NCFCA LD Value 2020-21 Resolution Voting Guide
Let’s take a look at NCFCA’s new resolutions for Lincoln-Douglas debate.
1) Resolved: “In democratic elections, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above a candidate’s right to privacy.”
The Good
There’s a flawless competitive balance between affirmative and negative, and a great balance between value-centric and application-centric cases.
This is a deep topic with lots of interesting arguments from all over history. Lots of options mean this resolution will be fun, appeal to people at every skill level, and support a developing metagame for a long time.
The Bad
If a value resolution must be stretched out for an entire competitive season, it should be so broad that there may still be new cases emerging in March 2021. The context (democratic elections) unnecessarily drains air out of the resolution. It would have been perfect if it started after the comma.
Verdict: 4/5.
2) Resolved: “The principles of direct democracy ought to be valued above the principles of representative democracy.”
The Good
This resolution has a solid philosophical clash, good balance, a handful of interesting strategies. If it were going to be used for one tournament and then replaced, we’d give it 5 stars.
The Bad
If you’re struggling to think of unique, viable case patterns for each side of this resolution, you’re not alone. This resolution is so narrow that most novice and intermediate cases will have interchangeable arguments.
Don’t let the words “principles” fool you. This is a heavily application-centric resolution, in the worst possible way. Expect both sides to exchange volleys of arguments about the logistics of government, nit-picking each other’s increasingly obscure examples. There will be the occasional standout value-centric case, but those are only accessible to advanced debaters and probably won’t stay viable the entire year.
That’s not because application-centric cases are bad. They can be delightful. But combining application-centricity with extreme narrowness creates a toxic result. The conflict between direct and representative democracy will be tedious by the end of October at the latest.
Verdict: 3/5.
This is a great parli resolution that seems to have lost its way.
3) Resolved: “Immigration is a human right.”
The Good
This is a deep and multi-faceted topic. Immigration can support a lot of metagame development before going stale, and researching it could have tremendous educational value.
The Bad
Here’s the first problem.
Unfortunately, the interesting topic (immigration) is narrowed to a laser point by the worth assignment (human right). That means the metagame will stagnate much faster than the topic suggests. There are only so many ways to measure human rights. By the end of the second tournament, you’ll probably have heard all the viable case patterns.
Here’s the second problem.
This resolution will almost exclusively favor value-centric cases. Many people prefer value-centric debate to the more practical application-centric styles, but it should be a matter of preference. Great resolutions support both options. In this resolution, applications are barely more than illustrations. There’s an extreme imbalance.
Here’s the third problem.
This resolution is not technically moral; in other words, it doesn’t say that something is good. It says immigration is a human right, which MIGHT be good, depending on what worth we assign to human rights. If human rights are bad, and immigration is a human right, the affirmative still wins. That means that this is an amoral resolution – one that does not deal with good and bad.
On one hand, that makes this a fresh and interesting resolution for advanced students. On the other, it makes this resolution daunting for younger debaters. It’s hard to imagine a 13-year-old confidently grasping the complexity of this resolution. You might be confused just trying to understand WHY it’s so confusing.
If a high school league uses a single value resolution for the entire year, it should be a moral one. This is not.
Verdict: 2/5.
Final Verdict: Option 1.
Don’t let its one flaw deter you. This is a good resolution.
Which option are you voting for? Let us know in the comments below.