The judge delivers the infamous judging philosophy proclaiming that they want “value clash,” but you and your opponent run the same value. Suddenly, you’re trapped between two bad options:
- Option 1: Disagree with the value just to force clash—but hurt your own case by abandoning a value that actually benefits you.
- Option 2: Agree with the value—then feel like you've already disappointed the judge before the round even gets going.
Let’s be honest: offering a counter value for the sake of clash isn't always smart.
Sometimes, it's actually harmful to your strategic position. So what do you do when your judge demands a value clash but you agree with your opponent's value?
The Answer: Criterion Clash
Such a clash occurs when you agree with your opponent on what value should be achieved but disagree on exactly how it ought to be achieved. For example, let’s say your opponent presents the value of justice and their entire case focuses on how you need to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. In your next speech, you need to do three things…
Step 1: Acknowledge the Elephant in the Room
Instead, lean into it. Try something like this:
“Judge, I know you asked for value clash, and while my opponent and I both believe that justice is the highest value in this round, you’ll still get your value clash because my opponent and I have clashing interpretations of what achieving Justice actually looks like.”
Step 2: Create Clear Criterion Contrast
Your opponent might not always have a criterion, so you need to be able to identify the underlying link between your opponent’s contentions and the value. Then, break down how your opponent’s contentions achieve something that isn’t actually the value
For example:
“My opponent’s contentions merely prove that his side of the resolution protects the innocent and punishes the guilty. He then draws the conclusion that such an achievement inevitably must result in justice. However, he fails to demonstrate how such protection and punishment is going to be fair. My framework will focus on this aspect of justice which my opponent is missing: proportionality. And that is how our philosophies clash under the value. One side is focused on the result of a consequence (reward for the good, punishment for the bad), and the other side is focused on the means of a consequence (how much reward, how much punishment).”
Why This Works Better Than What Most Debaters Do
Most debaters in this situation will just say, “We agree on justice, so vote for whoever upholds justice best,” and then move on to arbitrarily relating their side to justice. But this approach fails to garner the approval of the judge by referencing their philosophy and showing how you still plan to provide clash even with only one value in the round. Furthermore, such an approach fails to concretely and clearly identify the differences in how each side seeks to achieve the value.
The smarter third option
Don’t get stuck choosing between disappointing your judge or undermining your case. Take the smarter third option:
- Acknowledge your agreement.
- Clarify the difference in criterions (spoken or unspoken)
- Show how only one criterion directly meets the value
That’s how you indirectly create value clash.
