1

Value Kill List

Brought to you by all members and contributors to the Paradigm Reactor

Table of Contents:
Value Standards...................................................................................................................2
How to go against values.....................................................................................................2
Academic Excellence...........................................................................................................3
Advancement.......................................................................................................................3
Character..............................................................................................................................3
Democracy...........................................................................................................................3
Economic Welfare...............................................................................................................4
Equality ...............................................................................................................................5
Excellence............................................................................................................................5
General Welfare...................................................................................................................5
Global Welfare ....................................................................................................................6
Happiness ............................................................................................................................6
Honor...................................................................................................................................7
Human Rights......................................................................................................................7
Individual Rights..................................................................................................................8
Justice.................................................................................................................................10
Knowledge.........................................................................................................................11
Liberty................................................................................................................................11
National Security...............................................................................................................12
Progress/Positive Progress.................................................................................................13
Prosperity...........................................................................................................................14
Quality................................................................................................................................15
Quality of Life....................................................................................................................16
Truth...................................................................................................................................16
Unity..................................................................................................................................17
Victory...............................................................................................................................17
 2

Value Standards
• Absolute - valued same way by everyone, not dependent upon external conditions
for existence or for its specific nature
• Can’t be compromised - what affects does it have when not compromised?
• Definable - can be totally defined
• Intrinsic Value - must have good value, doesn't derive it's value from something
else. Something worth achieving
• Timeline - must be achieved in a reasonable amount of time.

How to go against values

1. Redefine opponent’s value criterion. Does economic liberty mean freedom to
have child labor? Attack opponent’s value criterion; why economic liberty is bad.
2. Divorce VC from V i.e. EL doesn’t necessarily lead to ES.
3. Show how your value and opponents can both be met. My applications fall within
the value of my opponent, so I win either way.
4. Disconnect their value from excellence ("___ doesn't lead to excellence")
5. Show how their value doesn't link to the resolution
6. "Unless you have my value, you won't be able to handle/enjoy their value"
 3

Academic Excellence
Too Vague (Varies per person, therefore impossible to value highest)

Advancement
• Conservatism. Sometimes we have already achieved something great, and we
have to conserve it rather than keep advancing it. In fact we hope in this round
that once we achieve our value, we conserve it and keep upholding it.
• Not a value. We assume in this round that we are advancing towards our value,
that’s what “upholding a value” means, we are advancing towards it. Therefore,
by upholding my value, we will be advancing and progressing.
• Vague. Technological advancement, social advancement, scientific advancement?

Character
• Character is a good thing *to* value, but it isn't a *good* value
• Too broad, (my value) is achievable and tangible. Character is more than one
value.
• Relative to culture
• How do you know that you still have character when you've had to compromise a
virtue or part of your character? (possibly even to protect another aspect of your
character)
• Characer must be attained before it is good. People of character may make good
decisions, but they must first get that character. (only use this if you've shown that
comp. doesn't equal character).
• Defined by other values

Democracy
1) No Guarantee of a just Democracy
Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands, co-author of Importance of Philosophy , and the
designer of this web site; engineer, specializes in cache coherency, and have about 49
(and counting) patents issued, 2001 (Democracy, 2001,
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Democracy.html)
“Democracy is rule by the majority. There are no limits to what the majority is allowed to
decide. It can decide to pass laws based on a whim, with no respect for rights. It can pass
laws against painting your house white as easy as it can pass laws against murder.”

Who is to say that the people will always decide to pass laws that help society instead of
take away from it? If the government’s ruling is always only what the people want done,
anything can happen and any laws can be passed.
 4

2) Minorities Suffer
Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands, co-author of Importance of Philosophy , and the
designer of this web site; engineer, specializes in cache coherency, and have about 49
(and counting) patents issued, 2001 (Democracy, 2001,
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Democracy.html)
“Those that suffer the most under a democracy are the minorities. The smaller the group,
the less say they have in government. But majority and minority change with each issue
or policy. Everyone finds themselves as part of the minority at some point. But since the
majority rule, the government has no fear of rebellion to hold them accountable for their
actions. Democracy unfettered means the minority can become the prey of the majority.”

3) Unlimited Power
Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Author of books on education in the US, graduated from The
City College of New York edited the Universal Library at Grosset & Dunlap, 2006 (Why
Democracy is Bad, 2006,
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/02/why_democracy_i.html)
“In a pure democracy, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. That's what
happened in Germany in 1933 when the majority voted Hitler’s National Socialist Party
in. Hitler then consolidated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with its deranged racism
and plans for world domination. Hitler stated all of this in his own book, "Mein Kampf,"
which any German could have read. At first German Jews assumed that Hitler would not
last long. The Nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural
and religious tolerance. But they were wrong. And now among Palestinians, 60 years
after Hitler, we have the same situation. A political party, Hamas, determined to wipe
Israel off the map, has acquired political power through the democratic vote. This is pure
democracy, unfettered by any constitutional limitations.”

4) The United States is not a Democracy

Consider the words of Robert Welch speaking of the nature of the United States ... "This
is a republic, not a democracy, let's keep it that way." The difference between a republic
and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it
lies with a charter; in a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority. In this way,
Democracy makes laws for the "greater good" of all people, occasionally abolishing
personal rights in doing so. A republic must abide by the limits set in the constitution
written.

5) Democracy is only as good as its Constitution

The idea of democracy might be good, but if the rules it follows are corrupted or in other
ways inapplicable, the democracy is no longer legitimate. If old baking powder is used to
back a cake, the cake will not rise. We must have a sound constitution to build upon if we
hope to accomplish a sturdy democracy.

Economic Welfare
Slavery was valuing Economic Welfare
 5

Equality
• Unachievable
• Inherent inequality-- people are born with different abilities/handicaps
• Equality means nothing without another value being represented first and
foremost. For example, you can kill everyone, which is treating them all the same,
but you are neglecting life.
• Socialist/communist governments value equality Valuing equality higher than
anything else has been historically proven to lead to disastrous results [Jones
Town, Communism, tax reforms, etc]
• Countered by need for authority

Excellence
• People can excel in virtually anything (i.e. Drug Dealing)
• Too Vague, we can not discuss everything that is excellence (No boundaries, can
be good or bad)
• Too broad. We can’t possibly talk about everything in this debate round, we need
a more narrow value so that we can focus our argumentation in one or two areas.

General Welfare
1. Vagueness: No Brightline
With Definitions like "good for all" or "all things morally right," We don't really
know what it consists of.

2. Multiple Values: (Opponent will "subsume" your value)

The opponent basically comes up and says that your value is included in theirs; that
if the judge votes for them, they'll get your value "and all the other good ones." {Really
annoying btw…}
Response: This really leaves no ground for me to defend my value and have a good
value debate. (This is killer because lots of parent & alumni judges really focus on the
"value debate"!!) You can also point out that this proves that General Welfare is made up
of multipile values and that you get General Welfare by valuing them.

3. Unachievable/Utilitarian (Limits potential for others)

Response: "Unless my opponent has somehow discovered the ultimate utopian
society, people will always push others down and decrease their 'welfare' in order to
increase their own 'welfare' therefore making General Welfare impossible. Someone must
do the 'dirty jobs.'" Basically an attempt to create general welfare for everyone,
communism took the upper class and decreased their welfare in order to try and increase
the welfare of the lower class. What promotes my General Welfare, may not further
yours. This leads to totalitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
This sounds good but leads to old people dying so that young, thriving people can receive
faster care in the emergency room. This was Stalin’s philosophy, eliminate the few week
so the many strong can flourish. This is an evil philosophy. General welfare looks at the
 6

ideas of only the majority of the group, because of this, it compromises the ideas of each
individual’s form of happiness. For example, when Hitler came into power the majority
that followed him saw their idea of happiness as favorable but the minorities form of case
was unfavorable. In the end not everyone gets the general welfare they specifically want
or define. Basically the majority wins instead of the minority no matter which is right.

4. General welfare is a short-sighted goal.

Chris Dodd, United States Connecticut Senator, 2010. (“Dodd Holds Hearing to Address
the Foreclosure Crisis” Chris Dodd United States Senator for Connecticut
http://dodd.senate.gov/?q=node/4804).
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as well as other government regulated loans to low income bad
credit borrowers, is an example of how when the government seeks general welfare, the
outcome can be harmful. The Act sought to give home loans to low-income neighborhoods, which
lowered the tax lending standards on homes. Although this seemed like a good idea at first, the low-income
families started buying expensive homes with their loans and were not able to pay them back. Senator Chris
Dodd of Connecticut’ response to what caused the current economic crisis was quote “A lot of bad
mortgages or a lot of bad securitized debt that’s out there. The root cause of this is the housing foreclosure
crisis.” As we can see bad government regulations for tax lending standards fueled the
housing bubble and caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In the end the pursuit of
general welfare caused economic harm.

5. General welfare is not immutable, it changes overtime

The definition of "General Welfare" changes over time, which can be irrelevant in
different eras. Insurance programs like Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security never
existed (even as ideas) in the late 18th century. Technology and social philosophy change
over time. What might have been considered a good way of treating patients in the
15th century, would now be considered archaic. The exact definition of general welfare
for everyone may now be inappropriate, or worse, incorrect in the future.

6/Impact:
The Proper place for General Welfare is a side effect (additional outcome), not the
highest goal for the above reasons:

Global Welfare
• Unattainable
• Uncontrollable
• What is "Good" for everybody?
• Many teams will only talk about the civilized world. In that case, bring up "the
rest of the world".

Happiness
• Not important Enough, not highest value
• Happiness is Conditional
• Relative, not absolute
• Undefinable, unattainable
 7

Honor
Not as important as Human Life, Survival, etc - examples: Hiroshima/Nagasaki,
Guantanamo Interrogation Tactics

Human Rights
1. Internal Conflict
a) Abortion (Life vs Liberty)
b) Flag Burning (Liberty vs. Honor)
c) Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church-Their free speech rights came into conflict
with the rights of a grieving military family. People don’t agree on the definition of
Human Rights in each situation. What Human Rights are, is not even agreed upon even
here in the US.

2. Relative to Judgment
No clear definition. When does a baby have the right to life and when does the
mother have the freedom to get an abortion? The constant debates about this subject
in America prove that there is no clear definition. Gay marriage is another example where
the right to “liberty” is not clearly defined, and states disagree.
Everybody has different ideas because they come from different families, belief
systems…etc.
Impact: People may have bad judgement (politicians…individuals in society)

3. Relative to Law
Texas (robberies)
Death Penalty differences between states (CA has capital punishment, MA doesn't)
Subject to Judgement of Lawmakers

4. Relative to Culture
Islam: Quran (Male authority over women) The Quran of Islam states that a man can
beat his wife if she disobeys him. Obviously these are not the same freedoms that women
enjoy here in America.
Rifqa Bary - "Rifqa confirmed to ABC's Orlando affiliate WFTV that she believed
her father would kill her. 'They have to kill me because I'm a Christian. It's an honor
[killing]. If they love me more than God, then they have to kill me,' she
explained." http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8303567&page=1

5. Must be Compromised
Hiroshima/Nagasaki (Innocent citizens suffered for the HR of others)
GITMO
Torture (Water-boarding)
(If they say that it was compromised to save a greater ratio of people than are being
killed, ask how big of a ratio is needed-and who decides it. Should we sacrifice 10 people
to save 1,000? What about 1 person to save 3?)
 8

6. Multiple Values
Provides Negative with "less ground"...Lincoln-Douglas is a Value debate (one value
vs. one value)
No end to adding values.

Individual Rights
1) Individual Rights are the right to do anything and everything you want with
yourself. These rights only exist in a state of nature (an absence of government or
society) because they are purely relating to a single human being. However, Individual
Rights in the state of nature had three problems: misperception of natural law, lack of
objective arbiters, and inequalities of strength. To solve these three problems, "Individual
Rights" were deserted for Citizen's Rights.

2) Through the Social Contract, Individual Rights are transformed into Citizen's
Rights. The Individual delegates the absolute right of self-preservation and the absolute
right of taking out punishment on others to the government, which in turn provides for
the just, impartial protection of the Citizen's property. Society provides a set standard for
perception of natural law. Objective arbiters are put into place in a government’s judicial
branch. Finally, restraints are put into place to protect the weak and helpless.

3) Because these "Rights" are delegated to the government, they don't disappear.
The government and society now protect your person, provide justice for crimes, and
protect the property of citizens.

In conclusion, Individual Rights are left behind in the state of nature when the individual
joins a society and is provided with a better alternative, Citizen's Rights.

---

1) Individual Rights are Undefinable

No matter how hard we try, a universal definition or understanding of Individual Rights
cannot be found. Even the idea of Liberty, a parallel idea to a “right” has caused much
confusion over the years. To illustrate, pay heed to the words of President Lincoln:
“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American
people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty, but in using the
same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty means for
each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while with others
the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the
products of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things
called by the same name liberty. It follows that each of the things is, by the perceptive
parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”
- President Abraham Lincoln
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/9005
Accessed on 8.22.10
 9

2) Individual Rights are Relative

UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 16. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the
right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at
its dissolution.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in
periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret
vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and
resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work
and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his
family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the
right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Article 26. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall
be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

3) Qur’an
The Koran establishes the superiority of Men over Women and allows a husband the
Islamic equivalent of Marital Abuse, a serious crime in the western world.
"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the
one above the other….chide those for whose [disobedience] you have cause to fear;
remove them into beds apart, and scourge them…God is High, [God is] Great!"
(Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

In 1879, law scholar Nicholas St. John Green wrote, "The cases in the American courts
are uniform against the right of the husband to use any [physical] chastisement, moderate
or otherwise, toward the wife, for any purpose." Green also cites the 1641 Body of
Liberties of the Massachusetts Bay colonists -— one of the first legal documents in North
American history —- as an early de jure condemnation of violence by either spouse.

---
 10

People generally assume that Individual Rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness. As we can see from the definitions, individual rights are things that
a person is entitled to because they are a person. This overlaps with the rights to Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, but more generally includes rights to free speech,
free assembly, free movement, health, and others.

1. Self-Destructive
The free exercise of any one individual's rights necessitates an infringement of an other's.
For instance, my right to freedom of movement includes my right to move where, when
and as fast as I want. By using this right and driving very quickly through a residential
area, I endanger other's rights to life, free movement, and safety. The complete exercise
of just one of my rights as an individual compromises many in return. One individual's
rights destroy another's rights as they are exercised, and I would argue that Individual
Rights, as a whole, are self-destructive.

2. Divisive
Thomas Hobbes, in his book Leviathan, postulates that the reason governments are
formed is to protect its citizens from hurting each other as they pursue their own desires.
Citizens limit the use of their individual rights to live without fear of other people.
Individual rights are divisive because they elevate the good of the individual above the
good of the group. Unlimited use of individual rights hinders the government’s
responsibility to protect its citizens, and as a result, divides the community.

Journalist Robert J. Samuelson has said "We face a choice between a society where
people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where
group selfishly protect their own benefits."

Justice
1) Different Standards
Different cultures have different standards of Justice - Different cultures have different
forms of punishment they use for crimes (For example, the act of adultery may lose one
their job/reputation in the U.S. whereas it may get one stoned to death Middle Eastern
countries), which of these is 'right'? We can’t ever know who is right and what is true
Justice.

2) Justice is Indefinable
Justice is not something that one can define, therefore it cannot carry weight in the round
as a value.
Edmond Nathaniel Cahn, expert on jurisprudence, wrote in The Sense of Injustice (1949)
–“Justice is impossible to define. It's an idea rather than a concept that people can agree
on.” Justice, as opposed to being something tangible, is more abstract and unattainable.
You can never come to an absolute model.

3) Justice for whom?

Everyone, even here in America, has different ideas on what is or is not just, therefore,
we can not know who is right. Take, for example, the controversy over abortion. Some
 11

think it is their just due to be able to have an abortion should there be an unplanned
pregnancy. Others think it is unjust to dispense of innocent unborn children. In this case,
who gets their idea of ‘justice’? Do we uphold justice for the mother, or for the child?
The pro-choice national website states about abortion, “It is also available thanks to all
those working to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and
justice [emphasis added] for women.” Yet John Ollason, a professor of ecology at
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, writes, “Abortion may be expedient, but it is never
just.”

4) Who administers justice?

There is no way to determine who administers justice, since everyone’s idea of justice
differs from another. There is going to be a bias, no matter who it is. Who administers
justice? Your next-door-neighbor? The court? The government? The government is not
always right. The court is not always right. Your next-door-neighbor is not always right.
Humans are fallible. They deserve justice, yet how can they reliably dish out justice when
they themselves are not always right? They can’t.

Knowledge
• It changes, its relative. What may be “known” now, may be proven false later.
(Climategate) There’s not a limit, you can’t ever really achieve it.
• Even increasing knowledge isn't inherently good

Liberty
1) Liberty is vague.
The definition of Liberty does not specify what control we are free from. This is harmful
because it gives us the freedom to disobey God, our parents or whoever we want to, thus
leading to chaos. If Liberty is valued to the ultimate we won’t know what we are valuing.

“Liberty, equality - bad principles! The only true principle for humanity is justice; and
justice to the feeble is protection and kindness.”
- Henri-Frédéric Amiel

Impact: If you vote for Liberty, you won’t know what you are valuing.

2) Liberty needs limits.

Liberty needs limits because when everyone has unlimited liberty it can lead to anarchy.
If Liberty is the highest value it leads to events like the French Revolution. The founding
Fathers listed Life before Liberty in the Declaration of Independence because they
realized that limited Liberty is better.
“Too much liberty corrupts us all.”
- Terence Roman playwright and philosopher
“The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the
increase of it." - Woodrow Wilson
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
Thomas Jefferson
 12

“The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of government power.” General
Douglas MacArthur

Impact: Unlimited liberty brings down government, so the _____ is being

nonresolutional.

3) Liberty ultimately leads to anarchy.

Liberty leads to anarchy because when everyone has freedom from restraint then chaos
reigns. For example if there were no restraints for drivers then there would be a multitude
of crashes. For instance in South America they feel at liberty to disobey traffic laws. And
the result “According to official statistics, over 5,000 people die in traffic accidents in
Columbia”#
Impact: Anarchy is not a legitimate form of government, thus the_____ is not fulfilling
the resolution.

National Security
• No intrinsic value - it gets value protecting OTHER values
• If valued too highly it can violate certain human rights [Patriot Act]
• "Those who would give up liberty for a little partial security deserve neither
liberty nor security."
• Unattainable, idealistic Value (never completely achieved)
• Not the most important value. Some things are worth risking your life for, like
your family or your country.
• Not the most important value. Some things are worth risking your life for, like
your family or your country.
• Not personable. This isn’t a value for you and me. How can we protect national
security, without joining the military or navy?
• Achieved wrongly. Bombing all of our enemies would make us safe but would be
evil.

1) Harms the rights of the individual

An over emphasis on national security damages the freedoms of the everyday citizen that
really matter.
Example: “Alien and Sedition Acts.” Passed in 1794, a set of bills, that made it a crime
to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” (2) against the government or of its
officials. At that time the government was locking up any citizens at spoke out against
the government in fear of a breach of national security.
One incident in involved a lawyer named Thomas Cooper, an editor of a newspaper, was
fined and sent to prison for writing an article accusing John Adams of bias towards
Britain. (3)
Impact: By placing National Security as the value in today’s debate round, we are
purchasing Security, for the liberties of the individual.
 13

2) Restricts the rights of groups of people.

What is the end goal of national security? “To protect the people.”
But if we uphold security as our highest value, we are sacrificing the freedom of the
people for our supposed security.
Example: (From the U.S. department of the interior) Japanese American Concentration
camps. In 1942, the United States government ordered more than 110,000 Japanese
American men, women, and children to leave their homes and detained them in remote,
military-style camps. There were in all ten camps where Japanese American citizens and
resident Japanese aliens were interned during World War II. (4)
The U.S. government was so worried about Japanese spies; anyone who even looked
Japanese was moved to a concentration camp.
Impact: By putting security before the good the people, we are compromising the very
foundations that America was founded on.

3) An over emphasis on National security harms immigration.

America at its very roots is a land of opportunity, but it is folly to shut our selves off to
the rest of the world.
Examples: Countries like North Korea guard their boarders with barbed wire, and
concrete walls; severely restricting the movement of the people wanting out of the
country, and the people wanting into the country. (5)
Impact:
1) This harms the rights and freedoms of the countries citizens.
2) This harms the foreign relations of the countries.

Progress/Positive Progress
1. Progress is Defined by Other Values
The only way we can determine what progress is is looking at the outcome, the
value.
a. Progression toward something [My Value]
b. No Intrinsic Value: Progress is a means not an end
c. For these reasons, Can't be the Highest Value in the round.
Link to the Resolution and explain that we have to show one value as the
highest

2. Relative: Progress of Whom, of What, in What Direction.

Relative to judgment: People think what they're doing is "good" or in the "right"
direction.
APP. Adolf Hitler - Hitler thought he was doing the "best" thing…making
progress for the Aryan Race by eliminating the Jews, Gypsies, Disabled…etc.

3. The Progressive Era 1900-1920

Progressives valued "Progress" so much that the overall morality (education,
religion) actually regressed.
 14

Were the technological, medicinal, agricultural advances worth the cost of BIG
government? Founding Fathers set up a limited Gov, but Progressives pushed to make the
government big enough to solve all their problems.
Progressives believed that they could sole all of mankind's problems by themselves.
That better schools, tech., living conditions, etc would lead them to a utopia.
APP: Socialism - Former Head of the American Railway Union Eugene Debs was at
the forefront of the progressive era advocating socialism as the ultimate goal we should
be progressing towards.
APP: 18th Amendment (Prohibition) - Social Workers/Christians/Moral People Saw
what alcoholism did to americas. They decided to take the issue into their own hands and
passed the 18th amendment (Which they thought was progress). But the rest of america
wasn't too fond of the idea (took away their liberty), and eventually the 18th amd. was
repealed.
APP: Industrial Revolution - Although the Industrial Revolution was a time of great
progress, when people put that opportunity and progress above Human Beings, there
were gave consequences. An example of this is child labor, where children were worked
long hours for little pay.

4. Progress is not always straight-forward

Progress is not a definite thing. Often progressing in one direction undermines a
nation as a whole.
C. S. Lewis once said, “We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress
means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who
turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
Impact: When a government focuses on progressing rather than the will of its people it
will violate the will of the people to achieve this progress.

5. Turn: Progress is a often a smokescreen for evil

Writer Stanislaw Lem made this query: "Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and
fork?"
Application: The government has drafted laws that require many hospitals to do abortions
or risk being closed. This supposed progress is repugnant because it limits both the right
of the hospitals to make their own choices and because it destroys the life of the unborn
child. This is done in the name of medical progress.
Impact: investigative journalist Russell Baker came to an important conclusion when he
said: "Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them
are not really progress at all, but just terrible things."

Prosperity
1. Prosperity is vague. Prosperity is vague because the definition includes extremely
unclear words and is easily interpreted in completely different ways. For example, the
words good fortune can take on many different forms.
Prosperity conflicts
 15

2. Prosperity inevitably conflicts. When someone values prosperity as their highest

value, it will lead to people prospering at the expense of other’s prosperity.
Example: Communist Russia prospered at the expense of the people
In communist Russia, the government thrived by taking the wealth and prosperity of the
people. The result of the Russian government valuing prosperity was that the government
prospered at the expense of the people.
Prosperity does not belong to everyone

3. Prosperity in the hands of the wrong person can be devastating. For example,
China’s economy is now prospering; however, this prosperity caused an increase in
human rights abuses in areas like child labor. Also consider Iran. Iran desires prosperity
to obtain nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons will be potentially used to eliminate
the nation of Israel. In other words, Iran’s prosperity is dependent on Israel’s destruction.

Quality
1. Quality is relative or unnecessary
“…people differ from each other on what products and product attributes they care
about.”
ILYA Somin, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
http://volokh.com/posts/1189320628.shtml

a) Economic experience and common sense show that people like choices. Not that
they enjoy making hard decisions, but that they prefer to have options when buying.
Because there are choices, not everyone will choose the same product. My opponent has
proposed the value of quality, however we can see that either people don’t care about
quality (and thus buy a less than quality product for convenience’s sake), or quality is
subject to each person’s preferences. Otherwise we would all be buying the same
computers and allergy medicine. If people don’t always choose quality, then it must not
be that important as to value it above all else, or if quality is relative, then it can never be
achieved or even strived for. How can we strive for quality if some people already
believe we have quality, and while some people won’t consider anything to be up to their
standards of quality?
-Depending on their definition of quality:
b) Sometimes quality is too expensive
c) Functionality is just fine for some people
d) Quality is not something necessary, but simply something nice.

2) When valued above all else, quality is destructive

-People valued quality above all else, and that is why the housing market is so bad

3) Quality itself isn't excellent

a) Realize that quality isn’t synonymous with excellence
b) No intrinsic value
 16

Opponent Argument: “The market forces us to comparison shop”

Response: There are several flaws in this argument. First, the market does not in fact
"force" anyone to do "comparison shopping." If you genuinely don't care much about the
price or quality of a particular product, you can simply choose at random from the
options on sale. ILYA Somin, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University
School of Law

Opponent Argument: “There are different choices of Pepsi flavors. In instances like that
it doesn’t matter if quality is relative.”
Response: That’s not really choice. Choice would be between Coke and Pepsi.

Quality of Life
1. Relative to Each Person's Judgment (Not Absolute)
APPs
a) Middle Age Monks: Intentional Decrease of "Quality of Life"
[If they say…"well that was their idea of Q of L"…that just makes your case
all the more]
b) Euthanasia. If we value Quality of Life above any other Value (LD VALUE
Debate), then logically, when we have a situation (Teri Schaivo) where someone has
"bad" quality of life, it would be better to terminate that life that to leave it in a "bad"
state.
c) Mentally Ill/Special Needs/Disabled…

2. Undefinable: When do we achieve "Q-L?"

3. When valued highest, Quality of Life can lead to:

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions, by Rita L. Marker and
Kathi Hamlon
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm
1) Within two years after the passage of Oregon's assisted suicide law, a model law
was drafted that would have given doctors the right to provide assisted suicide if "the
patient has a terminal illness or an intractable and unbearable illness."(25)
2) A 1995 article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, concluded that
suicide is a rational choice for those with "hopeless conditions." As defined, "Hopeless
conditions include, but are not necessarily limited to terminal illnesses, severe physical
and/or psychological pain, physically or mentally debilitating and/or deteriorating
conditions, or quality of life no longer acceptable to the individual."(26)

Truth
• No tangible impact/importance to the real world
• Truth can't be categorized as "good" OR "bad"
• Truth is relative (Changes)…each person has a different idea of what constitutes
"Truth"
• Weak Value
 17

• Means to an end

Unity
• No intrinsic value
• impossible - not everyone will always agree on important issues [Civil War -
States Rights/Slavery]

Victory
• "If winning is the highest value then you shouldn't vote in this round because one
of us would have to lose"
• No intrinsic value