5.03 page 4

Resolutions Of Fact

A fact resolution is a sentence that posits a fact about the world and prompts the debaters to prove or disprove it. A fact resolution requires that the affirmative team prove that the resolution’s premise is true; the negative team must demonstrate that the affirmative team has not done so. Fact resolutions do not require debate about the normative or moral truth of the resolution. An example fact resolution is “Resolved: U.S. policies established after September 11, 2001, have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the United States.” This resolution requires that the affirmative prove two things: that the risk of terrorist attacks has been reduced and that the policies established after September 11 caused that reduction. The affirmative team does not have to prove that the new policies are beneficial to the country or that safety is more valuable than civil liberties; in fact, an affirmative team that attempts to prove these larger claims is only making their job more difficult.

Resolutions Of Value

A value resolution establishes a general ideal or value judgment about the world or a particular set of events or actions in the world. An example of a value resolution is, “Resolved: When the values are in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.” A value resolution often tests the normative value of general concepts and may even deal with philosophical topics. To win, the affirmative team must prove the resolution true through normative evaluation. The introduction of normative evaluations changes the burden of proof for the affirmative team by questioning the values of the resolution rather than just its empirical content. Debates on the resolution above would introduce arguments about the desirability of prioritizing “global poverty reduction over environmental protection” in situations where the two aims conflict. This would lead to a discussion surrounding why prioritizing global poverty reduction has benefits and, thus, a normative evaluation of global poverty reduction. Normative resolutions require debaters to establish burdens beyond mere empirical truth; they must demonstrate what is valuable and then demonstrate that the resolution accords with that concept of value.

Resolutions Of Policy

A policy resolution describes an ideal action or event. The policy resolution is distinct from the value resolution because it is typically more specific and deals exclusively with government policy. An example policy resolution is, “Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College vote in U.S. presidential elections.” To win, the affirmative team must prove that direct popular vote replacing the Electoral College would be the ideal reality. Debates about the benefits of such an action on voter turnout in presidential elections would be appropriate. Policy resolutions require the affirmative team to propose and defend a specific action — once again within a framework of value. The type of resolution will dramatically change how the resolution is proved true and the kinds of arguments and research that will be useful for debates. A resolution of fact will require broad research about the status quo and will focus on empirical data; a resolution of value, by contrast, will require an emphasis on philosophical or theoretical evidence; a resolution of policy will often require a blend of these types of research. Consider a debate about tax policy. A resolution that asks whether a certain tax policy has successfully stimulated the economy (a resolution of fact) will require debaters to research the empirical effects of the policy on economic growth; a resolution that asks whether a certain tax policy is fair (a resolution of value) may require similar research, but will also require research on what constitutes fairness.