Here’s what you should expect in the upcoming season of Stoa TP debate.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform the use of Artificial Intelligence technology.

“Use of” Topicality

The resolution doesn’t address “artificial intelligence policy,” it addresses: “The use of artificial intelligence.” This can be interpreted two ways.

Strict Interpretation: To be topical, a plan must reform AI policy directly.

Effects Interpretation: To be topical, a plan can make a policy change that is way outside the realm of AI policy as long as one of the effects of that change is that AI is used differently.

Both of these interpretations are valid and defensible. Expect the first to be most popular when the year begins, and the second to gradually take over around March. The more effective topicality arguments are in your area in general, the slower the transition will be.

Non-Directional

Most affirmative cases can be divided into two broad categories: AI Good, and AI Bad. Whichever stance they take, the negative will need to be prepared to argue the opposite. That makes research a very flexible experience. Any evidence that takes a strong position on AI is potentially useful. Put it in a negative brief, but be prepared to repurpose it for a possible aff case.

It’s likely that at least once this season, you’ll depend on evidence from your own aff case during a neg round.

Status Quo is Ambiguous

The future of AI is hard to see clearly. We can predict trendlines, but the development of technology, market demand, and self-regulation could flow in a lot of different ways. That makes this resolution tricky because it’s hard to know exactly what the status quo will be.

The more immediate the problem, the less of an issue this is.

Early in the year, affirmative cases will do well to focus on problems that already exist, rather than concerning trends and hypothetical future problems. As the year progresses and the metagame gets more sophisticated, affirmatives will gradually shift their significance claims further into the future.

Technology is Inevitable

All inventions are a Pandora’s box. They cannot be un-discovered. Expect a standard solvency argument against any AI Bad aff claiming that whatever future they are trying to prevent will still happen. They can delay it in the United States, but the technology will still come one way or another. Aggressive negs will go further, arguing that we’re better off inventing it here in the US so we can control the technology better and reap more of the benefits.

In the next post, we’ll look at the four big case areas you should focus your research on.