What are the advantages and disadvantages of value resolutions for public forum debate?

1 What are value resolutions?

A value resolution is a type of resolution that asks debaters to evaluate or compare the worth, importance, or desirability of something, such as a principle, a goal, a right, or a concept. For example, a value resolution could be: "Resolved: Justice is more important than mercy." Value resolutions often use terms like "better than", "more than", "ought to", or "should", and they imply a moral, ethical, or philosophical judgment. Value resolutions are different from policy resolutions, which ask debaters to advocate for or against a specific course of action, such as a law, a policy, or a reform. For example, a policy resolution could be: "Resolved: The United States should ban assault weapons." Value resolutions are also different from fact resolutions, which ask debaters to affirm or deny the truth or falsity of a statement, such as a historical claim, a scientific hypothesis, or a statistical data. For example, a fact resolution could be: "Resolved: Global warming is caused by human activity."

2 Why use value resolutions?

One of the main advantages of using value resolutions for public forum debate is that they allow debaters to explore complex and controversial issues from different perspectives and frameworks, and to engage in critical thinking and ethical reasoning. Value resolutions can challenge debaters to examine their own values and beliefs, as well as those of their opponents and their audience, and to justify them with evidence and logic. Value resolutions can also foster creativity and diversity in argumentation, as debaters can draw from various sources and disciplines, such as philosophy, literature, history, psychology, sociology, and religion, to support their claims and counterclaims. Value resolutions can also appeal to a wide range of audiences and judges, as they often deal with topics that are relevant, interesting, and meaningful to society and individuals.

3 What are the challenges of value resolutions?

One of the main disadvantages of using value resolutions for public forum debate is that they can be vague, ambiguous, or subjective, and that they can lead to confusion, misunderstanding, or disagreement among debaters, judges, and audiences. Value resolutions often use terms that are not clearly defined, that have multiple meanings, or that depend on context and interpretation, such as "justice", "mercy", "happiness", "freedom", or "equality". This can make it difficult for debaters to establish clear criteria and standards for evaluating and comparing values, and to avoid fallacies and biases in their arguments. Value resolutions can also pose problems for judging and evaluation, as different judges and audiences may have different preferences, expectations, or opinions on what constitutes a good or a bad value argument, and what sources or evidence are credible or relevant. Value resolutions can also create ethical dilemmas or conflicts for debaters, judges, and audiences, as they may force them to confront or question their own moral convictions or values, or to choose between competing or incompatible values.

4 How to prepare for value resolutions?

To prepare for value resolutions, debaters need to do extensive research and analysis on the topic and the values involved, and to develop clear and coherent cases that define their terms, state their positions, and provide warrants and impacts for their arguments. Debaters also need to anticipate and refute the possible arguments of their opponents, and to address the potential objections or questions of their judges and audiences. Debaters also need to practice their skills of delivery, organization, and refutation, and to adapt their style and strategy to different formats, scenarios, and audiences. Debaters also need to be aware of the ethical implications and consequences of their arguments, and to respect the values and perspectives of their opponents and their audience.

5 How to judge value resolutions?

To judge value resolutions, judges need to be familiar with the topic and the values involved, and to evaluate the arguments of both teams based on the criteria and standards that they establish or agree upon in their cases. Judges also need to be fair, impartial, and consistent in their decision-making, and to avoid personal biases or preferences that may influence their judgment. Judges also need to provide constructive feedback and suggestions to the debaters, and to explain the reasons and rationale for their decisions. Judges also need to be respectful and courteous to the debaters, and to acknowledge the efforts and achievements of both teams.