Even students who understand the scale analogy often fall into traps that pull them back
toward policy thinking. Let’s identify the most common ones so you can avoid them.
Trap #1: Defending Your Value Only By Its Consequences
What it looks like: “We should value justice because just societies have better economic outcomes, lower
crime rates, and higher social stability.” OR “Excellence matters because pursuing excellence leads to technological advancement and human progress.”
Why it’s wrong:
These are consequentialist arguments. You’re treating justice or excellence as instrumentally
valuable (valuable because it produces other things you want) rather than intrinsically
valuable (valuable in itself, regardless of what it produces).
Trap #2: Using Evidence as Your Main Warrant
What it looks like:
Building your entire case around studies showing outcomes, with minimal philosophical
reasoning.
Why it’s wrong:
Evidence can only tell us what IS or what WILL BE. It cannot tell us what OUGHT to BE. That
requires moral reasoning.
Trap #3: Treating the Criterion as a Weighing Mechanism
What it looks like:
Criteria like “maximizing human dignity” or “best protecting rights” or “most fulfilling human
nature.”
Why it’s wrong:
These criteria invite consequentialist calculation. “Maximizing” and “most” suggest we’re
measuring quantities and comparing amounts. That’s weighing impacts, not establishing
moral standards.
Part Three-and-a-Half: The Deeper Problem Most Students Face
Even students who understand the scale analogy often struggle with something more
fundamental: they don’t know HOW to construct arguments that add weight using
duty-measures instead of impact-measures. This is the missing piece that explains why
values debate hasn’t been working even when students try to do it right.
The Complete Problem Chain
Level 1: They don’t see the scale problem
Most students claim different frameworks but actually all use consequentialist impact
calculus. They think “stewardship measured by sustainability” versus “stewardship measured
by proper responsibility” are different scales. They don’t realize they’re both still doing
impact comparison – just with slightly different impact categories.
Level 2: EVEN IF they see the scale problem, they don’t know how to add weight using
duty-measures
This is the part we haven’t addressed enough. Even a student who understands they should
use a stewardship scale (not a consequentialist scale), understands their framework should
do actual work, and wants to reason about “ought” rather than “produces better results”…
still doesn’t know HOW to construct arguments that add weight using duty-measures
instead of impact-measures.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Student who “gets it” conceptually:
“Okay, I understand I shouldn’t just argue that cooperation produces better
outcomes. I need to argue about what nations OUGHT to do based on
stewardship duties. So… um… nations ought to steward space cooperatively
because… [looks at evidence cards]… cooperation preserves resources
better?”
The problem: They WANT to reason about duty, but they only know how to construct
arguments using impact-measures. They literally don’t have the sentence structures, the
logical patterns, the argumentative moves for duty-reasoning.
The Two Different Argument Architectures
Impact-Measure Argument Architecture:
- IF we do X
- THEN Y outcome occurs
- AND Y outcome is good/bad because it affects Z people/things
- THEREFORE we should/shouldn’t do X
Duty-Measure Argument Architecture:
- We are creatures/entities of type A
- Creatures of type A have nature/purpose/telos B
- Nature B generates duty/obligation C
- Action X fulfills/violates duty C
- THEREFORE we ought/ought not do X (regardless of outcomes)
The student’s problem: They’ve been trained in the first architecture for years. The second
architecture is COMPLETELY FOREIGN. Even when they understand conceptually that they
should use it, they don’t know how to build it.
The Sentence-Level Problem
They know how to write:
- “Cooperation leads to better resource allocation”
- “Competition causes space debris”
- “Studies show cooperation produces technological advancement”
They DON’T know how to write:
- “Cooperation reflects our nature as image-bearers called to communal cultivation”
- “Competition violates the duty of stewardship by treating creation as private property”
- “Nations fulfill their proper telos when they steward shared trusts cooperatively”
The difference: The first set uses causation language (leads to, causes, produces). The
second set uses duty language (reflects, violates, fulfills).
What We Need to Teach Explicitly: Duty-Reasoning Sentence Patterns
You’ve been trained to build impact-measured arguments. You’re really good at it. But values
debate requires duty-measured arguments, which use completely different logical
architecture. Here are the sentence patterns you need to learn:
Pattern 1: Nature → Duty
- “Because we are [type of being], we ought to [action]”
- “Our nature as [X] means we have a duty to [Y]”
Example: “Because we are stewards (not owners), we ought to approach space cooperatively
(not competitively)”
Pattern 2: Purpose → Obligation
- “The purpose/telos of [X] is [Y], which requires [Z]”
Example: “The purpose of political communities is to cultivate human flourishing within
proper bounds, which requires recognizing limits on national ambition in shared commons”
Pattern 3: Duty → Action
- “We have a duty to [X], and [action Y] fulfills/violates that duty because…”
Example: “We have a duty to steward creation faithfully, and competitive exploitation
violates that duty because it treats God’s property as our private resource”
Pattern 4: Virtue/Vice
- “[Action X] cultivates [virtue] / [Action Y] cultivates [vice]”
- “We ought to pursue [virtue] for its own sake”
Example: “Cooperation cultivates humility and solidarity; competition cultivates domination
and greed. We ought to cultivate virtue even if vice sometimes produces impressive
outcomes”
Pattern 5: Accountability
- “We are accountable to [X] for [Y], which means…”
Example: “We are accountable to God for how we treat His creation, which means we
cannot justify competitive exploitation even if it benefits our nation”
Pattern 6: Intrinsic vs Instrumental
- “[X] is intrinsically good/valuable, not instrumentally good because it produces [Y]”
Example: “Justice is intrinsically good; we ought to pursue it even when it costs us
advantages”
The Evidence Integration Pattern
WRONG: Evidence GENERATES the argument
“Studies show cooperation produces better outcomes [reads evidence for 2
minutes], therefore cooperation”
RIGHT: Duty GENERATES the argument, evidence ILLUSTRATES
“We have a duty to faithful stewardship, which means [duty reasoning for 2
minutes]. We can see this principle reflected in how [30 seconds of evidence
illustration]“
The “Weight-Adding” Checklist
When you write contentions, ask yourself: “Does this argument ADD WEIGHT using
duty-measures?”
✓ Adds weight using duty-measures:
- “Cooperation fulfills stewardship by treating space as shared trust”
- “Competition violates our nature as communal image-bearers”
- “Nations ought to cultivate virtue, and cooperation cultivates solidarity”
✗ Tries to add weight using impact-measures: - “Cooperation prevents space debris”
- “Competition leads to technological advancement”
- “Cooperation produces better outcomes for humanity”
The test: Would this argument still work if the outcomes went the opposite direction? - If NO → it’s impact-measure, not duty-measure
- If YES → it’s duty-measure
Using the “Even If” Test
The most powerful way to test whether your argument is genuinely duty-measured is to
construct it using the “Even If” pattern. This forces you to make explicit that your argument
doesn’t depend on consequences:
“Even If” Pattern:
“Even if [doing X] produced [worse outcome Y], we would still be obligated to
[do X] because [duty/nature/intrinsic good Z]”
Examples in Practice:
Cooperation Argument: “Even if international cooperation in space produced fewer technological
breakthroughs than competition, nations would still be obligated to cooperate
because space is a commons held in trust for humanity. Approaching a
commons competitively violates the duty of trusteeship, regardless of whether
competition happens to be more efficient.”
Competition Argument: “Even if competition resulted in more conflict and higher costs, nations ought
to compete because competition cultivates the virtue of excellence. We pursue
virtue for its own sake, not because virtuous people produce better outcomes.
Excellence is intrinsically valuable even when it’s expensive and difficult.”
Justice Argument: “Even if pursuing justice in space exploration cost us significant technological
advantages, we would still be obligated to act justly. Justice is intrinsically
good – we ought to treat others fairly because that’s what they’re owed as
rational beings, not because fair treatment produces better results for us.”
Why This Works
The “Even If” test accomplishes three things:
- It forces you to identify the actual warrant. If you can’t complete the “Even If” statement,
your argument is probably relying on consequences. - It makes explicit that you’re reasoning about duties. The judge can clearly see you’re not
just arguing that X produces good outcomes. - It immunizes your argument against empirical challenge. Your opponent can’t refute
your duty-claim by showing the outcomes are different than you predicted.
Practice Exercise
Try transforming these impact-measure arguments into duty-measure arguments using the
“Even If” test:
Impact version: “We should value human dignity because societies that respect dignity have
better social outcomes”
Your duty version: “Even if _, we should value human dignity because
_“
Impact version: “Competition is superior because it drives innovation and technological
progress”
Your duty version: “Even if _, competition is still what nations ought to pursue
because _“
–
This is the missing piece: explicit instruction in HOW to construct duty-measured
arguments using different logical architecture than you’ve been trained to use.
Common Mistakes: Arguments That LOOK Like Duty-Measure But Aren’t
The most dangerous mistakes are the subtle ones – arguments that use duty-language but
still rely on consequentialist logic underneath. Here’s how to spot them:
MISTAKE #1: The “Because It Produces” Trap
WRONG: “We should be good stewards because good stewardship produces sustainability”
Why it’s wrong: The word ‘because’ is followed by an outcome. You’re justifying the duty by
its consequences.
RIGHT: “We should be good stewards because that’s what stewards are obligated to do –
care for what has been entrusted to them”
MISTAKE #2: The “Leads To” Slide
WRONG: “Justice is intrinsically valuable. Justice leads to social stability, reduces conflict,
and protects rights. Therefore we should prioritize justice.”
Why it’s wrong: You started with ‘intrinsically valuable’ but immediately shifted to
consequences. The ‘therefore’ is actually based on the outcomes, not the intrinsic value.
RIGHT: “Justice is intrinsically valuable – we ought to pursue it regardless of outcomes. While
we can observe that just societies tend toward stability, we would pursue justice even if it
were costly and difficult.”
MISTAKE #3: The “Fulfills Nature” Disguise
WRONG: “Cooperation fulfills human nature because humans thrive in cooperative
environments, studies show cooperative societies are happier, and collaboration produces
better outcomes”
Why it’s wrong: ‘Fulfills human nature’ is duty-language, but it’s immediately justified by
outcomes (thrive, happier, better outcomes). You’re using the duty-vocabulary as window
dressing.
RIGHT: “Cooperation fulfills human nature because we are made as social beings whose
nature is completed through relationship with others. This is true regardless of whether
cooperative arrangements produce better measurable outcomes.”
MISTAKE #4: The “Cultivates Virtue” Slide
WRONG: “We should cultivate virtue because virtuous people are more successful,
contribute more to society, and achieve better outcomes”
Why it’s wrong: You’re making virtue instrumentally valuable – valuable because of what it
produces. That’s exactly what virtue ethics rejects.
RIGHT: “We should cultivate virtue because being virtuous is what it means to be fully
human. Excellence is an end in itself, not a means to other goods.”
MISTAKE #5: The “Ought To” Followed By Impact
WRONG: “Nations ought to cooperate in space because cooperation prevents conflict,
reduces costs, and accelerates technological development”
Why it’s wrong: Starting with ‘ought to’ sounds like duty-reasoning, but the ‘because’ reveals
it’s impact-reasoning. All your warrants are consequences.
RIGHT: “Nations ought to cooperate in space because space is a commons held in trust for
humanity, and approaching a commons competitively violates the duty of trusteeship”
The Diagnostic Question
For every argument you write, ask: “What’s doing the actual work in my ‘therefore’?”
If the answer is outcomes/consequences/results → You’re doing impact-measure (policy
debate)
If the answer is nature/duty/obligation/intrinsic worth → You’re doing duty-measure (values
debate)
Tune in next week for more of Henry Chen’s LD thoughts…