Conflict framing-the emphasis on clashing political positions, or the reproach of one actor to another-is central in political coverage and politics. This chapter discusses its conceptualization and the subsequent consequences for citizens' political attitudes and behavior. Previous research on conflict framing has yielded mixed results, showcasing conflicts' potential to inform and engage citizens alongside fostering cynicism and polarization. In this chapter, we argue that, to understand these divergent findings, it is necessary to distinguish between different types of conflicts. To address the fragmented literature on conflict and negativity, we propose a typology of various conflict types. This typology is exemplified through a hypothetical conflict scenario centered around climate change. We evaluate the moral, political, and epistemic implications of distinct conflict frames and propose conditions under which conflicts can positively contribute to deliberative democracy. Our typology provides a starting point for further investigations into the effects of conflict frames.