Thursday Thing to Read: The Topic Debate
January 6, 2006 – 4:47 pm by: Nick BubbThe selection of a new policy debate topic is not a whismical one. Much effort and research is placed on the question of what topic is to be debated the next year. This article attempts to explore those efforts in consider the two remaing topics proposed for next year, as well as the process used to arrive at those two choices.
Today’s Thursday Thing is written by WFD Editor-in-Chief, Nick Bubb.
The Topic Debate
By: Nick Bubb - Editor-in-Chief, WFD
The Ballot Process
The National Federation of High Schools runs the determination for the policy debate topic. That process compromises of four distinct steps: proposition, selection, the first round of balloting and the second round of balloting. Anyone can submit a topic for proposition. An evaluation of a proposed topic deals with the available literature, the nature of the policy, timeliness, and other educational factors. That evaluation of topics begins at the NFHS conference where the topic papers are read and presentations are made for the topics. Number of proposed topics are selected for debate and the membership, consisting of collegiate debate professors and representatives, members of the NFL and CFL, and members from State Forensics and Debate organizations decide on five topics to propose to membership. 52 Distinct identities are eligible to vote in the NFHS balloting process. Each state debate/forensics organization and the NFL and the CFL are allowed vote ranking the five proposed topics 1-5, with 1 being the most preferred in the first round of voting. To narrow the field, the organization then chooses the two highest ranked topics using a cumulative mathematical model. (As opposed to a preferential-instant run off system.) Those two are again submitted for another round of voting, and the highest vote getter is the national debate topic.
This process is important this year, because the selection of National Service may have surprised some people. While Africa was the top first vote-receiving topic, National Service was not the second. Post-Secondary education was the second most first vote-receiving topic. Post-secondary education was also the top second vote-receiving topic. But Post-Secondary education lacked third place votes, something Service had in abundance. Thus, Service was selected as one of two potential topics. The results from this year were (lowest = best). Post-Secondary Education 94, Aging 98, Assistance of Africa 81, National Service 89, Latin America 115.
The Topic Debate
Which topic should our debate community choose? The rest of this WFD article is dedicated to exploring that issue. This year we have an interesting debate, not just between competing policy areas, but also between different kinds of policy areas; the national service topic is a debate about domestic policy and the Africa topic is about foreign policy.
This represents our first area of choice: if we think that foreign policy is superior to domestic, then we should chose Africa. And vice versa. There are merits to each. First, we just debated a foreign policy topic two years ago (PKO’s). This can be seen as potential distraction; students won’t be learning anything new, because most back files will still apply and teams will have to do less research. While this is true to a certain extent, there are only a limited number of PKO’s that are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sudan, Burundi, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Ethiopia) and PKO’s appeal to a limited area of the African topic “public health” (and that appeal is a questionably topical). However, students are often know less of foreign countries and world history than they do of their own country and history. Thus, a turn to a return to a foreign topic might not be a bad educational choice. On the other hand, we have not had a pure domestically focused topic since mental health. So a return to a purely domestic focused topic might spark a new debate over conditions in the United States. There is also a misperception that the sequence between the topics is 3 domestic one foreign. This is not necessarily true; a foreign topic is required at least every three years. Foreign topics can occur more frequently.
The next issue we should consider is what specific educational benefits do each of these topics have. First, National Service has been rarely debated in the United States. In the early 1940’s the United States policy debaters twice debated a military conscription resolution. Only once (1969) was there a more encompassing resolution (Resolved: That the United States should establish a system of compulsory service by all citizens). Since that time, a lot has changed. While the 1969 resolution probably included a discussion about the National Civilian Conservation Corps, the Peace Corps, Volunteers in Service to America, The National Teacher Corps, and the National Youth Corps, a new resolution would address modern developments. Specifically: Teach for America, AmeriCorps, and USA Freedom Corps.
It should be noted that the National Service topic is well beyond just dealing with the draft. The notation of many nationally sponsored service organizations above should illustrate that. Beyond providing support for these organizations or the draft, a key component of this resolution is how to establish that “mandatory”ness of the program. In other words, how will compulsion be achieved? Debaters will probably also have to address the idea of what to do once these programs have received support. There is significant evidence that even though programs like Habitat for Humanity may receive community support, they may not have the leaders in order to direct and command that support in beneficial ways. There are many models for National Service, but most of them involve individuals receiving some kind of a good or service for their work. This may pose many topicality and kritik problems
There’s also a significant value debate behind the National Service resolution. This value debate should lead to bountiful kritik ground. First, there is a question of: if voluntary service is made mandatory, is it really voluntary? Is there a value to volunteerism that we should preserve? Second, is it appropriate to use the power of the state to force people in working for the idea of the state, the defense of the state, or some abstract “community?” Third, is mandatory national service consistent with a broader notion of security? Many Affirmative Advocates, like Jon McCain, will argue yes. Other people also see Nation Service as fixing a national “self-centered” attitude – the existence and effect of are also ground for a critical discussion.
One issue that the topic paper does not address, which will be a critical one to “Wisconsin Judges” if National Service is selected is of Significance. Only a limited number of people participate in National Service organizations now, and the number of organizations and the scope of those organizations have increased. The only way it seems (from the stand point of having done little research and not hearing any debates on the topic) for the affirmative to gain any competitive impacts is by linking national service either to a critical impact of fixing the nation’s attitude or to associate National Service with the defense of the nation. Not all programs that affirmatives will choose to defend are able to link to both impacts.
Africa on the other hand presents a similar, but different sort of issues. We have all seen the commercials on Television about the terrible conditions of the rest of the world. The Africa topic asks debaters to seriously evaluate those conditions. The assistance to Africa Topic calls debaters to understand how poverty is shaping the world and how devastating that poverty is. Issues like a lack of health care (especially with respect to AIDS/HIV) and education are crucially linked to being able to remove one’s self from poverty. The Africa topic asks debaters to explore those links. Other issues are: population control, nutrition, underlying factors (colonialization, racism, ethnic tensions, sexism, genocide, and warfare). Simply put, the need for help is great in Africa, and for debate, Assistance to Africa is a large topic that encompasses many issues.
Because of the large scope of the Africa topic, many people may be wondering whether or not there is an equally large scope for the negative. Let me assure them, that there is. Giving aid to one area of the world, while not giving it to another is key link ground for relations and political disadvantages. Not to mention, with every policy area that ought to pursue, there is also literature that argues that we ought not pursue that area. There’s also substantial critical ground in this resolution for several reasons: giving aid may trade off with a sense of what it means to be an individual (prompt: rugged individualism and objectivism), giving aid may also reinforce a system of nationalism, colonialism, or racism; and finally, a foreign policy focused on a continent does not make a whole lot of sense. Consultation and alternative actor counter-plans should be more than prevalent on this topic.
The impact debate on the Africa topic is larger because the topic is larger in scope. Affecting 1.2 billion people without clean water is a much greater in magnitude than affecting a National Service policy that only deals with 350,000 people. The Africa topic similarly seems timelier than the National Service one. Many individuals (Bono) and organizations are attempting to mobilize support to attempt to fix the growing problems of Africa. Perhaps it is time to undertake the debate of whether or not the United States should pursue the same route.
The large scope of the Africa topic might also be its downfall. Overly broad policy debate topics have been a potential disadvantage. For example, consider the 2000 debate topic on privacy. That topic was incredibly large in scope and called for debaters to have an almost ridiculous understand of the topic. A broader topic might be disadvantageous for smaller teams because it calls for a higher research burden. We might be excluding debaters simply because they participate on a low-budget, low-staffed, or low-resourced team.
Conclusion
The next resolution is to be announced on January 9, 2005. Hopefully, decisions makers have considered these issues as they proceed with their votes.
The NFHS Topic Papers and First Balloting Report were consulted in the creation of this article.