Topic Analyses - LD 2019-2020
By: Alexandra Mork
While debaters are gearing up for the arriving season and going to camp, we decided to post some of our thoughts on the 2019-2020 Lincoln-Douglas Potential Topics List to help brainstorm potential positions for each resolution.
Resolved: Predictive policing is unjust.
AFF: Some people argue that predictive policing results in racial profiling because it reproduces flaws and biases in police data. Often times, police report higher incidents of crime in poor and minority neighborhoods because they allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to police these communities in the first place. As a result of this misleading data, predictive policing methods will cause police officers to spend even more time in poor and minority communities, thus creating an endless cycle of over-policing. In addition, some debaters may make arguments about privacy threats. Using police data, computer models, and analysis, police departments may identify individuals they believe are likely to commit a crime and then monitor them accordingly. This is arguably a violation of privacy rights because these “potential criminals” have not yet violated the law.
NEG: One common argument that debaters may make is that predictive policing is more effective than traditional methods in reducing crime, citing empirical evidence of cities that have effectively implemented predictive policing technology. Another common negative argument may be that predictive policing results in more effective responses by police officers because analyzing empirical data allows them to predict the most likely results of their various actions (i.e. whether escalation or attempted de-escalation will be more effective in any given scenario).
Fem: On the affirmative, one option is to argue that surveillance is a patriarchal tool used by the powerful (i.e. men, white people, the government, police officers) to discipline and maintain dominance over the powerless.
Resolved: The United States ought to grant legal personhood to natural ecosystems.
AFF: Many debaters will probably argue that granting natural ecosystems legal personhood is necessary to save the environment from pollution and contamination because it will allow rivers and oceans to sue corporations in court. In addition, some people may read plans about specific natural ecosystems that are in danger.
NEG: On the negative, most people will probably read critiques of the concept of “legal personhood” since it has historically been used to exclude marginalized groups. In addition, some people may argue that the affirmative is a palliative solution to addressing ecological degradation that distracts from addressing the root cause of climate change: consumption.
Fem: On the affirmative, one option is to read ecofeminism and argue that gender cannot be separated from the environment because ecological degradation and the oppression of gender minorities are both based upon patriarchal domination, so the affirmative plan is an act of dismantling that domination. Similarly, on the negative, if affirmatives don’t address the interconnectedness between gender and the environment, some people may use that as a link that proves the affirmative focus is flawed. In addition, some people may read links to affirmatives that use climate change models by arguing that climate scientists veil their studies in false objectivity by pretending that climate change is caused by all humans, rather than men in industrialized, colonial nations.
Resolved: Japan ought to amend Article 9 of its constitution to allow for offensive military capabilities.
AFF: In terms of policy affirmatives, some people may read arguments that increasing Japan’s offensive military ability is necessary to deter a war with potential adversaries, such as China or North Korea. Because the word “amend” is quite vague, different affirmatives may specify different amendments to Article 9, which will garner different advantages.
NEG: On the negative, many people will probably read disadvantages, which argue that if Japan becomes more offensive, it will spark a war with China, possibly over the Senkaku and Diaoyu islands. Because both countries have strong militaries and many allies, a war between the two could have devastating consequences. In addition, amending Article 9 is controversial not only amongst the public, but also amongst lawmakers, so some debaters may read politics disadvantages and argue that passing the affirmative will trade off with other legislation. In terms of criticisms, arguments that critique militarism and offensive realism will be very popular. Debaters may also read specific links to representations of other countries in the affirmative. For example, if the affirmative frames China or North Korea as irrational security threats, debaters on the negative can criticize that logic as racist fear-mongering.
Fem: On the negative, debaters may read feminist criticisms of military build-up by arguing that war itself is a product of masculine desires of control.
Resolved: The United States ought to legalize adult sex work.
AFF: A popular affirmative argument will probably be that legalizing sex work makes workers safer because it can be legally regulated. Furthermore, they may argue that sex work deserves to be a respected profession because workers have bodily autonomy and thus the choice to use their bodies as they choose.
NEG: On the negative, debaters may argue that making sex work legal will increase human trafficking and crime because the industry will face less scrutiny, thus allowing violence against workers to increase without reprucussions. Counterplans will also probably be very popular on this topic because of differences between legalization, decriminalization, and partial decriminalization. For example, some debaters may argue that the United States should model Sweeden and decriminalize the sale of sex work, but not the purchase, thus protecting workers, but still regulating the industry.
Fem: There is definitely ground to read feminist arguments on both sides. On the affirmative, debaters may argue that attempts to criminalize sex work are examples of masculine protectorship, in which male legislators believe it is their job to protect women despite the fact that many sex workers are in favor of legalization. On the negative, many people will argue that sex work results in violence against women and trans women, in particular, so the government should try to eliminate it.
Resolved: The intergenerational accumulation of wealth is antithetical to democracy.
AFF: One popular argument on the affirmative will be that intergenerational accumulation of wealth creates an unequal playing field because some people have an advantage (money) over others, which thus undermines the equality of opportunity that is fundamental to democracy. Another argument may be that the intergenerational accumulation of wealth allows some people to develop an inordinate amount of money that is often used to influence politics (i.e. lobbying or huge donations), which undermines the democratic purpose of government to serve all people equally. In addition, because white people historically had (and continue to have) a huge economic advantage over minorities (specifically black people who were denied any form of payment for hundreds of years of unpaid labor), the intergenerational accumulation of wealth perpetuates racial injustices because the descendants of wealthy people are able to gain a huge advantage over the descendants of poor people.
NEG: The most popular negative argument will probably be that the intergenerational accumulation of wealth is critical to maintaining the capitalist system, which is good and critical to democracy. Since most affirmatives claim to have a positive impact on democracy, some people will also criticize democracy. While some debaters will do this from a critical perspective by reading pessimism or criticisms that focus on how democracy is exclusionary, others will do this from a policy perspective by arguing democracy is bad for the environment and makes war more likely.
Fem: On the affirmative, one argument is that in many countries, daughters don’t receive any money from their parents, so the intergenerational accumulation of wealth contributes to the large gap in wealth between men and women.
Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.
AFF: Many affirmatives will probably make the argument that standardized testing disadvantages poor students and students of color because rich people are able to spend thousands of dollars on tutors and other resources. In addition, some debaters may argue that standardized testing is not a reliable indicator of a student’s academic or personal achievements, and is thus a useless metric in college admissions. Some debaters may also criticize the notion of standardized tests as a form of neoliberal education that views students as stocks for profit extraction by not only reducing each student to a number, but also encouraging a competitive and individualistic learning environment.
NEG: Some negatives debaters may argue that standardized testing improve the quality of education by encouraging high schoolers to learn more material, which will prepare them for their future careers and educational pursuits. Some debaters may also criticize the affirmative as a palliative that ultimately fails to address the fundamental unfairness of the college admissions process to poor students and students of color.
Fem: Some studies suggest that standardized tests may be biased in favor of male students.
Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
AFF: In terms of policy affs, many debaters will argue that possession of nuclear weapons makes nuclear war inevitable, so only eliminating nuclear arsenals will solve. Furthermore, some people will probably specify one or more states that ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals with specific advantages concerning those states. In terms of critical affirmatives, many people will probably argue that nuclear weapons are a significant symbol of militarism since the Cold War nuclear arms race represented the beginning of the military-industrial-complex and nuclear weapons are a huge point of contestation and international tension today. Thus, debaters will argue that the elimination of nuclear arsenals is a critical step away from militaristic violence.
NEG: Some people may argue that nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent to great power war because they function as a bargaining chip since countries do not want to risk the devastating effects of nuclear war. Some people may also argue that state-sponsored nuclear weapons developments assists future technological advances by providing the foundation for technology such as nuclear energy. Another argument that some debaters may make is that nuclear weapons are critical to a certain country’s (most likely the US) hegemony coupled with a reason that country’s hegemony is important. A popular strategy will also probably be to read advantage counterplans that regulate nuclear weapons to solve the aff by preventing war, but also providing a deterrent for war.
Fem: On the affirmative, one option is to argue that nuclear weapons are a product of masculine drives for dominance over “weak” countries. Furthermore, some authors argue that nuclear peace theory and theories of mutually assured destruction rely on the notion that peace can be maintained through war and weapons, which replicates the logic that justifies invasions and preemptive warfare under the guise that doing so is necessary for global stability in the long-term.
Resolved: The United States ought to act as the employer of last resort.
AFF: One argument that affirmatives might make is that by increasing employment, people will be encouraged to spend more, which will stimulate the economy and prevent a possible future recession. In addition, many people will simply argue that everyone deserves the ability to afford healthcare, food, and shelter. Furthermore, some people believe that it will not be a strain on taxpayers or the economy because unemployed people are already being paid welfare, but those who are willing and able will now be able to work for benefits.
NEG: On this topic, many people will probably read generic criticisms of any government action as inherently problematic or irredeemable because the aff would result in a huge expansion of government. In terms of topical strategies, a popular argument will probably be spending or budget deficit disadvantages because under the affirmative plan, the government would be required to pay for the wages of millions of people. Because the aff policy is not only expensive, but will also probably be perceived as socialist, politics disadvantages will be a common argument as well. These disadvantages may be coupled with advantage counterplans that claim to reduce unemployment more efficiently.
Fem: There are lots of options to read feminist arguments while on the affirmative. Some people argue that ELR policies help undermine gender hierarchies by reducing the amount of women in poverty.
Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.
AFF: The most popular affs on this topic will address the large role that fossil fuels play in anthropogenic climate change. This topic provides a lot of diverse ground for debaters who read arguments all across the ideological spectrum. Most debaters who tend to read traditional policy arguments will probably focus on the long-term existential risks of climate change in causing extinction. Debaters who prefer to read soft left affs may focus on the ongoing devastating impacts of climate change on marginalized populations, particularly in the global south. Another route is to focus on how fossil fuel industries have polluted the environment, thus disproportionately hurting poor communities and communities of color because they tend to live in closer proximity to oil, gas, and coal facilities.
NEG: In terms of disadvantages, a common argument will probably be that fossil fuels are key to the US economy, so removing subsidies for fossil fuels will result in a loss of economic competitiveness. Additionally, there is an energy burden placed upon poor and black communities because their housing stock tends to be less energy efficient, so some negative debaters may argue that renewables would increase this burden because they’re more expensive. Many people will also probably criticize affs that claim to be a panacea to solve climate change without addressing the underlying problem of capitalism and consumption. Some debaters may also criticize affs that represent climate change as a future disaster, rather than one that is currently plaguing marginalized communities.
Fem: On the affirmative, one option is to argue that the destruction of the environment and the oppression of gender minorities are inextricably linked because since nature and emotion are associated with femininity whereas rationality is associated with masculinity. Furthermore, because masculinity is considered superior to femininity, men feel they have the right to dominate both women and nature. Another common argument will probably be that climate change will disproportionately affect women not only because rising costs of necessities like energy and water disproportionately hurt people in poverty (the majority of whom are women), but also because they bear the brunt of care-taking duties. Another strong argument is to focus on the impact of the fossil fuel industry on inigenous communities. For example, some people may argue that without government subsidies, fossil fuel companies would not be able to build pipelines like Keystone. These pipelines result in the building of “man camps” that are associated with increases in the amount of murdered and missing indigenous women. Furthermore, the pipelines themselves pollute the environment and harm reproductive rights.
Resolved: A just nation ought not use offensive cyber operations to target civilian infrastructure.
AFF: The most popular argument on the affirmative will simply be that by definition, offensive operations are not necessary to protect a nation’s safety. Therefore, offensive cyber operations targeting civilian infrastructure can unjustly take away access to water and energy for hundreds of millions of people. Another strategy may be to focus on the importance of international law since offensive cyber operations targeting civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law. Some affirmatives may also specify one country that is currently using offensive cyber operations and argue that specific country shouldn’t continue to do so.
NEG: In terms of disadvantages, some people argue that offensive cyber operations help countries gain huge advantages by acting as an additional method of warfare that can be effectively used in conjunction with more conventional methods. In addition, many people argue that offensive cyber operations can be effective without requiring massive casualties, and are therefore the most just form of warfare. Debaters may also read plan-inclusive-counterplans that specify certain types of offensive cyber operations that are just. For example, manufacturing systems are arguably considered “civilian infrastructure”. One could argue that while these attacks are effective, they are also just because they don’t endanger the lives of civilians. People who want to read criticisms will probably criticize the false dichotomy created by just and unjust warfare because all war is inherently unjust.
Fem: On the affirmative, many people will criticize the notion of offensive warfare as paranoia that replicates the logic used to justify US invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of “saving women”.