Framing

-       Framing is claiming that the debate is about an issue that favours your side. One approach is claiming that something is the fundamental question (FQ) in the debate. For example if the debate is about keeping bike lanes, the side in favour would claim that the issue is safety and saving lives. The opposition might frame the debate as being about dealing with the terrible traffic congestion. It is done in introduction and it is one of the chief purposes of the introduction. 

o   May and probably should be reemphasized elsewhere, aand should influence the approach of the other arguments

o   Can use GPS or preamble or biased summary approach 

o   Can change the question e.g. attack on Canadians turning over detainees for possible torture is attacking soldiers and accusing them of war crime, or did we forget about Canadian casualties, 9-11, etc in response to any antiterrorist measures or airline security, if you are saying that they turned over innocent people, you are attacking the soldiers’ character, should we worry about some minor cases when there are the bigger issues of international terrorism, questioning a conviction is an attack on the justice system and police

o   Can try to use alternatives, putting the other option in a bad light, e.g. question is should we worry about some minor injuries to terrorists rather than thinking about 9-11, or either you believe in the caliber of our soldiers or you think that they are war criminals, or either you either you think that we should stay in Afghanistan or you are willing to have 1000’s killed by Taliban

o   Can try to imply negative things with language or labels, e.g. socialist, or use patriotism, love etc as cover

-       If disagree with their summary or Frame, state why yours is better.

-       If biased summary, list the negative view of their position

-       Can concentrate on goal/results or principle/process

-       e.g. For Paris Accords &  carbon emissions, if you want developing countries to have to cut, use goal. If not, use principle of restitution

-       e.g. drug use - if you want to have to legalize, use goal of harm reduction. If not, use principle of ban bad things

-       e.g. prison - if you want less prison use, use goal. If not, use principle of punishment

-       e.g. Religion – secularism vs getting the job done

o   Grants to religious groups carrying out tasks e.g. shelters

o   Christian wing to prison – secularism or recidivism

o   Grants to religious schools – secularism v fairness

Framing Exercise  - come up with frames that are appropriate for each side

-       Political compromise vs doing the right thing

-       Canada – match US or the World in CO2 reduction

-       Affirmative action

-       Racial Profiling

-       Native school boards / Black schools

-       Medicare for US

-       two-tiered health care