 Hello, I'm a Mac and I'm a PC. You know, we use a lot of the same kinds of programs Yeah, like Microsoft Office, but we retain a lot of what makes us us. You should see what this guy can do with a spreadsheet It's insane. Oh, yeah, and he knows that I'm better at life stuff like music pictures movies stuff like that Whoa, what what exactly do you mean by better by better? I mean making a website or photo book is easy for me and for you. It's not oh Oh that kind of better. Yeah, I Was thinking of the other kind What other kind in the now classic back in PC ads from the early 2000s Apple saw to advance the argument that their computers were better than PCs These types of arguments often manifest in discussions over competing values and ideas in formal academic debate Resolutions of fact and value provide the framework to have these types of discussions and competition in this video We will look at how to have these type of debates and how you construct your arguments when arguing in favor or in opposition to the topic New debaters often find that debates on resolutions of fact and value are a bit easier to wrap their heads around This is in part because these types of arguments more closely follow the real life arguments He may be used to it is important to note that while fact and value Resolutions set you up for simpler debates. It does not inherently mean that it will be an easier debate or that you can dive in without structure Let's start with a brief overview of what fact and value resolutions are generally speaking There are three types of resolutions you may come across in debate fact value and policy And this lecture will be focused on the first two But it is important to understand how to differentiate all three types as they call for different setups Resolutions of fact tend to center around what is they are based on an evaluation of what can be observed Improved to be accurate fact debates call on the affirmative team to prove that the resolutions premise is true The negative team must demonstrate that the affirmative team has not done so for example resolved the gender wage gap in the United States is decreasing For the affirmative to win this debate They would need to make arguments that there is indeed a gap in wages between genders and that it has been decreasing On the other hand value resolutions ask you to evaluate an idea Concept or theory for example this house believes that the death penalty is justified It is also possible to have value resolutions that Jax depose conflicting moral dilemmas a classic example is the security versus liberty Resolution resolved in a just society Security of the people is more important than individual liberty for this resolution The goal of the debate should be determine which value security or individual liberty is of greater importance in a just society Last it is important to differentiate fact and value resolutions from resolutions of policy Policy resolutions resolve around a hypothetical implementation of an idea aimed at improving the status quo in the wording of these topics You tend to see a call to action They also almost always contain the words should or would and these types of debate the affirmative is tasked with proving That the implementation of their proposed policy would lead the world better off on balance Consider the example the United States should implement a universal health care system in this debate The affirmative would need to prove that a universal health care system would improve the status quo on the other hand The negative would need to prove that passing such a plan would either not change the status quo or Would cause the status quo to get worse now that you have an idea what you're looking for Let's get back to case construction in a debate on a fact or value resolution You can break the basic constructive components into three key parts the top of case and the Contensions went on the affirmative and counter-contentions went on the negative Let's take a look at these in order when debating on the affirmative You should always start off your top of case with a bit of resolution analysis If it's not obvious from a title This is a place in the speech where you do a bit of analysis on what the resolution is asking you to debate The first thing you want to do is read the resolution word for word This helps us ensure that you your competitor and the judges all know what is being discussed Next state what type of resolution you believe it to be and why this can sound something like today Our resolution is Elvis Presley died of a drug overdose This is a resolution of fact as it asks us to prove that a drug overdose caused his death after stating the resolution type You're ready to define key terms in the resolution It is important to note that you are only defining the words that actually appear in the resolution If there are related terms or concepts that need explaining you can do that in the body of the speech This is a place to focus on the words in the topic only Defining key terms. It is not necessary or desired to define every term in the resolution Remember the clock is ticking and you need to move to the top of case somewhat quickly in order to save time For your bigger arguments later on this means that you should focus on defining terms That may be confusing or have multiple interpretations as the affirmative you have a reasonable right to define terms in debate So long as you do so fairly and not in an attempt to frame the other team out of the round with that in mind It is possible to find terms for both clarity and Strategy when you define a term for clarity you are attempting to specify a key But potentially unclear word in the resolution consider the following fact resolution resolved IRV is a more accurate system for Selecting candidates in a primary election in this case it would make sense for a debater to define and explain that IRV stands for instant runoff voting This is because a judge and the audience is not likely familiar with that acronym or what instant raw voting refers to It's also possible for debaters to define terms for strategic advantage The idea here is to define terms in a way that will offer greater impact to the arguments that will follow it Consider this example fact resolution resolved fake news posted on social media has become a threat to u.s Democracy in this example how each team attempts to define the term threat Could impact the rest of the debate is the ability of fake news to impact u.s election enough to constitute a threat or Must there also be intent by its creators to cause harm while defining key terms for strategy can give you an edge You should also be careful about how you go about it Most judges dislike drawn out definitional debates to avoid this you should attempt to define terms They leave fair ground for both the affirmative and negative teams to build arguments from if you fail to do this The negative will likely challenge your definitions during their first speech This can be done by providing a counter interpretation for the term you defined It also can open up the possibility of procedural arguments where the negative argues that the affirmative manipulated the definitions in a way that makes the debate unfair and should lose the round as punishment with Definitions stated you are ready to establish a framework for the debate Simply put a framework in academic debate is the set of criteria a judge will use to evaluate the round It is the judge's responsibility to listen to both sides of the debate and determine a winner Providing criteria for a judge to evaluate the round helps keep the debate fair and Establishes the burdens for both you and your opponent when on the affirmative It tends to be in your best interest to propose the standards of evaluation rather than having your judge apply her own or worse yet Accepting the ones given by your opponent in a debate criteria Sometimes called the Wayne mechanism tends to be the main way debaters Establish how they want judges to decide the round and its most simple form a Wayne mechanism Should explain what each side needs to do in order to win the debate in other words You want to make an argument about what the resolution wants you to discuss in practice You might simply say something like this We believe this resolution is asking us to advocate Some position and the negative to advocate the other position the team which best meets those burdens should win this debate This allows you to set up a debate with clear paths to the ballot making it easier for both teams to get to the core arguments of the debate and the judge to have a means to evaluate who won when the debate ends you also want to keep in Mind that the arguments you will make later on in the debate will need to connect back to this framework if you want to win Criteria can be simple or more advanced depending on the level at which you're debating in fact debates The burdens tend to mirror those of a civil trial in that vein It makes sense to borrow the balance of probabilities criteria Which is sometimes called preponderance of evidence in American courtrooms here Your goal is to prove through argumentation and data that the resolution is most likely true Consider a continuum where zero percent means absolutely false and a hundred percent means absolutely true Under balance of probabilities the affirmative would need to convince the judge that their case has at least a 51% or more probability of being true in value debates the affirmative should aim to establish a hierarchy of merit either explicitly or Implicitly in some debates this hierarchy is determined by the resolution for example Resolved a student's ability to speak a foreign language is more important than their ability to write in a foreign language Here the affirmative is tasked with proving why speaking a foreign language is of greater importance at other times The hierarchy is more implicit for example resolved Prioritizing spoken foreign language education is more desirable here The affirmative could again debate spoken versus written language education But may also be faced with an alternative hierarchical arguments such as prioritizing foreign languages over other subjects like math and music as Desirability could be interpreted to apply to a broad Continuant of options a final note before we move on it's of paramount importance that you attempt to keep the framework fair It is considered bad form or even abusive to frame the debate in a way Which prevents the opposing team from accessing any arguments the best debates will have good arguments on both sides Avoid attempts to gain a competitive edge in the round by decreasing their predictable ground Your opponent will use to prep out their arguments if you don't you may again find yourself bogged down in procedural Arguments that prevent you from actually discussing the issue at hand with top of case complete You're ready to move on to the core arguments of the debate the Contingents in fact in valued debates The contingents are the main place that you will make arguments why your stance on the resolution is correct during your Preparation and research time you should seek to collect the best arguments why this is the case a Contingent should function as a container to group like arguments together There are two ways you can organize your contingents depending on the amount of sub arguments you want to make Let's take a look at both options first the simple approach generally speaking You want your contingents to have three main parts a claim some supporting evidence and a warrant tying it back to the Resolution and framework consider a debate on the following resolutions Low-carb diets produce better health results than conventional low-fat diets after doing some searching around online You discover scholarly research that supports the idea that people on low-carb diets lose more weight with that in mind You may choose to structure your contention like so contention one weight loss claim people who follow a low-carb diet lose more weight than those who follow low-fat diets data a 2003 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that those who followed the low-carb diet Lost about three times more weight than those on the low-fat diet warrant Since losing weight and decreasing obesity improves health This supports our stance that low-carb diets produce better health results than low-fat diets do in this example The contingent successfully makes a claim about weight loss Supports it with some high-quality evidence and connects it back to the resolution when you first start debating fact and value topics This format will work pretty well. However as time goes by you may discover that Multiple arguments can make a similar point instead of trying to have several Contensions you can group like arguments together as sub points under a single contention Let's look at another example to see how that might play out resolved universal health care systems lead to better Outcomes for its people again. You start to do some research and you discover several data points centered around the economic Benefits of universal health care systems while you could break them into their own Contensions it may be more effective to do something like this contention one universal health care is good for a nation's economy Subpoint one is poverty claim Unexpected health costs push people on the poverty Data according to a 2010 report by the World Health Organization 100 million people who live in places without universal health care systems are pushed into poverty each year the report tied this Directly to the need to pay out of pocket for medical costs Comparatively the report mentioned that this phenomenon was close to non-existent in countries with universal health care systems Subpoint two is economic growth Claim here countries who switched universal health care systems see increased economic growth data according to data published in the December 2013 issue of the journal the Lancet after switching to a universal health care system Brazil China Thailand and Turkey all saw significant economic growth as well as a larger emergent middle class Which brings us to our warrant Thus we can see through a reduction of poverty and an increase in economic growth that Universal health care systems results in better economic outcomes for the people and the countries that have them and thus you have managed to group Two like arguments under a single contention had you had additional arguments about the economics You may have chosen to add a third sub point or you could simply move on to a second Contention where you discussed a different set of reasons why these types of health care systems result in better outcomes For have something to do with survivability in health a final note on contentions Debate is always a balancing act having more arguments may give you more reasons why you're winning the debate However, if you go for too much you will likely have to make sacrifices in rhetorical style by going faster or Incompleteness by leaving details out in this vein I recommend limiting yourself to two or three contentions total any more than that and you start to sacrifice Quality for quantity now that we have a working model for constructing an affirmative case Let's briefly discuss case construction on the negative when debating fact or value resolutions on the negative You will typically split your time between refuting the affirmative case and presenting your own Counter-contentions I talk about refutation in other videos So I will leave links to that in the video description However before I move on to counter-contentions I do want to spend a little time talking about framework as I previously mentioned the rule of the affirmative is to provide a fair Framework for the judge to evaluate the debate why that usually happens You should still be ready to debate the framework at the top of case when you're on the negative During your preparation time you should do a bit of your own Resolutional analysis if there are key terms that you think could be defined unfairly look up a couple of your own definitions If it seems like the affirmative could present a criteria that would frame you out of the round Take a minute's draft out what seems to be a more balanced framework for the judge to evaluate the debate This case you won't need it But should issues arise you'll be prepared with your own counter definitions and counter interpretation when on the negative The main arguments you will want to prep out during prep time are counter-contentions much like Contentions these arguments are designed to prove that the affirmative stance on the resolution is wrong before you start writing them It's important to consider what the resolution is asking you to prove consider the following example resolved when it comes to health Regular exercise is more important than a balanced diet at first glance You may think that your burden on the negative is to prove that a balanced diet is more important than exercise However, that's not completely true from the wording of the resolution You will only need to prove that they are equally important to win this debate This is an important consideration as most debate topics are set up so that the affirmative has the burden of proof When it comes to counter-contentions, it's usually in your best interest to go on the offense This means when it is a resolution of fact that you want to seek out the strongest arguments why the resolution is false When it's a resolution of value, you want to take a stance at the competing perspective should be preferred Let's look at two quick examples first a resolution of fact resolve The Boston Red Sox are the most successful baseball team of all time in this instance You might craft a counter-contention that as of the recording of this video two other teams the New York Yankees and the St. Louis Cardinals have both won more World Series titles than the Red Sox have in your tieback You can use this to support your overall argument that winning less World Series titles Means the Red Sox are not the most successful baseball team of all time Let's take a look at a resolution of value, which includes a comparison resolve Dumbledore is a more powerful wizard than Gandalf Instruction your counter-contention here you should seek to make arguments that the fictional character Gandalf is more powerful than the Dumbledore character This gives you two paths to winning the debate Either you can prove through refutation that they are equally powerful or Through your counter-contention that Gandalf is more powerful than Dumbledore in practice That might look something like this counter-contention one foes vanquished Claim Gandalf is able to win fights against seemingly all powerful enemies Let's go to the data in Lord of the Rings Gandalf is able to triumph over an extremely powerful foe the Balrog of Moria Where Dumbledore's fight with Lord Voldemort in book five ends in a draw So back to the warrant thus through Gandalf's victory. He proves himself to be the more powerful wizard Ultimately the structure of counter-contentions and contensions are the same Just be cautious to factor in the need to refute the contentions made by the affirmative in Addition to reading counter-contentions during your first constructive speech on the negative a counter-contention is not an answer to a Contention but a separate argument on its own today. We took a look at how to debate resolutions of fact and value We discussed the different types of resolutions and how to prep a constructive case when on the affirmative and when on the negative The Mac versus PC debate continues to be a contentious one. I guess even good advertising can't settle everything Thanks for watching this video series is written and produced by me Brian Guy with the help of a wide variety of scholar research And open educational resources for more information on the references and material used see the description page on YouTube This video is published under a creative commons license. Please feel free to share use and revix its content