Framing the Question
Before writing contentions, an Affirmative must decide how to frame the resolution — which definitions and lens will make your case easiest to win. You will be able to write a framing paragraph that sets favorable ground for your case.
Choosing a Winnable Framing
Framing means selecting the definitions, the standard of proof, and the lens (ethical, scientific, metaphysical) through which the judge should evaluate the resolution. An Affirmative debating 'Resolved: Animals have moral status' might frame the round around capacity for suffering rather than around rationality, because the suffering-based framing is easier for the Affirmative to win on the current science.
Presenting Framing Persuasively, Not as a Trick
Lay judges are suspicious of debaters who seem to be gaming definitions, so present your framing as the most reasonable, natural reading of the resolution, briefly explaining why it makes sense before moving into contentions. Avoid abusive or hyper-technical definitions that only serve to dodge the resolution's obvious meaning, since a Negative debater can win an easy 'topicality'-style argument that you are avoiding the real question.
Resolution: 'Resolved: Humans have a moral obligation to prevent all suffering they can prevent.'
The Affirmative opens: 'Today's question is about our moral duties, so we'll evaluate this resolution through the lens of consequentialist ethics, which asks whether an action's outcomes make the world better or worse — a standard most people already use in everyday moral reasoning.' This framing is natural, not a trick, and sets up contentions that measure outcomes.
1. What does 'framing' a resolution mean in a BQ case?
Answer all 1 to check.
Frame the resolution around the most natural, favorable, and defensible lens before writing contentions, and explain that framing simply to the judge.