Judging Non-Arguments

I've written that Persuasiveness = Truth*Importance*Originality(compared to 1st half). This is true, but it isn't enough.

Judging arguments is easy. It's something we all do and it fits neatly into the current BP paradigm of debaters using coherent arguments to persuade an average informed voter of their position. But what about the other, darker side of debating? We exclude rhetoric from the things a judge should consider but there are other, non-argumentative ways to persuade even a perfectly rational AIV. Framing, establishing what reality looks like/how it works, is one of the most popular. The question is, how do you judge non-arguments?

The answer seems simple: treat framing as an argument. If the framing undermines an opposing argument, credit it as you would rebuttal. If the framing strengthens existing argumentation on the speakers side, credit it as you would additional analysis. (Of course, only do this if the speaker makes the framings weakening/strengthening effects obvious OR if they are obvious anyway to an AIV (False dichotomy, it's a sliding scale of obviousness rather than a binary.))