Value and criterion, explained

What the framework does

Lincoln-Douglas is a values debate. The resolution asks whether something ought to be true, not whether it would work. So before a debater argues that space colonization or a policy is good or bad, they have to tell the judge what "good" means in this round. That is the framework, and it has two parts.

The value is the thing you claim matters most: justice, morality, human dignity, autonomy, societal welfare. The criterion (also called the value criterion or standard) is the measuring stick. It tells the judge how to know whether the value is being achieved. A value without a criterion is a slogan. A criterion without a value is a rule with no reason behind it.

A worked example

Suppose the resolution is about whether a government ought to provide a universal basic income.

• Value: Justice.
• Criterion: Protecting the basic needs of the least advantaged.
• Link to the resolution: A basic income guarantees food, housing, and security for people at the bottom, so it achieves justice as measured by the criterion.

Notice that the criterion does the work. Once the judge accepts "protecting the least advantaged" as the way to measure justice, the affirmative only has to prove that a basic income does that. Everything the negative says about cost or work incentives is irrelevant unless they either attack the criterion or show that a basic income fails under it.

How judges actually use it

Most judges at CUDL tournaments are trained volunteers, not career debate coaches. They will not decide the round on framework theory. They will do something simpler: figure out which side's criterion they were persuaded to use, then check which side better meets it. Your job is to make that easy.

1. State the value and criterion in one clear sentence each, early in the constructive.
2. Explain why the criterion is the right way to measure the value. One or two sentences of reasoning, ideally with a source.
3. Return to the criterion in every rebuttal. "Under my criterion, this argument matters because..." is the most useful sentence in LD.

Picking a criterion you can defend

Novices often choose a criterion because it sounds impressive. Choose one because your contentions prove it and your opponent's contentions do not. Ask three questions:

• Does my evidence link to it? If your criterion is "maximizing overall welfare," you need evidence about outcomes. If it is "respecting individual rights," you need arguments about principles. Match the criterion to what you can prove.
• Can I explain it to someone who has never debated? If not, simplify it. "Minimizing suffering" beats "act-utilitarian aggregation of hedonic states."
• What happens if the judge uses my opponent's criterion instead? A resilient case wins under both frameworks. If yours only works under your own criterion, you are one lost argument from losing the round.

Common criteria and when they fit

Attacking a framework

You do not have to accept your opponent's criterion, and you should not accept it silently. Three attacks work at every level:

1. It does not measure the value. "My opponent values justice but measures it by economic growth. Growth can rise while injustice rises with it."
2. It is unworkable. "There is no way for a judge to weigh under this criterion, because my opponent never explains what counts as satisfying it."
3. I meet it better anyway. The safest attack. Even if the judge keeps their framework, show that your case wins under it.

Worked example on the 2026-27 September/October topic

Resolution: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative. An affirmative might value morality and offer the criterion of minimizing existential risk: an action is a moral imperative if it reduces the chance that humanity ends. Every affirmative argument then has to show that colonization reduces that risk. A negative might value justice and offer the criterion of prioritizing present obligations: we owe duties to people who exist now before we owe duties to hypothetical future people. The clash in the round is not about space at all. It is about whether future people count as much as present ones, and the debater who argues that question directly usually wins the framework.

Common mistakes

• Choosing a criterion that your own contentions do not meet. Check every contention against your standard before you leave the house.
• Reading a framework and then never mentioning it again. Return to the criterion in every rebuttal: "Under my criterion, this argument matters because..."
• Treating the opponent's value as the enemy. Most values are compatible; the fight is almost always at the criterion level.
• Spending the whole 1AR on framework and dropping the contentions. Win the framework in forty-five seconds, then win the arguments under it.

Practice

• Take any past resolution from the practice resolution bank and write a value and criterion for each side in ten minutes. Explain to a partner why each criterion is the right way to measure the value.
• Run the weighing drill and phrase every answer in terms of a criterion.
• Read the negative's framework from a sample case and write three reasons to prefer your own. Do it for five different frameworks.