Criteria

Let’s imagine a debate round: the resolution  is that nuclear energy is better than renewable energy. The affirmative argues that nuclear energy is the least expensive energy in the world. The negative argues that renewable energy is the safest energy in the world. Who wins the round in this hypothetical example? In a previous video we talked about how stock issues are questions that tend to recur is debate, but by far the most common question in debate is “How does the judge determines who wins?” The answer is that a criterion determines who wins. In this sense, a criterion is kind of like the one stock issue common to every type of debate. But, there are still differences in the way that criteria are advanced in different types of debate. And a quick side-note; criterion is singular and criteria is plural. So in this video we are going to explore criteria from the perspective of the first affirmative speech. We will start with a background of criteria in general, then focus on value criteria, and finally policy criteria. 

Background

There are a lot of metaphors used to explain what a criterion is and how it functions in debate. One is that the criterion the lens through which a judge ought to view the round. The implication is that the round is fuzzy and complicated, but when viewed through the criterion things come into focus and a judge can see things clearly. Another metaphor is that the criterion is a filter through which arguments are processed. The arguments that meet the criterion are allowed to passed through and count toward the ballot, whereas arguments that don’t meet the criterion are withheld from counting toward the ballot. Both of these are helpful visuals of the function of a criterion, but the one that I like to focus on is the metaphor of a criterion as a weighing mechanism.

Imagine a machine that is capable of literally weighing arguments. The heavier the argument the better, and at the end of the round, if all of your arguments outweigh all of you opponents arguments, you win the round. But the tricky part is that criteria determine the weight of arguments based on how they are calibrated. What this means is that there are different settings that you can choose as a debater that will change the weight of arguments that are evaluated by the criterion.

OK, let’s use the example from before: which argument is better, cheap energy or safe energy? Hopefully you can come up with several arguments for each. So let’s say that before we made the argument that nuclear energy is inexpensive, we argued that the debate ought to be evaluated purely through an economic cost-benefit analysis. The result might be that inexpensive nuclear energy carries more weight than costly renewable energy. But if we instead advanced the criterion that energy production ought to be measured in terms of preserving human life, renewable energy might be favored over nuclear. This is not to say that either outcome is guaranteed, instead this just illustrates how a criterion might affect an entire debate. So, don’t overlook the importance of explaining and defending a criterion for every debate in which you participate. But, even though a criterion is one issue that ought to be a part of every debate, there are some differences between how they are presented in value rounds versus how they are presented in policy rounds.

Value Criteria

There is far more literature regarding value criteria  than policy criteria, so we will deal with it first. In a value debate, there is not necessarily a well-defined plan with predictable consequences; instead, the debate revolves around more general themes and research. As a result, the value criterion wields a great amount of influence because it can add clarity to debates that are typically vague. A value criterion is also different from a policy criterion in the fact that it typically involves two things: the thing that is being valued, and the criterion itself that provides a mechanism for achieving the value.

The example used thus far is a typical value resolution: two things are listed are pitted against each other and debaters are charged with defending one or the other depending on which side of the debate they happen to be on. In this case, the two things being compared are methods of energy production. In this case, debaters have more latitude in deciding the value. Energy itself could be declared the value. This would be an example of an instrumental value, or a value that leads to other values. For instance, energy is instrumental for providing people with medical care through technology, preventing death from exposure by providing people with warmth, and maintains economic activity through transportation and communication. It is far more common for debaters to defend a terminal value, or something considered value in and of itself. Common terminal values are life, justice, and freedom. But debaters could literally choose anything as a value in debate as long as there is some  type of mechanism that can achieve it.

That brings us to the criterion. The criterion is precisely that mechanism which arguably meets the value. What do we mean by this? If we were to extend the example used thus far about nuclear energy, the affirmative team could advance a value of life and make many of the same argument already articulated, but if the criterion is deontology (a philosophy that requires the means of achieving goals be moral, not just the consequences) then the debate changes. A deontological approach to energy production would look at all stages of energy production, not just whether or not the outcome is less expensive. This would mean that every meltdown, every uranium mine, and all the nuclear waste would now be given weight with this criterion. The likely result would be that much weight would be given to an argument that it is unethical to risk the lives of some to save the lives of others. A consequentialist approach, on the other hand, would place equal or greater weight on the outcomes of an action to determine its value. This would value the lives lost through production equally with the lives saved through inexpensive and reliable energy. This line of reasoning might result in the opposite conclusion of a deontological approach.

Jacob Rees-Mogg debating at the Cambridge Union Society

Debate Societies

The University of Cambridge boasts the longest running debate society in the world. The chambers pictured here have hosted heads of state as well as pop-culture icons. The Cambridge Union, as it is known, was the model for other well-known debate societies in Oxford and Yale.

Policy Criteria

A policy debate treats the criterion in a slightly different manner. One noticeable difference is that it is uncommon for a policy debate to declare a single thing to be valued. It is considered the job of debaters to hash out the different impacts in the round. For this reason it is common for criteria to come from economic schools of thought. Economics is very good at analyzing the value of all things. Therefore, the following criteria come from economic origins.

1. Net-benefits. The first is one of the most popular, if not the most popular. It is net-benefits. Simply put, a criterion of net-benefits simply calculates the benefits, or advantages, of a plan and subtracts the costs, or disadvantages of the plan. There is another term to describe this method, and that is cost-benefit-analysis, also known as “CBA.” Debaters typically prefer the term net benefits, and the reason why is debatable, but CBA typically implies that everything is evaluated in monetary terms. Debaters typically weigh arguments in more humanist terms, so net benefits allows for debaters to defend impacts that are not put into dollar figures. Some benefits to using net benefits as a criterion are that it allows for any impacts to count in a judges decision. This avoids over-limiting which arguments are and are not allowed in the round. But the disadvantage to such a criterion is that it doesn’t offer much clarification about how to weigh impacts. In fact, net benefits is such a standard criterion that even if no debater articulated a criterion, it would be the default. Still, disciplined debaters should spend enough time in the first affirmative to articulate a criterion, even if it is as broad as net benefits in order to avoid an opponent arguing for an alternative criterion that undermines the case.
2. Risk analysis. Another criterion that is very popular in the insurance industry is known as risk analysis. This criterion not at all common in debate, but it meets the definition of a criterion, and I think that it could prove very useful. Risk analysis differs from net benefits because it includes probability in the weighing mechanism. In other words, nobody ever truly knows the absolute costs and benefits of any plan, those are all possibilities that may or may not happen upon passage of the plan. Risk analysis accepts this element of decision making and includes it in the weighing of impacts. So, even if an impact is large in magnitude, if it is small in probability, then doesn’t outweigh a moderate magnitude impact with high probability. There are volumes of work written about risk analysis and risk management that can help you understand this criterion that are beyond the scope of this video. But the reason that I offer this as a possible criterion is that debaters are known for making arguments on the negative that have impacts that are very large in magnitude, but low in probability. With a CBA criterion, judges typically categorize arguments into costs, and benefits, without paying much attention to probability. Risk analysis reminds judges that all decision carry risk with them, but choosing not to act because of an unlikely disadvantage is not the best use of reason. Instead, people should face risks consciously and make decisions accordingly.
3. Utilitarianism. The last criterion I will cover comes from philosophy and is known as utilitarianism. This approach was popularized by John Stuart Mill and argues that we should act in ways that provide the greatest amount of good for the most amount of people. Some benefits of this approach are that it accepts the reality that no debater is ever going to solve all of the world’s problems. Providing the greatest amount of good implies that 100% is not necessary to act. This is similar to both of the previous criteria. Another benefit of this criterion is that it makes people the measure of benefit and avoids monetizing people and their suffering. This differentiates it from the previous two criteria which are notorious for quantifying harms into dollar amounts. One particular drawback to utilitarianism is that smart opponents can argue that they have a proposal that provides greater good to more people than the affirmative. NB and RA are moderate in the sense that they simply strive to make the world better than the status quo, even if it is only marginally better, whereas utilitarianism for the “most amount of good for the most people.” Does this mean that if a negative debater identifies a proposal that the affirmative didn’t advocate which provides more good to more people that they win? This question can only be answered in a debate round, but it isn’t even a question in rounds with net-benefits or risk analysis criteria.

There are additional criteria from which you can select, but these few that I went over provide a good starting point. People experiment with criteria from time to time, but just because someone argues a criterion that that you are unfamiliar with doesn’t mean you need to oppose it in a knee-jerk reaction. Criteria are meant to be neutral weighing mechanisms that can be accessed by either side of a debate. Agreeing to a criterion from your opponent is not, in and of itself, a reason why a debate wins or looses a round. I do suggest taking the initiative to explicate a criterion in the first affirmative because it signals to the judge that you understand the common burdens in a debate round, that you have thought them through, and that your case meets those burdens.