Because values are the most important aspect of a values debate, the ability
to respond effectively to values is one of the most important skills for a
debater to master. Merely proposing and defending a value of your own is not
effective without showing why it is more important than your opponent's value,
and to do that you must master the skills of value refutation. When it
comes to attacking a value, your two most useful tools are value objections
and value implications.
Value objections are attacks on the nature
or characteristics of a value. Look for flaws in the reasoning behind a
value.
1) State your opponent's value premise.
2) Identify the flaw in the value premise.
3) Expand on the nature of the flaw.
4) Impact the flaw to the value premise as a whole.
Example: "The affirmative team proposes a value of the Quality of Life. Quality of life, however, is an inherently subjective value, meaning that different people mean different things when they say 'quality of life'. Because of this, the value is impossible to uphold for society as a whole, because upholding quality of life for some means sacrificing quality of life for others."
Value implications are an attack on the
application of the value. Look for places where upholding the values leads
to unwanted consequences.
1) State your opponent's value premise.
2) Identify an example of another application of that value.
3) Show that this application should not be supported.
4) Impact this argument to the value premise as a whole.
• Make your link from value to application as strong and as applicable as
possible.
Example: "The negative supports the quality of life as the driving force in their policy-making decisions, a value which is often used by advocates of euthanasia, the immoral concept of doctor-assisted suicide, to support their position. Thus we can see from this application that the connotations of accepting quality of life universally can be morally devastating to a society."