In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, It is not necessary to have a case with a value and value-criterion

Thanks for accepting again. As a roadmap, I'm going NC/AC (rebuttal). Contention I: Lincoln-Douglas debate is a Value/Value Criterion centric debate and as such requires a V and VC. Since LD's creation and throughout the course of its popularity on the national and local circuits a constant of LD debate has been the value and the standard through which the value is evaluated (known as the criterion). These major parts of LD debate are the only equivalent to ‘stock issues' we, as LDers, have and are the main and sometimes only substantive difference between LD and other types of debate. Barring time constraints, with consideration of the growth of more and more philosophical arguments in CX and PF, it is made abundantly clear that debate is turning into a sort of pseudo-melting pot wherein progressivity is causing uniformity. When everyone has DAs, theory, FWs, and philosophical contentions, the thing that is needed to differentiate the community is inherent substance (for LD the Value-Value criterion case structure). In essence, as my coach would say, "it aint LD if it don't got V/VC". Contention II: The Value and Value Criterion give the judge (or judges) a scope through which the round can be viewed. Contentions by themselves are a statement of fact with an impact. However these contentions do absolutely nothing without a standard to judge them by. So in order for contentions to mean anything under the resolution we need a Value and Value criterion as a means of giving the round a scope. Contention III: The value and Value criterion ensure topicality. A key part of Lincoln-Douglas debate rounds is the link structure of the argument and V/VC cases ensure that these links are maintained. (IE the Value in a case links to the resolution, the Value Criterion links to the Value, and the contentions link to the Value Criterion.) Seeing as how links are essential to being able to affirm or negate a resolution and a V and VC are essential to links, debate requires a Value and Value Criterion to truly affirm/negate. Contention IV: The Value and Value Criterion provide better educational value. My opponent touched on this. Values and Criterions are easier to learn, they're easier to follow, and they're easier to find warrants for. Contention V: Theory. A: interpretation LD is a V/VC debate and at its essence requires these two things above all else. Without a V/VC the debate in question is but a shell of true LD debate, it may have the same parameters as real LD debate or be on the same time scale, but it is not LD debate if it doesn't have a Value and Criterion. A generally accepted idea is that LD is a Value debate which necessitates a VC to maintain links and equality and also as a result of precedent. LD debate has stood as a V/VC debate since its insemination and at its core is a V/VC debate. Which brings us again to the core idea that "it aint LD if it don't got V/VC". B: Abuse Creating standards through means other than V/VC makes for a burden of proof that is abusive and unfair to any debater. As previously discussed Values are essential to links and to also maintaining fairness, we can see this by the fact that Values are prescribed by the resolution (IE "morally permissible"=morality, "Just"=Justice, etc.) and criterions are the only way to link to the value. Failure to abide by this creates abuse, the value limits the scope of the debate and so it is essential and then a criterion is needed to negate or affirm, therefore abstract standard creation is not only non topical it also creates an unfair burden of proof by taking standards outside of the scope intended by the resolution. To sum this up, LD at its base (from creation, practice, and precedent) is a V/VC debate and even if you don't buy that then look at the fact that LD debate is a Value debate (at my opponents own admission and as prescribed by the resolution) and the Value constitutes a Criterion to maintain topicality and fairness which means affirming and negating (the two options in LD) require a V/VC, now to address my opponent's case. Start with definitions; I generally agree with them, if we need clarification on semantics later on I'll post in the comments or later rounds. As for burdens, I agree with my opponent except his statement that I have to prove a case cannot interact with the resolution without a V/VC, I simply have to show a case cannot affirm or negate without a V/VC/ Next, look at my opponent's concession of the benefits under the V/VC structure, so if it's a tossup for any judge carry across my contentions of benefits and vote con because in a tie the neg has better benefits. For my opponent's proposal of the use of the burden system cross apply my contentions on abuse and topicality and so you can drop that as a counter proposal. Looking at my opponent's proposal of linking into another case partially apply my idea of topicality and also look towards the fact that LD does not work under a relativity paradigm it works under an absolute truth testing paradigm (IE Pro affirms Con negates, not Pro affirms Con negates pro). As for my opponent's advocacy of other unmentioned items (Ks etc.) these are not suitable alternatives, look at LD rules "the counter must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, need for further study, Etc. (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION)." http://www.nationalforensics.org.... So these are not viable options and can be dropped also. What this means is that my opponent hasn't provided any legitimate options so drop his third to last paragraph and in a last response to his statement that LD is a Value debate cross apply my summary at the end of my NC and also carry across my contentions pertaining therein and again drop his alternatives. So, I say it again, LD at its base (from creation, practice, and precedent) is a V/VC debate and even if you don't buy that then look at the fact that LD debate is a Value debate (at my opponents own admission and as prescribed by the resolution) and the Value constitutes a Criterion to maintain topicality and fairness which means affirming and negating (the two options in LD) require a V/VC especially considering my opponent's lack of provision for another reasonable option.