The NSDA announces the new topic on US fossil fuel extraction, and you don't know where to start. Naturally, you begin brainstorming some potential frameworks to use in your cases. Suddenly, you hit a roadblock: you realize you don't actually know what a good framework would be to run on this topic. Luckily, you found this post, which will solve your exact issue. This post will outline some potential frameworks for this topic and why they're guaranteed to be effective.
Frameworks for Either Side
1) Justice
The first option is quite obvious, and is a go-to for many debaters. A justice framework can be applied to nearly every resolution, and for good reason. It's a safe option for both new and experienced debaters, and can cover the bases easily in most topics. The logic is simple: whenever the NSDA releases a new resolution, that resolution will, 99% of the time, have the word "ought" in it. Ought implies a moral obligation of actors, and, by definition, moral obligations are a concern of justice. Thus, justice can easily be linked to any resolution. Further, the two most commonly accepted definitions of justice, these being Aristotle's "to each his due" and Rawls' "fairness" can fit like an umbrella value in nearly any debate.
Looking at the fossil fuel extraction debate more specifically, however, we uncover some nuances that make justice even more effective. First, whose justice do we consider? The affirmative could argue that by prioritizing the environment, not only do we look at the justice of American citizens, we look at the justice of everyone globally. Affirmatives could easily argue that it would be unjust for American corporations to grow at the cost of polluting the globe, infringing on justice worldwide. Negatives, on the other hand, could argue that growing the economy directly affects American citizens, and very easily link economic growth to justice. As always, other versions of both affirmative and negative cases could easily fit under this value.
2) Morality
Another value that can be applied to many topics is morality. Once again, since ought implies a moral obligation of actors, morality is a key value in this resolution. Under this framework, you begin asking many questions. What is the government morally obligated to do for its citizens? Since this topic considers the US federal government, many debates may revolve around the fact that the US has specific moral obligations owed to its citizens, as outlined in the constitution and by the Supreme Court. As a result, both affirmatives and negatives could argue that their respective sides are integral to upholding morality, thus solving the issue behind American ethical obligations.
3) Consequentialism
A go-to for many debaters, this framework is simple. Weigh the consequences of an action, and if it helps more people than it harms, then it is just and moral. Under this topic, an affirmative can argue, for instance, that by reducing emissions and limiting pollution, we help more in the world than we may potentially harm in the US, thus meaning that the affirmative must be moral and just. The negative may do the same, arguing that we spend trillions of dollars at the cost of American citizens' livelihoods. Once again, a great framework with room for healthy debate.
Affirmative Frameworks
1) Rawls' Difference Principle / Structural Violence
This framework relies on a little bit more philosophical knowledge and some background reading. In short, philosopher John Rawls argues that in order to fix societal injustices, we must take action to help the least well off. If an action doesn't aim to do so, then it is unjust. The affirmative is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the difference principle since it can argue that because pollution disproportionately affects the marginalized, by reducing emissions, justice is achieved. In this case, those who are least well off - those who affected most by pollution - are helped, since through environmental protection, emissions are reduced.
Negative Frameworks
1) Liberty
This framework is also common under many topics, as liberty is a value that is almost always interacted with under most resolutions. Under this topic, however, the negative is uniquely positioned to take advantage of liberty since it can argue that upholding the environment comes at the cost of infringing on American citizens' and corporations' rights. In practice, environmental protection requires serious restrictions on the liberty of both corporations and individuals, and entails massive government projects. Negatives could also argue that putting economic growth first may allow private companies to solve issues like climate change anyway, thus solving the affirmative case.
This marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.