LD value and criterion examples

Value vs criterion: what they each do

The value premise is the abstract concept the round is about. Standard LD values: Justice, Morality, Liberty, Equality, Human Dignity, Wellbeing, Security, Democracy. You pick one that the resolution actually engages with. A resolution about criminal sentencing engages with Justice; a resolution about pandemic response engages with Wellbeing or Security; a resolution about speech regulation engages with Liberty.

The criterion (also called the standard or value criterion) is the test for measuring whether something achieves the value. If your value is Justice, your criterion might be the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance (asking which institutions would be chosen behind ignorance of one's position) or the Categorical Imperative (asking whether the action could be universalized).

The structure works like this: I value X, achieved through Y, and my contentions prove the Aff/Neg side achieves Y better. The framework tells the judge what to measure; your contentions hit that measure.

Classic value-criterion pairings

Value: Justice / Criterion: Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance. Use when the resolution is about institutional fairness, distribution, or unequal access. The veil asks which rules a rational person behind ignorance of their position would consent to. Pairs naturally with welfare-state, equal-access, and anti-discrimination cases.

Value: Morality / Criterion: Categorical Imperative (Kant). Use when the resolution involves the inherent permissibility of an act, not its consequences. The CI asks whether you could universalize the action without contradiction. Strong for cases against lying, exploitation, and using people as means.

Value: Wellbeing / Criterion: Utilitarianism (Mill / Bentham). Use when consequences and scale of impact are central. Util asks which choice maximizes net wellbeing. Best for policy-flavored resolutions, public health, harm reduction.

Value: Liberty / Criterion: Mill’s Harm Principle. Use when state intervention or restriction of action is at stake. The harm principle says government may only restrict action to prevent harm to others. Strong for autonomy, drug policy, free expression.

Value: Justice / Criterion: Lockean / Social Contract. Use when government legitimacy is in question. Locke argues legitimate government depends on consent and protection of natural rights. Pairs with cases about civil disobedience, revolution, governmental overreach.

Value: Equality / Criterion: Rawls' Difference Principle. Use when inequality of outcome is the issue. The DP allows inequality only when it benefits the worst-off. Strong for redistribution, affirmative action, progressive taxation.

How to pick (and how to lose by picking badly)

Read the resolution. Ask: what is this resolution actually about? "Resolved: The United States ought to abolish capital punishment" is about justice, but more specifically about state-imposed irreversible harm. Justice + CI or Justice + the harm principle both fit. Wellbeing + Util feels off because the resolution centers on permissibility, not aggregate outcome.

Reach test: can you defend the criterion? If you pick Kantian ethics, you'll get attacked on edge cases (the murderer at the door, the categorical imperative formula). If you can't articulate the response, pick a different criterion. The Util defense is generally the most forgiving because it follows everyday moral reasoning.

Link test: do your contentions actually hit the criterion? If your value is Justice and your criterion is Util, but your contentions are about respecting individual rights, the framework and the case don't link. The judge picks up on this. A simpler framework (Justice / preventing exploitation) that your contentions actually warrant beats a fancy framework that doesn't fit.

Defending the framework in cross-ex

Your opponent will attack one of three things: the value (why Justice and not Wellbeing?), the criterion (why Util and not Kantian?), or the link between your contentions and the criterion (your evidence doesn't prove what you say it proves).

For value attacks: have a clean two-sentence reason. "Justice is the value because the resolution is about state action, and state action requires justification on Justice grounds before consequence grounds."

For criterion attacks: be ready with the standard objection-and-response. If you ran Kant, you should know the murderer-at-the-door objection and your Korsgaard-style response. If you ran Util, you should know the experience-machine objection.

For link attacks: this is where most LD rounds are actually won and lost. Make sure each contention explicitly says "and this hits the criterion because X." Don't make the judge do the linking work.

When to run a non-standard framework

Most rounds, run a standard framework. Standard frameworks are well-warranted by 200 years of philosophical literature; you don't need to invent.

Non-standard frameworks (Levinasian ethics, Foucauldian power analysis, capabilities approach) work when (a) the resolution genuinely engages the framework and (b) you've done the reading. Running Foucault on a death penalty round to sound smart, without being able to defend the framework, loses the round on framework debate before contentions even matter.

A solid intermediate: Capabilities approach (Sen / Nussbaum) for development and welfare resolutions, Care ethics (Gilligan / Noddings) for relational and dependency resolutions. Both have enough literature to defend and enough specificity to differentiate from generic Util.