There appear to be three main ways that value criteria are run in Lincoln Douglas debate:
- Bridge criterion: The debater argues that the criterion is the best way to achieve or get to the value (like a bridge). An example of this style of criterion is arguing that the Social Contract is the best way to achieve Human Rights or Prosperity.
- Lens criterion: The debater argues that the criterion is a concept that puts the value in a different light. For example, if the value is Security, one can choose a lens criterion like “the Internet” or “Privacy” that paints the value in a different picture
- Limiting criterion: The debater argues that the criterion limits the value and makes it good. For example, if the value is Security, a limiting value criterion of Human Rights would mean that Security is good because Human Rights are protected, and Human Rights limit Security.
Most Team Policy cases do not explicitly list a value and a criterion. Unless stated otherwise, Affirmative cases are generally debated as if they have a value along the lines of "being a good idea" and a criterion of "solving the case's harms". In a comparative advantage case, the criterion is closer to "being better than the status quo".
Clash over values and criteria is rare in Team Policy, and most debaters have only a very general idea of what values and criteria are.