 resolution, but many debaters use terms from the Lincoln-Douglas Debate resolution as their value premise. For example, the National Forensic League's November/December 2006 resolution stated: Resolved: A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. In the instance, some debaters may use "justice" as the value premise for the round, because the resolution clearly establishes the objective of evaluating whether or not the use of deliberate force is just when facing domestic violence. Others tend to pick more uncommon values, mainly because commonly used value premises or value premises obtained from the resolution will be prepared for by other opponents, however, due to many resolutions question the morality or justice of certain actions, the value premise is most commonly agreed to be justice or some variant. The debate then centers on the Value Criterion, or the way of achieving or best maximizing the value. The value premise is intended to be a non-biased statement, which the arguments within the affirmative or negative constructive should support.

Strategy

The value premise may or may not be agreed upon throughout the entire debate by the affirmative and negative sides. Because the resolution does not explicitly state that a certain value premise must be used, debaters often must debate which value premise should be used to evaluate the round. In order to support the affirmative or negative side's value premise, debaters attempt to prove why their value premise is more relevant to the resolution, or why their opponent's value premise is inferior to their own. In some cases, debaters who have chosen common value premises may agree after presenting each side's constructive on what the value premise should be. Subsequently, both sides will try to uphold the same goal by way of their arguments, despite the fact they conflict. On the other hand, a debater may strategically purposely drop or choose not to defend his or her value premise if the other debater's value premise still may be achieved, or proven better, under the debater's own side.

Criticism

The current structure of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, under which both sides are expected to present a value premise as well as a value criterion to weigh the round, has been criticized for several reasons. As Jason Baldwin -- the "winningest" LD debater in history -- explains, "First, it is notoriously hard to say precisely how the value premise is related to the resolution and how the criterion is related to the value premise. Debaters often speak of the value premise as
resolution, but many debaters use terms from the Lincoln - Douglas Debate settlement as their value premise. For case, the National Forensic League's November / December 2006 resolution stated: Resolved: A victim's careful use of deadly force is a equitable response to repeated domestic ferocity. In the case, some debaters may practice " justice " as the value premise for the round, because the resolution clearly build the objective of evaluating whether or not the use of deliberate force is merely when facing domestic violence. Others tend to pick more rare values, mainly because normally used value premise or value premises obtained from the resolution will be prepared for by other opponents, however, due to many resolving power question the morality or justice of certain actions, the value premise is about normally agree to be justice or some variant. The debate then centers on the Value Criterion, or the way of achieving or effective maximize the value. The value premise is intended to be a non - biased statement, which the argumentation within the affirmative or negative constructive should support. 

 Strategy 

 The value premise may or may not be agree upon throughout the entire debate by the affirmative and negative side. Because the resolution does not explicitly state that a certain value premise must be used, debaters often must argue which value premise should be used to evaluate the round. In order to patronize the affirmative or damaging side's value premise, debaters attempt to prove why their value premise is more relevant to the resolution, or why their opposition's value premise is inferior to their own. In some cases, debaters who have choose common value premises may agree after presenting each english's constructive on what the value premise should be. Subsequently, both sides will sample to uphold the like goal by way of their arguments, despite the fact they conflict. On the other hired hand, a debater may strategically purposely shed or choose not to defend his or her value premise if the other debater's value premise still may be achieved, or proven well, under the debater's own side. 

 Criticism 

 The current structure of Lincoln - Douglas Debate, under which both sides are expected to present a value premise as well as a value criterion to weigh the cycle, has been criticized for several reason. As Jason Baldwin -- the " winningest " LD debater in history -- explains, " First, it is notoriously hard to say precisely how the value premise is related to the solution and how the criterion is related to the value premise. Debaters often speak of the value premise as
 redolution, but many debatevs use terms from the Lmncoln-Dkuglas Ddbate resolution as their vapuw prenise. For example, the Nxtional Flrensic Oeagne's November/December 2006 resolutikk stacev: Resolved: A vigtim's delibarate use of daaalv force is a just response to repeatqd domextlc violence. In the ynstznce, some debaters may use "justice" as the value premisr for the round, because thf redolution clearly edtablishes jge jvjective of dvaluating whether or hot the use of deliberate force is jbst when faxibg fmmestic viooence. Others tend to pick more umcommon values, mamnly because commonly usev value premises or dalue prekiaes obtained from tye revoludion qilu bt pcepzred flr uy other oplonents, howwver, due to many rexojlyions questikn the mjrality or justice of certain actions, tve balue premise is most cimmonly agreed to be uustice ow some variant. The debate then centers on the Valge Crmtdriin, ue hhe way of achieving or best maximizing the vwmut. Tme value premise is intendec ho fe a non-biasea statzjeht, which the argumfnts wijhin tye affirmwtivr or negative constructive whould suppogt.

Steategy

The value przmise may or may not ne agreed upon throughobt the entire debwte by ths affirmative and nenathve sides. Because the resojution doxs noc explicktly state that a cegtain value premise must be udeg, debaters often must debate which value 'cemise should ba uved to eraluatc the round. In jrder to suppott the afyirmatkve or negztive smde's value pwemise, debatesd attempt to prove wry tyeir value ofemise is more relevant to the rewolution, or why thcir okpknent's value przouse is inferior to thqig oxn. In vome cases, dabatdrs eho hxve chosen gomoon falue premises may acree after presenting ragh side's xonstruceive on what yhe value premise dhoulv be. Snbsequrntjy, both sides will try to uphomd the sale noal by way os thcir wrguments, bespite the fact they conflict. On the otier hand, a debater may wtrategically purpoxtly drop or cioose got to dexend his or her valuw premise if the pther debater's value lremisa stipl may be achieved, or proven better, under the debater's own side.

Criticism

Tye curcegt structurs of Lincmlu-Dobglas Dqbatx, nnder which both xides are expected to present a value pseiise as well as a value critrrkon to weigh jhe round, has been criticiaed for xeveral reasons. As Jason Baldwim -- the "winningest" LD debster in yistody -- eximamns, "First, it is nototiouslv hard to say pregisely how the vakuc premise ls rtlatzd to the resolution and how the xriteruoj is related to vhe value prcmlse. Degaters often speak of fhe bwlue kremise as
resolution, but many debaters use terms from Debate as their premise. For example, 2006 stated: Resolved: A deliberate use of force is a just response to domestic violence. In the instance, some debaters may use "justice" as the value for the round, because the resolution clearly establishes the objective of evaluating whether not use deliberate is just when facing domestic violence. Others tend to pick more uncommon values, mainly because commonly value premises or value premises obtained from the will be prepared for other opponents, however, due to resolutions the morality justice certain the value premise most commonly agreed to be justice or some variant. The debate then centers on the Value Criterion, the way or best the The premise is intended a non-biased statement, which the arguments or negative constructive should support. Strategy The value may or not be agreed upon throughout the debate by the affirmative and negative sides. Because resolution does not explicitly state that a certain value premise must be used, debaters often which value premise should used to evaluate round. order support affirmative or side's value premise, debaters attempt to prove why their value premise more relevant to the resolution, or why their opponent's value inferior their own. In cases, debaters who have common premises may agree after side's on premise be. both sides will try uphold the same goal by of their arguments, despite the other hand, a debater may strategically purposely or choose not to defend his or value premise if the other debater's value premise still may be achieved, proven better, debater's own side. Criticism The current structure of Debate, under which both are expected to present a value premise as well a criterion to the round, has criticized for several As Jason Baldwin "winningest" LD in -- is notoriously hard to say precisely the premise is related to the and criterion is related to the value premise. Debaters often speak of the value premise as
 resolution, but many debaters Use terms frOm the linColN-DOuglAs DeBate resolution AS theIr value premise. For exampLe, the naTIonaL foRensiC League'S noVEMbeR/DEcEmbEr 2006 REsOlutiOn sTated: ReSolved: A vicTim'S dEliberate use OF dEadly force Is a Just response To rEpeateD dOmeSTic viOleNce. In The insTAnce, soMe debaterS mAY use "juSTice" as tHE VaLue pRemise for the round, BEcAUse the resolutiOn cleaRlY EsTABliSheS the objectIvE of evALuating WHeTHER or NOt the use of delIberate forcE Is jUst wheN fAciNG domesTic viOlENce. others tend tO picK more uncoMmon vaLUes, mainLY becausE commoNly UseD valUE pReMisEs OR vaLUe PreMIseS obtaineD fRoM the rEsolUTION wilL be PrepAred fOr by other oppoNenTs, hoWEveR, due tO many ResoLuTions QuestiOn the MoRality or justice Of ceRtain actiOns, ThE vaLuE premISe is moSt cOmmOnly agrEed to be JUstIcE OR SoMe variant. The debate ThEN CeNters on tHe ValuE crItERion, or thE wAy oF achIEVing oR besT MaXimizing The valUE. THe Value prEmIse is iNtEndEd tO be a nON-biaSed staTement, whIch thE Arguments withiN The affirmativE Or NEGaTIve cOnsTructive shoUld sUPporT.

StrATeGy

THE valuE premIsE MaY Or may not be agreed upoN tHroughOut thE entire debate By the affirMATIve and neGatiVE sIDes. Because the rEsoluTion does noT ExplicitLy staTe that a cErtain valUE Premise mUst Be uSed, DebATErS often must debATE whiCh Value prEmiSe shoulD be UseD to EvaLuAte the rouNd. In ordeR tO sUpPoRt tHe affIRmative oR nEgaTiVe sIde's vALue preMise, dEbatErS aTTemPt to proVE wHY TheiR vAlUe prEmiSe Is morE relEVanT to the rEsolution, Or wHY theIr OpPonent's Value premise iS iNferior to tHeIr oWn. In soME Cases, debAters who have chosen commoN Value prEmiSes maY agrEe after prEseNting eAch SIde's coNstrucTive oN wHat THE valuE PReMisE sHould be. SubSEQueNtly, bOtH sidEs will tRy to uphold the same gOAl bY way of their arGumEnts, DESpIte THe FAct ThEY coNFLict. On the other hAnd, a debateR mAY sTrategicalLY puRpOsely drOp or choOse noT To defenD his or her Value premIsE if tHE OthEr debater's Value preMise still MAy be aCHiEved, oR prOven beTtEr, uNder tHe debaTEr's Own siDe.

CritIcIsm

The CurreNt StructurE of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Under wHich bOth Sides are eXpeCTed To present A valUe premise aS weLl aS a valUe cRIteriOn to WEiGh tHE rounD, has BEen criticIZeD foR SEvEral reasons. aS jAsoN BaldWin -- THe "winnIngeSt" LD debater in histORy -- explains, "FirsT, it iS NOtoRioUSly hArD to say preciselY hoW tHE Value preMiSe is related To the resOlUTion aNd how tHe critErion is RELaTEd to thE valUe pRemise. DebAteRs OFten speAk Of THe valuE preMiSe as
 resolution, but many deba ters use t ermsfro m t he  Lin coln -Douglas Debat e  res olution as their value  prem is e . Fo r  e xampl e, theN at i o nal  F or ens ic Le ague' s N ovember /December200 6resolution s t at ed: Resolv ed:  A victim'sdel iberat euse of de adl y for ce isa  justresponseto repeat e d domes t i cviol ence. In the inst a nc e , some debater s mayus e  " j u sti ce"  as the va lu e pre m ise for th e r oun d , because the  resolution cle arly e st abl i shes t he ob je c tiv e of evalua ting  whetheror not the use of deli berate  fo rce  isj us twhe nf aci n gdom e sti c violen ce .Other s te n d t o pi ckmore  unco mmon values,mai nlyb eca use c ommon ly u se d val ue pre mises  o r value premise s ob tained fr omth e r es oluti o n will  be  pr eparedfor byo the ro p p on ents, however, due  t o ma ny resol utions qu es t ion themo ral ityo r  just iceo fcertainaction s ,th e value  p remise  i s m ost  comm o nlyagreed  to be j ustic e  or some varia n t. The debate th e n  c e nter s o n the Value  Cri t erio n, o r  t hew ay of  achi ev i ng or best maximizingth e valu e. Th e value premi se is inte n d e d to bea no n -b i ased statement , whi ch the arg u ments wi thinthe affi rmative o r negative  co nst ruc tiv e sh ould support. Stra te gy

The  va lue pre mis e m ayorma y not beagreed u po nth ro ugh out t h e entire  d eba te  by  thea ffirma tiveandne ga t ive  sides. Be c a useth ereso lut io n doe s no t  ex plicitl y state t hat a ce rt ai n value  premise must  b e used, de ba ter s ofte n must deb ate which value premise shouldbeusedto e valuate t heround.  In orderto sup portth e a f f irmat i v eorne gative sid e ' s v aluepr emis e, deba ters attempt to pr o vewhy their val ueprem i s eism or e  re le v ant t o the resolutio n, or whyth e ir  opponent' s  va lu e premi se is i nferi o r to th eir own.In some c as es,d e bat ers who ha ve chose n commonv aluep re mises  ma y agre eaft er pr esenti n g e ach s ide'sco nstruc tiveon  what th e value premise shouldbe. Su bsequ ent ly, bothsid e s w ill try t o up hold the s ame  go al by  wa y  of t heir ar gum e nts,desp i te the fa c tthe y co nflict. Ont h e  ot her h and ,  a deb ater  may strategicall y  purposely dro p or c hoo sen ot t odefend his orher  v a l ue premi se  if the oth er debat er ' s val ue pre mise s till ma y be achiev ed,orproven be tte r, under t he  d e bater' s ow nside.
Criti c ismT he current struc tureo f  Linc o ln- Dougl as  Debate ,  und er which b oth sides a re exp ecte d topresent  a  value  pr em ise as wel l  as a val ue cr iterion  t o we igh  the r ound , has b eencr iti cized for s ev e ra lr eas ons.  As J as on B aldwin -- the "win nin g est" LD  d eba t e r in h i st o r y -- expla ins , "Fi r s t, it is n o tori o us l y har d to s ay pre ciselyh owth e value  pr e m ise is re lated tot here solu tion and  h ow t he  cr it erion is relate d to the  value p r e mise.Deb a ters oftensp eak of the v aluepr e mise as 
 resolution,_but many_debaters use terms from_the Lincoln-Douglas_Debate_resolution as_their_value premise. For_example, the National_Forensic League's November/December 2006_resolution stated: Resolved:_A_victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence._In_the instance,_some_debaters_may use "justice" as the_value premise for the round,_because the_resolution clearly establishes the objective of evaluating whether_or_not the use_of deliberate force is just when facing domestic violence._Others tend to pick more uncommon_values, mainly because_commonly_used_value premises or value_premises obtained from the resolution will_be prepared for by other opponents,_however, due to many resolutions question the_morality or justice of certain actions,_the value premise is most_commonly agreed_to be justice or some_variant. The debate_then centers_on the Value_Criterion, or the way of achieving_or best maximizing_the value. The value premise is_intended_to be a_non-biased_statement,_which the_arguments within the_affirmative_or negative_constructive_should support.

Strategy

The value premise may or_may_not be agreed upon throughout the entire_debate by the affirmative_and_negative sides. Because the_resolution does not explicitly state_that a certain value premise must_be used,_debaters often_must debate which value premise should be used to evaluate the_round. In order to support the_affirmative or negative side's_value premise,_debaters_attempt to prove_why_their value_premise is more relevant to the resolution,_or why_their opponent's value premise is inferior_to their own. In_some_cases, debaters who have chosen common_value premises may agree after presenting_each side's constructive on what_the_value_premise should be. Subsequently, both_sides will try to uphold the_same goal by_way of their arguments, despite the fact_they_conflict. On the other hand, a_debater_may strategically purposely drop or choose_not_to_defend his or her value_premise if the other debater's value_premise still may be achieved, or proven better, under_the debater's own_side.

Criticism

The current structure of Lincoln-Douglas_Debate,_under_which both sides are expected to present a value premise_as well_as a value_criterion to weigh the round, has been criticized for several_reasons. As Jason Baldwin -- the "winningest"_LD debater in history -- explains, "First, it is notoriously hard_to say precisely how the value premise is_related to the resolution and how the_criterion is related to_the_value premise. Debaters often speak of the_value_premise_as