Previously, we discussed the biggest issue facing NSDA LD right now: policy resolutions with judges who expect value vases.

NSDA is a diverse league. You may be in a part of the country where you don’t need to worry too much. You might even be able to get away with running a policy case. But for most of you, you could face serious problems if you don’t run a traditional value case. Here’s how you adapt:

1. Write it as a policy case first.

Policy case structure is an elegant, time-tested way to debate policy resolutions. You can avoid a lot of confusion and frustration by writing your case in policy format first. For an example, check out this Zombie Subsidy case we released for policy debaters in a different league.

2. Run a buffer value.

This means a broad, neutral value that you can get through quickly. It should cover as many impacts as possible and be equally advantageous to both sides. The point of the buffer value is to get through it quickly and shut down the value debate so you can focus on other things. Remember: this is a policy debate. Arguing over values is a waste of time.

3. Hide the harms in your criteria.

The way to achieve your broad value is to get rid of the problems in the status quo. Make your criterion aggressive and goal-oriented, with criterion links (arguments that justify your criterion) standing in for your harms. In many cases, your criterion will take up the majority of your speech time.

4. Hide the plan in rhetoric.

Most of the time, you can avoid presenting 5-plank plans. Instead, try to imply the most obvious interpretation of the resolution. Use a paragraph of simple, untagged rhetoric between the criterion and the contention to clarify your plan if need be. Avoid details like funding and timeframe. Though you’re vulnerable to attack without them, your opponent is facing the same problem you are. He can’t attack you in those areas without running policy arguments. That means you’re probably safe.

5. Hide Post-Plan Material in the Contention.

That means solvency, advantages, and plan advocate evidence. If you do it right, the case should still feel a lot like a policy case, where you present the problems in the status quo (criterion), propose a solution (untagged clarifying rhetoric), and show why the solution is a good idea (contention).

Here’s what our Zombie Energy case might look like if we converted it to value.

Value: General Welfare

Value Link: Purpose of Government

Criterion: Environment

Criterion Link 1: Public Health

Criterion Link 2: Climate Change

Contention: Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies Protects the Environment

You’re right to be frustrated and confused by policy resolutions in LD. But frustration is no excuse not to give judges your absolute best. With the technique above, you can be understandable to judges – and run circles around opponents who don’t understand what kind of resolution they’re dealing with.

Good luck!