Broad and Boring isn’t always Bad: An Analysis of Stoa’s Proposed Team Policy Resolutions…
It’s starting to feel like complaining about Stoa’s proposed resolutions every single year is a rite of passage for debaters. I’ll admit, I fell victim to the trend myself, annually condemning the new resolutions without a shred of empirical evidence to justify my hastily crafted opinions. Believe it or not, the same thing happened again this year. Now, the attacks have spread to Instagram, where accounts titled both “voteforres3” and “stop.res3” have followed me in the last two weeks. Enough is enough. Let’s take a balanced, realistic look at the resolutions we’ve been offered and see if they’re as appalling as advertised…
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its banking, finance, and/or monetary policy.
At first glance, this resolution seems impossibly broad. Can debaters really tackle this policy juggernaut in a season that lasts roughly seven months? Probably not, but it doesn’t really matter. Debaters won’t construct comprehensive plans to pay off the deficit or reform welfare in one year, but that doesn’t mean the resolution is flawed. We should ask our resolutions to promote applicable knowledge, rather than bickering over a subjective standard for proper breadth. I vividly remember the general sentiment when the 2017-2018 policy resolution was announced. “Transportation policy” was deemed far too vast a topic, and many policy debaters in my area switched to Lincoln-Douglas. Here’s the crazy thing: for the second year in a row, the resolution that everyone said was too broad shrunk into roughly 20 major cases by the time NITOC rolled around. I like this resolution because it forces debaters to understand their subject matter. Monetary policy is complicated, meaning the debaters who truly comprehend and can clearly communicate their arguments will be the most successful. This makes for an educational year of competitive debate with little to no judge bias. It may take a couple months for the topic to fully condense, but I’d still give this resolution…
4 / 5 STARS.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform one or more of the laws administered by the Department of Labor.
I agree with most critics of this resolution who argue that it allows the affirmative team to get away with tweaking one minor law and calling it a policy change. This is an obvious problem, but I would push back on anyone who immediately discounts this resolution. The vast majority of judges are not going to fall for a ploy in which the affirmative team makes no substantial change, then calls their plan progress. I don’t think there’s any incentive to run weak and insignificant cases under this resolution. If an affirmative team changes a couple of words in one law, the judge probably won’t buy it. Even worse, their advantages will either be inconsequential or not specific to their case. This resolution is certainly my last preference, but debating it wouldn’t be the end of the world. The topic is relevant, and a little simpler and more relatable than monetary policy. Still, the chaos this resolution would initially cause would take months of competition to fix, so I’m giving this resolution…
2/5 STARS.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policy regarding veterans.
This resolution has been subjected to more disgust than any previous proposals I can remember. Quite a few debaters believe cases would be constrained to a couple of specific options, limiting educational value. The Instagram account I mentioned earlier, “stop.res3,” argues that “solvency arguments will be crushed by net benefits.” However, I think the biggest issue people have with debating this concept is that most judges are heavily biased towards aiding veterans. Let’s take a look at these concerns. First of all, I think it’s incredibly difficult for a resolution to be too narrow. With enough research, any debater can discover a new area to explore inside a given resolution. Under this resolution, affirmative teams would consistently present ideas that are relevant to our country and its well-being. Second, I don’t think it makes much sense to say that solvency arguments somehow become null and void under this resolution. A legitimate solvency point will prove why the affirmative team’s plan does not lead to their goal or their advantages. Net benefits has nothing to do with this scenario, and negative teams will unquestionably retain their ability to run solvency throughout the year. Finally, I think it’s fair to say that every judge walks into the round with a certain bias. Judge bias itself isn’t the issue. The issue is that judges, under this resolution, might let their biases influence their decision. What’s interesting is that this happens every round, and with every resolution. Sure, judge bias might be more pronounced when it comes to veterans, but that doesn’t exclude Resolution 3 from consideration. People care about this issue, and it matters to our country’s reputation and legacy. It’s not a perfect resolution by any means, but I’ll still give it…
3 / 5 STARS.
A debater’s response to a certain resolution is one hundred times more important than the actual resolution itself. A group of committed parents and coaches who have been involved in Stoa for longer than most of the competitors themselves isn’t going to provide debaters with a blatantly unfair or incomprehensibly broad resolution. I know it can be fun to critique the resolutions you dislike, but I’d encourage you to stop and consider that a tirade against any of these resolutions is probably an exaggeration. I trust the board’s expertise, but even more so, I trust that Stoa debaters can bring out the most beneficial aspects of any resolution they may be given.