Values res ultimately end in seeing who can pin the other team to the most morally reprehensible actions/actors, and don't result in substantive debate about the actual merits of the values. Its also very aff slanted because its much easier to point out problems with current values than it is to give a concrete problem with the SQ and then defend a specific change.
Fact reses...are debates about facts. Still not sure who thought trying to prove via a debate round whether an event happened for a specific reason was a good idea. Its not. Heavily neg slanted, because aff has no real way to generate offense, while its incredibly easy for neg to generate offense. Even if neg never touches the aff case, if one of their counterwarrants pulls through, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.
Have you ever debated a fact rez? The whole point of a fact rez is the PHRASING, not that you debate whether a non-subjective thing is a fact or not. "Democracy is overvalued" contains a subjective element yet doesn't require AFF team to solve the overvaluation of it. The Separation of Church and State is being inappropriately eroded is another fantastic fact rez I debated. (Wal Mart's business practices are detrimental to the United States is another good one).
Fact rez = "X area is [subjective term]"
Inherent ground for debate is established.
Meanwhile your values analysis sounds like someone repeating what they heard from their parents. That's not what has to happen at all. (and I HATE value rez's most of the time... just for other reasons)
Yes, I have. And I realize you're not actually debating a non-subjective thing (at least if the res is good...there have been cases where the res isn't subjective at all...) But I'd say both of those are value reses. You're questioning how highly democracy should be valued, not just whether its value is at too high of a point. If you deleted inappropriately from the second res, that becomes a fact res which still gives decent ground for both sides on whether its true or not. But its also going to be unbalanced (towards aff in this case) toward whichever side merely needs to prove examples rather than the whole for their side, because the other side must prove all of the aff's examples false, and prove at least some counter instances. And your other fact res example is again aff biased because it easier to prove the some instead of the all. And the other reason against fact reses is that if Wal mart's practices are bad for US, wouldn't it be more educational to debate that in terms of a change to try and fix it instead of just leaving the debate at whether its detrimental or not? It basically forces a whole res harm proving style of debate.
Yes, my value analysis was pretty short. That's a very basic shell of a basic "values res bad" position I'd run in a round, so it wasn't fully developed, and gave exaggerated examples. Not every round does that. But there's strong incentive to do so, and it invites extreme and absurd examples for the end result of upholding a value. Basically you get 2 Ks going against each other without a strong incentive to argue anything besides the Links and MPX (FM isn't an issue really, and Alts don't matter in a values world). Which is basically a value MPX only debate, which is problematic when its the terminal impacts of an "all-in" implementation of values, rather than an actual analysis of the implementation of the values. The only reason you'd have a value res is to make sure you aren't always using "deterministic" net-ben analysis, but Ks give that now. Though I'll still run my wrong forum args against Ks
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!debatecamp.pssda.net