Value Resolution

A value resolution (also called a value proposition) is a type of debate motion that asks debaters to evaluate whether one idea, principle, or condition is better, more just, or more desirable than another. Unlike a policy resolution, which calls for a specific course of action, or a fact resolution, which asks whether something is empirically true, a value resolution centers on competing normative criteria.

Value resolutions are the defining format of Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate in U.S. high school competition, where the National Speech & Debate Association releases a new LD topic on a roughly bi-monthly cycle. Typical phrasings include "Resolved: X is justified," "X is morally permissible," or "X ought to be valued above Y." The word "ought" signals that the debate concerns obligation or preference rather than implementation.

Debating a value resolution generally requires the affirmative and negative to:

• Propose a value (e.g., justice, liberty, human dignity, societal welfare) that should serve as the lens for evaluating the resolution.
• Propose a criterion or value standard (sometimes called a standard or weighing mechanism) that operationalizes how the value is achieved or measured.
• Argue that their side better upholds the chosen value under that criterion.

Because no plan is advocated, evidence in value debates leans heavily on philosophy, ethics, and political theory — figures like Kant, Rawls, Mill, Locke, and Nozick are commonly invoked — rather than on cost-benefit analysis or empirical studies, though empirics may be used to illustrate stakes.

In Model UN and parliamentary settings, value-style motions appear less often, since UN bodies typically draft operative policy. However, General Assembly debates on issues such as the moral status of the death penalty, the right to development, or the responsibility to protect can take on value-resolution characteristics when delegates argue from normative first principles rather than from drafting language.