Proposed team policy resolutions can be very hit-or-miss. Some years, the entire slate of options is highly promising (like in 2022, when NCFCA debaters could choose from tribal issues, federal prisoners, or housing concerns). Other years, the provided choices leave debaters wondering who exactly is in charge of proofing these suggestions (while increasing development assistance to Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador is an important topic, it doesn’t exactly lend itself well to breadth of research).
Fortunately, this year’s NCFCA lineup is more the former than the latter. While each option has its pros and cons (we’ll get into those in a moment), each would be a perfectly reasonable and interesting topic to spend a season debating…
Environment
Pros
- Timely and Educational
This resolution covers an important topic that most Americans have thoughts on. It’s especially relevant given recent policy proposals to cut carbon emissions, encourage electric vehicles, and ban (or expand) oil drilling access, just to name a few. It’s a topic that applies to all Americans, and it deals with pressing moral questions that are at the forefront of the national conversation right now. Do we have a higher obligation to protect the environment or promote economic advancement? How bad are fossil fuels, really? How much power should the federal government have when it comes to environmental concerns? The resolution gives you an opportunity to think through all these timely questions yourself.
- Unique
In the past nine years of NCFCA debate, there has not been a topic that specifically dealt with the environment (in fact, it’s probably been longer than nine years, but NCFCA no longer publishes past resolutions in an accessible spot, and I wasn’t competing ten years ago, so we’re going with nine and calling it even). Sure, you could argue that there is a bit of overlap with energy policy, but not much. Older debaters couldn’t just dust off their cases from two years ago, leveling the research playing field somewhat and creating an educational experience for everyone – not just novices. Overall, this resolution covers new ground in a highly relevant area of public policy.
- Broad
This resolution has something for everyone. Love economics? You can explore the impacts of environmental policy on economic growth throughout the year. Are emotion-based cases more your style? Bring out the baby seals and you’ll be tugging on judge heartstrings with every round. Do you love philosophically-grounded argumentation? Get ready to take your rounds in an LDish direction with bigger discussions on the moral imperatives of government. Regardless of your interests, you probably won’t be bored with the same three cases all season!
Cons:
- Broad
The breadth of this resolution is both a strength and a weakness. Given the vast amount of policies that Congress and the EPA can create, you’re likely to hit squirrel case after squirrel case. To survive this resolution, you’ll need to be very familiar with principles of environmental policy, and it will be essential that you create strong generic briefs on a wide range of topics. These hurdles could discourage new students, in particular, from participating.
- Possible judge bias
Because the environment is such a hot topic in American politics, most judges will already have opinions. While a good judge will try to set their biases aside, you still may face an uphill battle trying to convince a deeply Republican mom that EPA expansion is wise or explaining to a left-wing college professor why emissions are nothing to worry about. Because this resolution is broad, plenty of case options may not rile too many feathers, but it is a possible concern.
- Actor confusion
Under current law, the EPA is not free to impose whatever regulations they want. Congress must first act to set out environmental policy goals, which the EPA then implements (see the Clean Water Act for an example). However, this resolution seems to allow debaters to act as Congress (setting out policy goals for the EPA), AND as the EPA (whether through enforcing current law or implementing a new law that the affirmative team passes). This means affirmative teams will need to be extremely careful with their enforcement mechanisms, and it will be easy to use the wrong actor inadvertently. This confusion could be cleared up somewhat if NCFCA changed the resolution’s wording to narrow the actor, but will still pose a challenge throughout the year.
Transportation
Pros:
- Relevant
Once again, NCFCA has chosen a timely and relevant topic. If you’re followed any news lately, you probably know about the tragic train derailment incident in East Palestine, Ohio, and this (coupled with other recent train accidents) has reignited a debate about transportation safety standards. Even beyond safety, however, the nation’s crumbling infrastructure has long been a rallying cry of politicians. This resolution gives you an opportunity to think through the many challenges surrounding American transportation and propose thoughtful reforms.
- Broad, but not overly so
This resolution gives debaters power over the US Department of Transportation, which oversees many smaller agencies. This means you could do anything from reforming the gas tax to tightening rail safety standards and shipping regulations.
- You could make FAA policy changes
Affirmative cases could deal with airspace rules, pilot licensing requirements, and plane travel regulations. How cool is that???
Cons
- Potentially dry
By nature, DOT policy involves a lot of economics. From funding the road system to regulating shipping, there are all sorts of highly technical considerations. If you love economics, this could be your year! However, if you prefer cases grounded in emotional and moral appeals, you might find this resolution less welcoming. Additionally, if you choose a highly technical case, you might find yourself battling judge fatigue and disinterest.
- State vs. federal challenges
Until fairly recently, the federal government didn’t have much say in transportation. That was mainly a state issue. Today, the federal DOT does have plenty of powers, but they also have to work with state departments of transportation and local authorities. This raises potential challenges, as the department of transportation often provides funding to state and local agencies (instead of directly working on transportation projects). Under this resolution, you could allocate funding for the state of Texas to rebuilt their major highways, but you couldn’t force them to do it. Likewise, you could cut federal funding from a controversial transportation project, but you couldn’t guarantee that the project would stop. This resolution has some gray areas when it comes to the proper actor, which could lead to confusing technical argumentation and negative solvency arguments.
Affordable housing
Pros:
- More narrow than the other two
Both environment and transportation offer an incredibly wide range of policy options to consider – a prospect that may be dizzying for debaters. In comparison, affordable housing narrows the debate down significantly. There are still plenty of policy areas to consider, but the narrowed scope makes it easier to prepare detailed negative strategies and harder to be surprised over and over again by completely new cases.
- Relevant issues
Once again, this resolution is centered on a timely issue. High housing costs are a challenge for many Americans, especially those renting or living paycheck-to-paycheck. While housing expenses may not have affected you yet, they will certainly be a consideration as you graduate and move out on your own. Thus, this issue isn’t just relevant to America in general – it is also highly relevant for every debater. A more detailed knowledge of our country’s affordable housing policies may even help you make smarter housing decisions in the future!
Cons:
- Judge bias
Unfortunately, the issue of affordable housing is often highly politicized. Issues of race and discrimination often come into play, which can create judge bias. It may be especially challenging to defend policies demonstrably based in racial prejudice, even from a moral perspective. While there are certainly many housing policies to debate that avoid such hot-button issues, it is almost inevitable that at some point in the year, you will find yourself debating these topics before a judge who may or may not be firmly biased against you.
- Dry
As the NCFCA white paper itself admits, many elements of affordable housing policy dive deep into the weeds of finances, mortgages, economic considerations, and even zoning laws. If you’re a future finance major, the prospect of a year spent considering tax rates and mortgage prices might fill you with joy. For others, however, this topic could quickly become dry and boring.
Final ranking: All three choices are good, all things considered! I’d rank them as follows: 1. Resolution 1 (Environment), 2. Resolution 2 (Transportation), 3. Resolution 3 (Affordable Housing). I prefer the environment resolution because I think it is the most unique, offers a lot of variety, and encourages debaters to consider moral and economic aspects of various policies. Transportation came in second simply because of the possible dryness and the state vs. federal challenges, and Affordable Housing was fourth because in my personal estimation, it has the most potential to become the same three cases all year and to spend more time on the technical side than I’d enjoy.
That being said, you are certainly free to disagree, and I don’t hate any of these options! Hopefully this brief summary has helped you feel more informed about your choices and ready to vote (as long as you go for Resolution #1. Remember…baby seals 😉).
Honor Hoffmann is one of the Lasting Impact! Coaches for TP, LD, and Speeches! Schedule a coaching call with her today!
Do you have thoughts about your league’s resolution choices? Feel free to comment or send an email to Heather@lastingimpact.info