Voting Rules & Rubric

The Role of a Voter

The role of voters is to grade arguments objectively, analysing the logic of each side to determine which debater defends their side more effectively. It is not simply to say which arguments they personally like better. Votes that score lower than a 4 are insufficient and warrant removal.

Framework and Burden Rules

The role of a framework is to give judges a clear idea of how a debate should be judged. It functions as a lens through which to view the arguments that will be presented, usually based on some significant value, specifying the criteria judges should use to evaluate arguments. It is often closely related to the burden of proof, which specifies who has the greater onus to provide and support their claims. If you want to weigh that burden in the debate, you need a framework to do it.

As a general rule, if one debater draws conclusions about what is required of each side, and the other debater fails to challenge these conclusions, voters should accept that framing unless it explicitly contradicts the description of the debate.

For example, suppose the topic is “Resolved: Abortion is immoral,” and the contender argues, “Pro must show that terminating a pregnancy, even though a C-section, is wrong.” If Pro does not challenge this framing (either explicitly or through a strong implication), then voters should default to it, unless the description explicitly says Pro does not have to prove it.

Frameworks are a more comprehensive set of conclusions about what each side must prove in a debate, often based on additional arguments about what makes something “good” or “bad”. A common framework is utilitarianism. So one side might argue for utilitarianism and then say, “in order to win, my opponent must show that the total pleasure in society will increase because of this policy.” Even if the other side criticizes this framework, if they fail to provide an alternate framework, voters should default to the only framework provided. To count as a framework, it should be presented as one or something synonymous (e.g. “goalposts for this debate,” etc.)

A preamble, argument summary, or topic headings on their own do not automatically constitute a framework. Similarly, if one side says something more broad about burdens (“Pro must prove this policy is always good,” but doesn’t say what makes it good), and then Pro comes along and says something more specific about what makes something good (i.e. use a utilitarian calculus), then Pro’s criteria should be treated as a framework and defaulted to as the only one in the debate, while Con’s claim about Pro’s BoP is simply a claim about burdens that will be treated as conceded unless challenged.

If multiple frameworks are provided, the debaters then have room to argue which is superior. These arguments can take the form of:

• Clarity - arguing the framework is not clear about what burdens need to be met, so it can’t fairly be used to judge
• Quality - the most straightforward kind of argument, such as arguing that categorical imperatives are superior to utilitarianism or something along those lines to justify a particular framework
• …or other arguments that the debaters feel are relevant

As a general rule, voters should judge based on arguments about the better framework provided by the debaters themselves, rather than their own personal opinions about what a good framework is. (Although if neither side addresses the other’s framework, yet one framework is extremely unclear to the point of being impossible to use, voters can prefer the only usable framework without the debaters pointing out the obvious vagueness.)

If no framework is provided, voters should weigh arguments case by case, based on arguments made by the debaters about one point being more important than another, or implied reasons to weigh some arguments over others. (This forces the voter to use some personal judgement how things should be weighed based on what is implied and makes it harder to be objective, so debaters are advised to use frameworks.) Again, voters should try to be as objective as possible here, looking specifically for what is said by debaters as a basis for preferring one impact to another.