Value debates typically have motions that require TH regrets/celebrates something--portrayal of women in media, the treatment of non-combatants at Guantanimo bay. These debates are talking about something that has occurred--so the debate becomes a strange one. Judging it is very difficult as there really is no harm/model requirement so the standard format is gone. In it's place, we have a situation where the debate becomes what the debaters set it up as. What are the grading criteria--who wins the debate and why?
In the debate, TH regrets the portrayal of women in the media--the three key words--women, portrayal, and media are the parameters of the whole debate. An argument must be formulated with those three elements involved--but the terms is indicative of what course your argument should take--women, portrayal, and media isn't that synonymous with stereotypes. Thus, your first argument could be that media creates stereotypes that are poor actual descriptions of what women can do. For example, often in television, women are portrayed as the weaker sex when in reality, that may not be true. This leads to--and that is the key, you establish the parameters then for further discussion, you set the argument's context.
As a judge, the first argument becomes the first indicator of who is winning or losing the debate and the view can also be holistic as in who makes the more appropriate case for their side. Depending if it's All-asians, the opposition should counter and provide justification--while in Worlds, you can just say contrary things to the gov without offering your side. To be truly effective in a value debate, you should be offering reasons why your side is stronger.
Overall, what helps the judge is clear burdens of proof showing that your side is fully aware of the value setting as well as being able to engage and use logical argumentation to show why you win.
In the debate, TH regrets the portrayal of women in the media--the three key words--women, portrayal, and media are the parameters of the whole debate. An argument must be formulated with those three elements involved--but the terms is indicative of what course your argument should take--women, portrayal, and media isn't that synonymous with stereotypes. Thus, your first argument could be that media creates stereotypes that are poor actual descriptions of what women can do. For example, often in television, women are portrayed as the weaker sex when in reality, that may not be true. This leads to--and that is the key, you establish the parameters then for further discussion, you set the argument's context.
As a judge, the first argument becomes the first indicator of who is winning or losing the debate and the view can also be holistic as in who makes the more appropriate case for their side. Depending if it's All-asians, the opposition should counter and provide justification--while in Worlds, you can just say contrary things to the gov without offering your side. To be truly effective in a value debate, you should be offering reasons why your side is stronger.
Overall, what helps the judge is clear burdens of proof showing that your side is fully aware of the value setting as well as being able to engage and use logical argumentation to show why you win.
