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

Sorry if some parts are spotty, I did this in debate practice. I'll be going all rebuttal/clarification/crystallization the whole way through. Jumping right in with C1, my contention one discusses the fact that LD debate necessitates a value and criterion, looking at my opponent's statement saying that we can value something without saying I value x goes towards value overall, seeing as how we're discussing valuing things (and my opponent has conceded LD must value things) we can both provide LD has a value, this leads to the new burden of proof as a clarification, seeing as how we both agree cases need values I simply need to provide that cases need criterions (note: for further clarification, I am not altering my burden simply showing how it has been partially fulfilled and as such we must look at what burden I have left).Furthermore my statement with regards to my coach seems to have been picked up as an issue, naturally I am not using my coach as my warrant (the warrant will be brought up in the latter part of my rebuttal) I am using my coach to inject some humor into the round. On C2 cross apply my C5 B and also C5 A and C1, my opponent claims burden systems work in LD, look at the fact LD needs a V (something we've established) and a Criterion, so drop it there and drop it based on the fact that burden systems in LD are abusive (C5 B cross app). Next on C3, keep on crossing C1 and C5, we're not just linking (which I've established in C3) we're linking into LD debate, so drop his argument that anything links because we're looking at specific LD linking. On C4, vote up my opponent for his joke (Kidding!) but in all seriousness, my opponent misconstrues my point intention; I'm clarifying and proposing as a judging paradigm (a proposal that went unaddressed) that if you reach a complete impasse, vote up the NC because of benefits, so consider arguments, then if that yields no clear winner look at benefits. Finally, on the C5, (which is not theory in the usually accepted LD sense but rather simply theory on LD, IE interp) look at the fact that my opponent doesn't even once address directly either of my points, so carry them on the flow, also his statement that I do his work by not maintaining a V/VC is false, the drop on this is the fact that this is not an LD style debate, I'll bring it up again, we're talking about direct LD link, so the fact that this isn't an LD case means this does nothing for him, we can see this is not an LD case for many reasons, we have nothing we value, we have none of the general philosophical constructs of LD, for goodness sake we don't even have the same round structure, so this again doesn't help my opponent at all, this isn't LD so there is no link. However, this failure does bring with it the true game over slip. My opponent didn't address my B, which means drop majority of his offense which comes from his proposal of a burden system is dropped, AND (here's where the really real game over is) he doesn't contend my A, that means LD inherently has to have a V/VC, carry that on your flow and as such look at the fact that my whole burden is fulfilled, everything is done, neg wins, you can end the debate now, however for the sake of argumentation I will address my opponent's following points. My opponent says I misconstrue his concession that LD is a value debate, I do not, he misconstrues round representation of value, we both agree we need value and that's the bottom of it(also you can drop his arg relating back to C5 because of the aforementioned reasons). So now that leads us into this rounds new burden (I have to prove we need a criterion) which leads me into my crystallization. My burden in the scope of this round is to prove we need a C, seeing as how my opponent has taken an inclination towards evidence in his case, let me warrant my claim to the need for criterion. http://www.forensicsonline.net... http://www.triviumpursuit.com... http://www.scribd.com... These major LD arbiters of rules guide us to the fact we need to have criteria, this means even if you don't look at the fact that my dropped C5 fulfills my burden, you can look at this (in addition to my opponent's concession that we require value) to double meet my burdens and thus vote con. Our next issue we have goes to the burden of proof statement I made, naturally I would never try to change the burden of proof I was merely saying that it seemed the burden in acceptance was different than the burden in the AC, this goes to semantics and I think my opponent and I Understand on burden so you can carry this as a non voter. My opponent then tries to rebut my theory cross application with not only his failed C5rebuttal but also a new attempt at offense on my C5 B, you can drop this because he just says I provide no warrant which is false I talk about resolutional prescription and how because LD is V/VC (look back at my double fulfillment of my burdens) anything other than that is abuse. So drop his ‘I have no evidence' argument. This ‘I have no evidence' is a recurring theme with his next argument, he says I don't give any reason why we need an absolute truth testing paradigm, this, again, is false, I give the fact that affirming affirms and negating negates, look at my opponent's own citation! To negate is to deny the truth of, exactly! The truth of the resolution! So that means linking as a means of advocacy does not work (not to be confused with linking as a means of offense) My opponent finally says that my evidence doesn't block out all his alternatives, I say I does, re-cross apply all my sources (http://www.nationalforensics.org......, http://www.forensicsonline.net..., http://www.triviumpursuit.com..., http://www.scribd.com...) then look at his absence of sources and vote up neg. So at this point this is how the debate really breaks down. 1. I am proving the full resolutional burden and the resolutional burden with consideration of speeches and my opponent's example (which is from a debater who goes to his own school I might add) is not proof of LD rules, its proof of judges' misinterpretation thereof. 2. My contentions either go to paradigms or my twice the fulfilled burden and have lots-o-warrant. 3. I have more evidence and more claim on rebutting my opponent's alternates. So the debate breaks down like such, First drop his alternatives (so neg wins) if you don't buy that, look at my fulfilled burden from our established in round constructs (so neg wins) and if you don't buy that, look at my warrants and my dropped C5 A and see I fulfill burden ON FACE, without even looking at any alternatives he proposed (so neg wins) this means actually it's not a lose-lose for me, it's a lose-lose-lose for my opponent and as such I negate.