Anti-value case

An anti-value case centers its analysis on a bad goal or reprehensible concept known as an anti-value. The debater argues that his opponent's side of the resolution acheives the anti-value, while his own side does not and produces a good opposite effect. One does not have to prove that his anti-value is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen. One who is running an anti-value case only needs to demonstrate that enough bad will happen to outweigh the good in the opposing speaker's case.

Examples
An example of an anti-value case can be seen in a hypothetical resolution: "Resolved: A government's obligation to protect the environment ought to supercede its obligation to promote economic development." A negative speaker can run an anti-value case of Eco-Imperialism, showing how overvaluing the environment by placing it above economic development leads to Eco-Imperialism with bad impacts x, y, and z.

Another real example was ran in the Stoa resolution "When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be upheld over economic security." An affirmative ran an anti-value of Legalized Plunder. That debater's case showed how when economic security is put above personal freedom, Legalized Plunder results.

Theory against Anti-Values
A common response to anti-value cases is that even if everything the anti-value case says is true, it doesn't actually uphold the Affirmative or Negative's burden. Simply demonstrating the inadequacy of the opponent's side of the resolution supposedly does not result in a win. Critics of anti-values claim that by not showing why your side is better but just blasting away at your opponent's side, you don't truly prove anything to warrant a ballot for your side.