On the Nature of Lincoln-Douglas, Part 6

2. Value Structure -The value structure (or framework) is established by the debater to serve two functions: a) to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution, and b) to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution. The value structure often consists of a statement of the resolution (if affirming), definitions (dictionary or contextual), the value premise (or core value), and the value criterion (or standard). This structure is commonly but not always employed.

Definitions: The affirmative should offer definitions, be they dictionary or contextual, that provides a reasonable ground for debate. The negative has the option to challenge these definitions and to offer counter-definitions.

Value Premise/Core Value: A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. that serves as the highest goal to be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved. In general, the debater will establish a value which focuses the central questions of the resolution and will serve as a foundation for argumentation.

Value Criterion/Standard: In general, each debater will present a value criterion (a standard) which the debater will use to:
- explain how the value should be protected, respected, maximized, advanced, or achieved.
- measure whether a given side or argument protects, respects, maximizes, advances, or achieves the value.
- evaluate the relevance and importance of an argument in the context of the round.
The relationship between the value premise and the criterion should be clearly articulated. During the debate, the debaters may argue the validity or priority of the two value structures. They may accept their opponent’s value structure, prove the superiority of their own value structure, or synthesize the two.

There’s not much here of any real controversy. The only important questions that arise are two. First, do cases absolutely have to contain explicit values and criteria? The answer is, mostly yes. There’s some hedging language in here that suggests that either the committee writing this up was acting very much like a committee, or else they simply didn’t want to clamp down 100% on something that is not naturally inherent. That is, one can conceive of a perfectly acceptable, values-oriented LD round without values and criteria—although in practice values and criteria have become very, very helpful—so excluding them is not totally disallowed. Realistically, the rules are saying, this is what you ought to do, but if you don’t do it, it’s not necessarily wrong. (Which is in keeping with their own burdens of generally proving something to be true!) The strong suggestion that V and C are good and recommended is clear as day, but you couldn’t drop someone just because of their exclusion.

The second big question, and this one is answered definitively, is whether debaters need to uphold the same value. For some reason, certain debaters and judges, usually more inexperienced, come into a round believing that it is somehow against the rules to have different values, or at the very least that both values will stand at the end of the round. But the rules clearly explain that anything goes, that values and criteria and be the same or different or synthesized. It is up to the judge to evaluate where the better job was done on the basis of the job itself and not some predetermined way the job ought to be done. Hardest thing of all, if you ask me, is judging a really good round where debaters stand for different values achieved through different critera. But, that’s why we earn the big bucks. And why there’s panels, and squirrels.