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

Again, I'd like to point out that my opponent must show that an LD case CANNOT FUNCTION without a V/C. So all I need to do is respond to his points and point out other types of cases that can do what his contentions say V/Cs do, and I've disproven his case. So let's go through them all. C1:I can express why we ought to value something without having to implicitly say "I value x". Any case can do this.Besides, the opinion of your random coach doesn't really count in this. My coach is totally fine with other types of cases, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse.C2: Burden systems do this just as well, if not better, than a V/C does.Also, simply giving weighing analysis in round is sufficient, so any case, again, can do this. C3:Links can be made and justified in any type of case to the resolution. Thus, any case can fulfill this contention. C4 (ahaha, C4. Boom lol):Sorry for the explosive joke (all the pun in the world intended).Just because something gives a benefit, that doesn't make it the only thing that works. Totalitarian governments have SOME benefits, but it doesn't make all other forms of governments suddenly not a government at all. Any type of case can provide educational value. C5:Wait, my opponent just tried to use a case THAT DOESN'T HAVE A V/C. He's doing all my work for me! Since he just tried to run theory on me (a really crappy theory shell, no standards or anything), this is going to put him in a double bind because either a) there are cases that work for LD debate without V/Cs, and thus the resolution can be affirmed or b) cases don't need V/Cs, and his entire position is taken out, thus making the resolution affirmed.Game over slip by my opponent. My opponent misconstrues my concession that LD is a value debate as meaning that LD is a V/C debate, but this is just not true. Neither of our positions have a V/C, yet we are debating what we ought to value in LD debate. Because of this, we can clearly debate what we ought to value in a resolution without a V/C.Next, he tries to challenge the burdens of the resolution but:1. He already conceded to them. If he wanted to challenge the burdens he could've either a) posted a complaint in the comments section (there are none) or b) posted a complaint in his first round acceptance. Since he did neither of these things, he conceded to accept the burdens upon him.2. As per the definition of necessary (that he conceded he agreed with) he must prove that an LD case cannot function without a V/C. So the burdens can be easily extended. Next, he argues that benefits make V/C better, however benefits of a certain weighing method is not what is being debated. He must prove that a case in LD MUST HAVE A V/C in order to function. Thusly, benefits of a certain structure have no ground in the resolution. Furthermore, all types of cases have their benefits and downfalls that come with them, so it's inherently a non-unique argument.Next, he tries to cross-apply his theory argument (the one that didn't have a V/C), but this only makes him link harder into the double bind, which is a lose-lose scenario for my opponent and a win-win scenario for me. Plus, he gives no warrant as for why burden systems are abusive or non-topical, thus making them still able to function in an LD case. Easy extension here. Next, he says that linking into another person's case suddenly doesn't work in LD, but he doesn't give a warrant why, he simply asserts that it doesn't. Furthermore, according to Encarta World Dictionary, to negate is defined as to deny the truth of. Thus, the inherent resolutional burden on a negating debater is to only disprove the affirmative, so his point falls here.Next, he says that according to LD rules, other alternatives aren't permissible, but the link he gives is only specific to counterplans, so even if you give weight to his argument here, this only takes out one alternative. There are still kritiks, disads, theory, topicality, word picks, and plans, all of which function without a V/C. So at this point, the debate breaks down pretty easily:1. He's not proving the resolutional burden that it's impossible for a case to function without a V/C in LD debate. All I thusly have to do is point to one instance where an LD debate round had a case that didn't have a V/C and it played a part in deciding who won, and the resolution is affirmed.Colleyville Heritage Tournament on the Jan/Feb topic. Semifinals Dulles AK (Amyn Kasam) vs. Keller TF (Travis Fife). The round came down to a theory shell (NIBS Bad, I believe). Thusly, the resolution is affirmed.2. None of his contentions explain why cases cannot function without a V/C. All he has is a false pressumption and warrantless arguments.3. I'm clearly showing you examples of cases that are used in LD debate that function without a V/C.So for all of the reasons above, I urge a pro vote.