Value trumps:

In traditional The LD values debate you use values in lieu of advantages/disads (TP).

Basically you say "Affirming the resolution furthers (Aff's value: Security, Liberty, Human rights, Peace, Justice,
Equality, Prosperity etc.) Negating Resolution furthers (Neg's value). My value is better/theirs is worse (give reasons). So
vote my way."

So, in no particular order, here are the ways you can beat an opponent in traditional LD (some of them have a little bit of
overlap):

1. Prove your opponent’s value is upheld by your side of the resolution.

Example: Opponent is neg and has value of Prosperity; say actually competition leads to prosperity, so if
you vote my way you get both if you vote neg you get neither.
(You can prove it by quoting an expert (Like in TP, although the quote could just be by a philosopher or
founding father, date doesn’t usually matter). Or you can just use reasoning; “When people are not bound by
the lowest common denominator they can excel more and society prospers etc.”

2. Means/ends argument:
• Show that your opponent’s value can’t be achieved without your value (I don’t like this one since I think that the
end is more valuable, but I have seen people win with it)
Example: “Can’t have liberty without being secure so vote for security”

• Show that your opponent’s value is simply a tool to achieve your value and thus has no value apart from it.
Example: No point in strength unless used to further human rights etc.
Like a safe, point of safe is to protect contents, if there were no purpose/end goal then the safe would be
worthless

3. Show that your opponent’s value is not inherently valuable.

Example: National sovereignty/security or progress etc. are only of value when they further real values,
when they violate real value they are not valuable.

4. Show your opponent’s value couldn’t exist with out your value.
Example: “Without truth there would be no such thing as ethics, so vote for truth and you get both.”

5. Show that your opponent’s value is bad

Example: “General welfare is utilitarian” OR “Valuing equality above all keeps everyone at the lowest
common denominator this paralyses society”

6. Show that your opponents value is self contradictory

Example: “In order to have liberty you must deny certain liberties, vote for my value since it is
consistent”

7. Appeal to the common man’s reason

Come up with an example of when the values conflict in real life and point out which by right should win.
Example: When a terrorist’s right to life conflicts with justice we should uphold justice

Note: One type of case, called a “Resolutional analysis case” does not state a value and instead treats the resolution as a
fact to be proven or disproven. Some judges/regions/debaters like them some don’t. It makes a whole different type of
clash, fact rather than values hierarchy.
Also note: You can point out anti-values that are upheld by the other side of the resolution.
AT “This resolution restricts us to whether competition or cooperation is better and gives us the value of
excellence. It doesn’t ask what is excellent so we shouldn’t be debating that.”
How do you get to (muffled unintelligible noise/There)? If I asked you that you wouldn’t be able to reply very well would
you? In order to know the best way to get somewhere you have to know where you are going. If I prove that my value (for
example let’s say human rights) is more excellent then his value (Progress for example) then I have shown that my side of
the resolution best achieves excellence.