Common Framing

By Aiden

What is framing?

Framing is a mechanism by which the judge is instructed to evaluate the debate. For example, Utilitarianism says that the correct decision in any given situation is the one that maximizes pleasure and minimizes suffering. 

Framing is commonly confused with framework. The difference is that framework is used in kritikal debate to instruct the judge to take a much more specific action, ergo rejecting some assumption (capitalism, racism, etc).

Framing you WILL hear

Utilitarianism (“util”)

1. Basics

   1. Probably the most common framing, both in debate and everyday life, Utilitarianism is “a species of consequentialism, which holds that the moral quality of an action or policy is entirely a function of its consequences, or the value produced by the action or policy” (Driver, Julia. 2009. “The History of Utilitarianism.” March 27, 2009). Less experienced debaters or those less interested in philosophy will also recognize this as “net benefits” or simply “the most amount of good for the most amount of people”. 

2. Variants

   1. Utilitarianism comes in two main variants --- positive and negative. Positive Utilitarianism posits that we ought to prefer pleasure over pain --- that if any pleasure is possible then there is inherent value in that reality. Positive util holds that “a large fraction of worlds are […] better than nonexistence” (Blair, Alice. 2025. “Uncommon Utilitarianism #2: Positive Utilitarianism.”) A positive utilitarian believes that “I want to live forever in most realistic timelines. I want to exist right now, and I don't expect to find myself in any worlds that I think I shouldn't exist in, since those are relatively rare” (Blair, 2025).

   2. The other variant, as mentioned above, is negative utilitarianism. A negative utilitarian believes that suffering outweighs pain. Though supported by studies, it’s considered an invalid framework in everyday life because it follows that extinction is preferable to continued existence, as permanent nonexistence ought to be chosen over an existence that contains some amount of pain.

3. Defenses

   1. Utilitarianism is the only effective way to evaluate actions that will affect future generations because it’s indifferent to how long the impact of an action takes to materialize.

   2. Utilitarianism breeds empathy in debaters because it’s impartial to who is affected and allows us to understand how any given action will affect humanity.

Deontology (Kant)

1. Basics

1. Deontology is an ethical framework in which an action is not evaluated based on its consequences but on its inherent moral value. Kant, the leading philosopher behind deontology, believed that there is no way to know anything outside of oneself, and so one can only evaluate actions based on whether they are intrinsically right or wrong. According to deontology, an action can be required (you are obligated to take the action), forbidden (you are obligated not to take the action), or permitted (you may do the action, but not obligated to).

2. Variants

1. First is agent-centered deontology. Agent-centered theories hold that actions that are forbidden for certain agents may be permitted or even required for other agents. For example, agent-centered deontology “instruct[s] me to treat my friends, my family, my promisees in certain ways because they are mine, even if by neglecting them I could do more for others’ friends, families, and promisees” (Alexander, Larry, and Michael Moore. 2007. “Deontological Ethics.”).

2. Second is patient-centered deontology. This theory is less focused on the duty of the agent and more on the duty of immediate consequences. Though this might seem consequentialist or utilitarian at first, it only prescribes duty onto knowable consequences, such as directly killing someone. Patient-centered deontology would pull the lever in the trolley problem because it is your duty to allow others to exercise their rights, while agent-centered deontology wouldn’t because it’s immoral to kill.

3. Finally, there’s contractualist deontological theories. It prescribes that when one enters society, they sign an invisible “contract” and the moral value of an action is decided by if it fits inside that window of social acceptability. Under this contract, certain actions are always permissible, always required, or always forbidden.

3. Defenses

1. Because it is impossible to understand the infinite number of consequences of any action, it is necessary that we evaluate actions with a consistent moral framework.

2. All experience is subjective, so there is no consistent decision to be made surrounding any one action --- deontology is the only way to solve.

3. There is no logical basis for induction – just because the moon came up last night, does not mean there is a sound justification for why it ought to come up tomorrow.

Structural violence (SV)

1. Basics

2. Structural violence is a consequentialist framework which instructs the judge to prioritize impacts that surround minorities or oppressed groups. Examples of structural violence are poverty, colonization, exploitation (of land, labor, etc.), and genocides.

3. The reasons why you prefer structural violence are twofold --- First, prioritize structural violence because of probability-- is happening now and increases everyday. Second – prioritize it because it’s a prerequisite to addressing other modes of destruction.

4. Structural violence can rarely be used as an IVI by asserting that teams who use extinction or apocalyptic suffering as an impact should lose.

2. Why it can be dumb

   1. There’s no reason why focus on direct violence and structural violence is mutually exclusive --- causality runs the other way. War is not a product of any single cause ---war fuels injustices

   2. The concept of “structural violence” is far too broad --- If we conceive of all these things as equally violent there is an implication that we are also going to tackle the issues as problems of violence. Issues of poverty are not helpfully tackled in the same way as issues of direct violence

   3. There’s no way they can solve for an issue as deep as structural violence, but we give a clear link story to extinction through ____.

3. Why it’s strategic

   1. If your link story can’t reasonably impact out to nuclear war or any other internal link to extinction, it’s most strategic to run structural violence because it’s too hard to win otherwise

   2. In a debate where they have an extinction impact, winning the framework wins you the debate (though this does flow the other way as well)

Buddhist ethics

1. Basics

   1. Buddhist ethics believe that the root cause of most suffering is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world created by our thoughts and feelings. To hone our understanding of the world around us, we must refrain from violence. Though there’s no formal framework for the is-ought gap, in modern Buddhist ethics it’s accepted that you ought to take action X if action X results in good karma. In general, an action is forbidden in Buddhism if it’s related to any of the Ten Bad Courses of Action, which are: Taking life, Stealing, Sexual misconduct, Lying, Divisive speech, Harsh speech, Idle chitchat, Covetousness, Malice, and Wrong view. 

   2. A key part of Buddhism that will come up in debate is that of tanha, meaning illusory desire or greed. According to Buddhists, tanha is the root cause of most human suffering. Pretty much every case in debate will violate Tanha, so you can’t just link in if someone reads Buddhist ethics on you.

2. Why it’s sometimes wrong

1. While it makes no sense at face value, Buddhist ethics can be violent --- their principles will be twisted to justify violence and genocide --- it’s empirically already been used in Myanmar.

1. Our argument is not that Buddhism is “inherently violent” but is a weapon of opportunists

2. Buddhism has been co-opted by capitalism --- meditation has been stripped of its cultural traditions and turned into a commodity

3. Why it’s strategic

1. There is not a single person not reading a Buddhism framework whose case will adhere to Buddhist ethics --- nobody will ever link in

2. If it’s conceded, it destroys any semblance of offense

3. Very few teams in PF will have responses to it