is the best way to force this, because the debaters are comfortable enough with their values and criterion to explain why their argument fits under it and wins them the round. 

Where do I find these frameworks?

This is one of the biggest obstacles as to why framework debate is dead, the norms of debate mean that framework is never going to be taught at the same level as the contention level debate is. With this in mind, the best way to understand ethics, morals, philosophy and framework is to read 637 pages of some Prussian general yap about the theory of war (shoutout if you got the reference), there are far more understandable ways to get to this point. For example, basic introductory websites on philosophy, like this one, give good basics on what school of thought your case might fit into. From there, you can use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to dive deep into what philosopher you might use to back up this case. Additionally, there are hundreds of YouTube Videos, websites, papers, articles, and other media covering everyone from Kant to Kierkegaard. Once you begin to become familiar, you can apply what you have learned to several different topics and several different cases, but more importantly, you can become more in touch with morals in your own life.

Conclusion

In essence, the traditional Lincoln-Douglas community is currently suffering from a lack of viewpoints and is becoming the antithesis of what it was intended to be. The purpose of LD is to find a debate about the morality of a certain resolution. If we continue to consolidate frameworks down to a few impact heavy moralities, we miss a lot of values and viewpoints, which closes the ethical debate and instead becomes a debate of policy and politics. While this debate certainly has its place, the lessons from broadening the philosophical explorations of a debater have implications that strengthen both the institution of LD but also the debater themselves. The solution to a crisis of stock arguments and large blockfile advantages of big schools can be found by thinking outside of the box and attacking from a different perspective than the norm. For these reasons I could not be more proud to affirm the resolution: LD ought to revitalize philosophical debate, and now stand open for cross examination.