Resolutional Analysis

– Explain the resolution in a meaningful and comparative way

This category of Framework is more general than the specific methods of Weighing Mechanisms and Theoretical Observations. You analyze every resolution. Resolutional Analysis, as a Framework, interprets the resolution in the explicit wording as well as the implicit issues at hand. Many resolutions contain “measuring words” that let the debaters and judge know what is to be compared (Kline, 20). Cost/benefit phrases are the most common measuring words; these were discussed under Weighing Mechanisms. More often than not, however, there are no measuring words. Even if there are measuring words, they do not always clearly outline what should be weighed. That’s where Resolutional Analysis comes in.

Resolutional Analysis can also address the burdens of the resolution.A burden, or burden of proof, is what a team must prove or provide in a debate in order to win. In a way, it is the argumentative responsibilities of each side under the resolution. Addressing burdens can be helpful because you point out what must be proven by your opponent or your team before any other arguments can be considered. This analysis can point out common presumptions one side makes that cannot be presumed, but must be proven in the case. Resolutional Analysis often will set up the burden for each side of the debate to win, generally through the definition of a measuring word. If the burdens in the debate can only be set out in one way, then it is often unnecessary to include an analysis of the burdens in your Framework. Avoid using the word “burden” as it may confuse the judge.

Ground is another important term to know within Resolutional Analysis. A ground is the scope of arguments that a side is able to make. Grounds are not always equally set up in resolutions, but each side should have enough ground to win or persuasively argue for their side.

Good Resolutional Analysis will:

– Define and explain the key terms of resolution.
– Support the definition with evidence and/or analysis.
– Apply the definition/analysis in a meaningful way (meaning set out a wording that favors your side of the debate without being abusive to the other side, shape the way the judge views the debate).
– Define unfamiliar terms to clarify the debate, often “terms of art” or terms specific to a field of study and not used in everyday conversation.
– Preclude abusive definitions your opponent may provide that would eliminate arguments you want to make.
– Define measuring words that do not explicitly outline a weighing mechanism; these words include: undermines, compromises, improves, benefits, should, threat, best interest, justified, significant, appropriate