There is very little consensus among Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) coaches as to the assignment of presumption in value topic debate. There are really three types of presumption: (1) an identification with the status quo (existing institutions), (2) a psychological state (prevailing opinion), and (3) a decision rule (who must prove). In courts of law and traditional policy debate, these three types wear one face, but in debating propositions of value they sometimes conflict. The view that presumption adheres to the status quo is often inapplicable to value topic debates, either because there is no clear status quo or because the topic is worded so as to place the affirmative in defense of the present system. Although psychological presumption may well be argued in a value debate, it cannot provide an unambiguous tie breaker. On the other hand, a decision rule that "one who asserts must prove" provides a clear-cut guide to deciding a tied round, regardless of the wording of the resolution or the psychology of the audience. It provides the best form of presumption for the value topic debate. (JL)