The lack of consistent theory in nonpolicy debate has contributed to difficulty for debaters and judges alike. The problem is especially apparent for second negative speakers in the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) format. The controversy over the direction and goals of CEDA style debate has led some members of the CEDA community to argue that values should be discussed and debated. Because of the difficulties in judging values in academic debates, several considerations should be kept in mind in formulating criteria for value implications, such as the use of situational perspectives, and whether the endorsement of the resolution would create competing or conflicting values. In addition, the negative team must indicate if the value implications occur in linear and incremental fashion or whether specific threshold/pressure points have to be reached. Three questions should also be considered in formulating standards for value implications: (1) if the affirmative justification and negative value implication are mutually exclusive; (2) if the value implication is unique to adoption of the resolution; and (3) if the value implication is a fair and typical representation which justifies rejection of the resolution. These criteria and standards should assist debaters and debate judges when values become the focus of a CEDA debate. (Eighteen references are appended.) (MS)