NCFCA’s new resolutions are out! Let’s take a look.

1) Resolved: “The European Union should substantially change its immigration policy.”

The Good

Breaking from the US Federal Government for a year is a refreshing change of pace. Policy resolutions can have any agent; even an individual person. Large governing bodies or alliances work well. This significantly increases the educational value for seasoned policy debaters who are returning for another year. 

This resolution is broad, but it won’t be frustrating to research as long as the metagame doesn’t allow affirmatives to get away with changing immigration policies of specific individual countries within the EU. If it’s the immigration policy of the EU in general, we’re in for a good year.

The Mixed

The EU’s immigration policy is controversial and constantly making headlines. New evidence and arguments will continually surface as the year goes on. Some affirmatives may even discover that their cases have become non-inherent with days before the tournament, or even during a live round. This isn’t good or bad per se, it just makes this resolution harder. That means more educational value and excitement, but a steeper learning curve for novices and some frustrating moments as the season unfolds.

The Bad

This topic would be too hot to use if we were debating in Europe; judge bias would be too prevalent to enable competitive tournaments. Here in the US, we’re less invested, so judge bias won’t be as much of a problem. However, we’re facing similar immigration challenges in the US. Triggering judge bias might be a little too easy.

Verdict: 4/5. 

2) Resolved: “The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance to one or more of the following: Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala.”

The Good

While wording is far less important in policy than in value, it still matters. This resolution is perfectly worded; a textbook example of crafting a complex resolution without unintended side effects.

The topic area is also interesting and introduces several timely and competing values: economy, environment, public health, culture, globalization. 

Finally, the resolution is well-balanced between affirmative and negative. 

The Bad

Affirmatives have four hoops to jump through: 

• Plan agent must be the federal government

• Plan can only target development assistance

• Assistance can only be increased

• Assistance must be to 1-3 specific countries

The result is a resolution so narrow that negatives will be able to build a solid brief against 80% of cases with just a little bit of research in the start of the year. The metagame will rapidly stagnate, with only advanced teams introducing crazy new ideas in 2021. They’ll do so not to improve their chances of winning, but from boredom. 

Policy resolutions should support an entire year of debate. This one can support a maximum of 3 tournaments before drying up.

Verdict: 3/5.

3) Resolved: “The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its humanitarian assistance to one or more countries in sub-Saharan Africa.”

See Res 2.

These resolutions are incredibly similar. They have almost the exact same strengths and weaknesses: perfect wording, interesting topic, good balance, way too narrow.

The Mixed

There are 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, so this resolution is broader and will last longer. That’s a big plus. However, it’s broader in the wrong way. Since affirmatives only have to target one of those countries, expect cases to get small fast. Negatives will respond by running generic arguments that don’t force them to know the economic situation of Lesotho as it compares to Djibouti. And since the 4-hoop resolution will produce affirmatives that always do the same basic things, generic arguments will always land. 

Policy resolutions work best when negatives must listen closely to the 1AC. These resolutions don’t require that.

Verdict: 3/5.

Choosing between 2 and 3 is a matter of personal preference. Both are disappointing.

Resolutions 2 and 3 were both great ideas. Only one of them should have been offered to give the league 3 distinct choices. Either one would have been a 5-star resolution by simply making it broader. The easiest fix would be to target at least 2 countries, and loosen some of the other hoops.

What they should have said: “The United States Federal Government should significantly increase assistance to two or more countries in Africa and/or Central America.”

Final verdict: Option 1.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a good resolution that will create a full season of interesting rounds.

Come back Thursday for the value resolutions.