Relates to Debate: Values, anyone?

by René Schiltz

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a style of debate that follows the pattern of the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. According to Brittanica.com, these debates were, a "...series of seven debates between the Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas and Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois senatorial campaign, largely concerning the issue of slavery extension into the territories." (Britannica editors)

Lincoln-Douglas as a style of debate (abbreviated to LD for short) features one particularly unique and mandatory argument: a value. One must fully understand what a value is before randomly selecting one and finding your opponent telling the judge that your value cannot stand up to the value test. The value is used in LD as a weighing mechanism to help the judge decide the round - it is key to the round - so much so that generally, whomever wins the value should usually win the round. There are a few exceptions to this, but we can talk about that another time.

There is a short list of values that most LD textbook writers list as the best options for LD debaters to use in rounds. These include things like Justice, Life, Liberty, Quality of Life, and Human Dignity. These can be seen as terminal values, meaning they are the highest value one can achieve for certain kinds of resolutions. However, Jeffrey Wiese and Stan Lewis, in their book Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Values in Conflict (Clark Pub., 2009) list a number of various kinds of values by category and by function. For example, in the category of moral or ethical values they list, "Goodness, Truth, Justice, and Love." Political values are listed as "Individual rights, Social Contract, Equality, and Freedom." But these writers also say, "Obviously we want the terminal values, and we need the instrumental values to achieve them." (Wiese & Lewis). 

A value is a weighing mechanism; a standard that the judge can use to see which side of the resolution can stand up to a universal goal. Travis Herche, in Keys to Lincoln-Douglas Debate (Monument Publishing, 2012) defines it this way, "A value is an external measure for the resolution. It provides a weighing mechanism for deciding whether or not the resolution is true." I believe this is the best definition currently available and I want to unpack it for you so that you can see why it is helpful.

Herche uses the term "external measure." This is a key point that debaters sometimes overlook or do not fully understand. External is the word that explains to the debater that the VALUE cannot be internal to the resolution. Yet every year as I judge rounds I hear students present the following kinds of value claims:

Resolved: Rationalism ought to be valued above empiricism.

Rationalism is basically defined as reason and deduction, empiricism is defined as experience and induction.

Value: Experience (Empiricism and Experience are synonymous, therefore this is an internal value. Meaning, the value is actually the one of the terms of the resolution.  This creates a circular reasoning fallacy right off the bat - “The reason to prefer empiricism is…empiricism.”

Resolved: In combat, the use of automation should be valued above the use of       military personnel (abbreviation: MP).

Value: Technology (Automation is technology, so again, one creates a circular argument if one chooses technology as the value.).

Some other internal values the debaters might mistake for achieving their side includes Artificial Intelligence (which is a kind of automation or technology) and NEG might suggest Human Agency, which every military person already possesses and is inherently a part of all MP.  So just remember, if your value is remotely the same or an inherent part of your term, it causes circular argumentation and your term cannot be tested or weighed by itself.

So what would some external values look like for these two resolutions we presented above?

Resolved: Rationalism ought to be valued above empiricism.

Ask yourself the resolution this way:  Why should rationalism be valued above empiricism? You need something to act as a scale to test reason and logic against experience and trial & error experimentation. Answers to the question might look like this:

• Because we need to be able to know what is TRUE, we value objective TRUTH

• Because we need to understand the best system for gaining KNOWLEDGE 

Both Truth and Knowledge are universal ideals that we seek to achieve using both terms, rationalism and empiricism.  Now the debaters can argue which term best achieves these external values, or values that are outside the definitions of rationalism and empiricism.

Resolved: In combat, the use of automation should be valued above the use of                   military personnel (abbreviation: MP).

Again, let us ask the “why” question:  Why should the use of automation be valued above the use of MP?  Potential answers might include:

• Because we need to prioritize National Security

• Because war efforts should align with Justice

There are more options of course, but we can clearly see that both the use of automation and the use of MP can achieve National Security and align with Just War concepts.  Therefore, these are excellent choices to weigh each side of this resolution as neither fall within the definitions of the terms of the resolution.

Now let's look at the second part of the definition of a value: "It provides a weighing mechanism for deciding whether or not the resolution is true." A weighing mechanism is a scale. We place things on a scale to see which side is heavier and tips the balance. In LD debate, there are two ways to tip the scale.

The first is when the debaters agree to the same value. Many times this is the easiest debate to judge because one debater will demonstrate how their side achieves the value better than the opponent. He or she can do this with logic, applications, and evidence.

When the debaters each present their own unique value, then the judge must first decide which is the best value to test the terms of the resolution based on the context of the resolution; which one should be adopted as the best scale to weigh the terms of the resolution?

Second, the judge must determine who best upholds argumentation suitable for achieving one of the values presented. The judge must listen to the applications and evidence to see if the claims presented uphold the value presented by that debater or if they better uphold their opponent's value.

If one debater's argumentation actually upholds the other debater's value, the other debater wins. In LD debate, whoever wins the value generally wins the round.

When two values are in play, a debater should NEVER concede their value to the opponent's value - that would be conceding the round. UNLESS, of course, the debaters present synonymous values and one debater agrees to use the name of her opponent's value for ease and clarity throughout the debate - this is not a concession.

I hope this helps you to understand the proper use of external values and the necessary constraints that make them legitimate for their designed purpose. Visit Monument Publishing to order your copy of Keys to Lincoln-Douglas Debate.