So I have recently switched from policy to LD (because our policy circuit ends rather quickly) and I have a few questions:
Let's say your value was life and your criterion was citizen access to basic needs and the negative's value was quality of life and citizen enjoyment on entertainment. In a round, how would you attack the opponent's value/criterion? I'm confused on how you set up which is more important.
Wouldn't telling your judge not to evaluate the other person's value/criteria be mooting their entire case? Are we supposed to come to a compromise in our value?
If our opponent's case meets our criteria, what do we do then?
If our value and criteria are the same, then do we only debate at the contention level?
How would one go about running status quo theory and what other blocks of theory should I prepare for the UIL topic (RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.)?
What is a fiated case vs a policy-esque case? I hope you can answer my Q's.