Value debates

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. 

Judging and Case Creating essentials

The Prime Minister's job is to define the terms, outline the scope of the discussion, present a dire need or harm that isn't being addressed by the status quo, present a model or principle to address this, and advantages. Too often, when I watch debates two things are missing; a dire need and a feasible model. What does this entail? In the simplest terms, you have to have a reason for change. People hate change as change can equal failure, costs, or unforeseen disadvantages. For example, the BRT along Narathiwat is a good example. I live along the side sois of Narathiwat my whole time in Bangkok, before and after the BRT. Previously, Narathiwat was a bad road full of traffic only during the prime times of the day 4-7 p.m. and 7-8:30 a.m. The construction of the BRT took away a lane from the four lanes of Narathiwat. Now traffic is terrible all the time--from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. What was the harm being addressed with the BRT? There were previously buses along Narathiwat, and moreover, there still are buses along Narathiwat. Was there too much traffic? Now there's more. In looking at this, if the motion was THW build a mass transportation system along Narathiwhat. The harm would/should have been traffic. But is that a dire need? and the end result fails to solve the harm, moreover, it creates more harm. This is what we mean. When you propose a mechanism, be sure there is a valid reason. Secondly, the value of the model must solve the harm and outweigh the disadvantages.
The secondary element of models is it's okay for a model to be vague. You don't have to tell the judge the exact specifications of the plan, but you do/should have enforcement, funding, supervision, implementation, and be feasible. There is strength in being vague to a certain degree. For example, funding can be simply a combination of private industry and government support. Most judges will accept that. The issue only becomes one when there just seems to be enormous cost factors. For example, you want to give everyone in the country, land to use to their own desires. Instantly, you see the implications and costs. You divide the land up but some of the land is already being used by the govt, so thus you now have to pay rent? You have land owned by people, does the govt buy it and give it away? these questions are part of the debate.
Simply, when you're the PM--make a dire need, be very clear about the reason why it's important to change, and address the disadvantages. Finally, if you present a model, keep it simple.