The Biggest Problem Facing NSDA LD Right Now
Foreword: Later this week, we’re releasing a case for NSDA LDers on the resolution “The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.” Before we drop it, we’d like to address an issue facing NSDA’s LD topics.
Value resolutions assign arbitrary worth to something. Example:
“Resolved: Democracy is good.”
In this example, we assign the worth of “good” to something: democracy.
Policy resolutions propose a changing action. In a policy debate, a framework doesn’t make sense. The only one the judge would ever need is Net Benefits. That means she looks at all the advantages of the plan, minus the disadvantages, and makes an overall decision. A framework artificially narrows the scope of the debate, which is unnecessary and dangerous. For example, suppose the resolution is:
“Resolved: We should eat all these mushrooms I found in the park.”
1AC
Value: Taste.
Value Link: Major factor. Taste is a major factor in deciding what to eat, so you should base your decision on it.
Contention: Mushrooms taste good.
1NC
Disadvantage: Health Risk. Many mushrooms are toxic. If we eat these wild ones, we could die.
1AR
DA Response: No Impact. Health has nothing to do with taste, so you should ignore this argument.
As you can see, policy frameworks become absurd the moment we try to use them. This is why policy cases are structured in a more open style, with arguments like Harms and Advantages. You don’t need a separate framework to impact them; the impact is obvious. Money Lost. Lives Saved. Stuff We Care About Already.
Value Debate is Different
In value debate, we need a framework because we need some way to decide what the worth of something is.
Now consider the 2019 November/December resolution:
“Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.”
This doesn’t assign worth to anything, it proposes a changing action. It is a pure policy resolution with no value element. That means the most coherent way to debate it is with a policy case. Unfortunately, most NSDA judges expect you to run a traditional value case, never mind the fact that frameworks don’t make sense in this context.
Managing the Problem
If you’re an NSDA debater who is frustrated trying to write a case, you’re not crazy and you’re not alone. This has been an increasing problem in NSDA over the last few years, to the point that value resolutions for LD are distressingly scarce.
Of course, you’re just a debater. You can’t change which resolution you’re given, or what your judges’ expectations are. Your job is to excel in any environment, no matter how difficult.
The first step in that process is to acknowledge the problem. You are debating a policy resolution, but you need to pretend you’re not. That is no easy feat.
In the next article, we’ll show you how to do that.