Voting starts on April 15. Let’s take a look at Stoa’s value resolutions for the upcoming season.

1) Resolved: “In a democracy, civil discourse ought to emphasize compromise over principles.”

The Good: New Topic Area.

This is an interesting resolution with a conflict unlike anything Stoa has used before. It is a coherent value resolution with no fact or policy elements.

Bad: Shallow Topic Area.

The metagame will wither away by February at the latest, with the same 2-4 basic arguments repeated with subtle variations. After that, breaking out of the monotony will be relegated to advanced debaters who have the option of effectively running exotic arguments. Most debaters will be stuck living the same debate round over and over, like a teenage homeschool Groundhog Day.

Second, many of the terms used in this resolution are unnecessary. “In a democracy” does nothing for this resolution. The conflict was already narrow; narrowing it further only shortens the time before we run out of new places to push the metagame. And you can expect annoyingly semantic application defenses where your opponents argue that the country you brought up isn't strictly a democracy.

The same could be said for the context of civil discourse. Again, it needlessly narrows an already-narrow resolution and invites semantic quibbling as a way to escape debating the issues.

Finally, principles are probably positive. Compromise is a pragmatic tool. It is very difficult to contrast these things directly. Something intrinsically desirable, like “consensus,” would have been better.

This is an interesting topic for a resolution, but we can’t see any version of it that can support a year of competition.

What it should have said: “In governance, consensus ought to be valued over principles.”

Verdict: 3/5

Note: If you want a sneak peak of this option in live competition, check out Ace Peak’s Debut Challenge. The LD track is using a similar resolution.

2) Resolved: “Economic stability is more important than economic growth.”

Wait, how do stability and growth conflict?

Left to its own devices, a free market will pursue profit at almost any cost. This creates a host of undesirable side-effects, such as exploitation of labor and environmental damage. One of the most predictable consequences of economic growth is a "boom and bust" cycle. 

To maximize growth, all you have to do is stand by and let the bust happen. Let the market correct itself and go back to growing. But when the smoke clears, you'll typically have a smaller number of ruthlessly efficient companies running the show. The smaller ones, the mom and pop stores that don't have the capital to survive a dip, will be gone.

Worse, economic instability exact a human toll. During the bust, companies go out of business; people lose their jobs. Homes are foreclosed and cars are repossessed. Savings are lost. Ruthless efficiency doesn't look so great close up.

The resolution asks: should we reign in growth with regulations and market intervention and a public sector? Or should we stand back and let the economy grow at full speed, trusting that a rising tide will eventually lift all boats? This is a timeless conflict. Since the dawn of the industrial era, people have put forward various answers to it ranging from libertarianism to Keynesian economics to democratic socialism.

Some believe that there is no conflict between growth and stability. While this is a minority view among economists, there is room here for a no-conflict resolutional objection. Add it to the long list of viable, distinct negative case patterns.

The Good: Exemplary Value Conflict.

On paper, the competitive balance between these two is outstanding. There are plenty of potent applications thanks to the lack of a context term like “In the United States.” 

Most exciting, there are a wide range of philosophical concepts to explore. No value resolution can support an entire year of competition, but this one can come close.

Under normal circumstances, we would be concerned about a pattern of bias from parents. Stoa judges tend conservative; conservatives place a high value on economic growth and are suspicious of tools that promote stability. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 has changed the political landscape a bit. Facing historic difficulty, you can expect judges to be more receptive than ever to economic stability. 

The Bad: Nothing.

The committee knocked it out of the park with this one.

Verdict: 5/5.

3) Resolved: “In the pursuit of scientific advancement, protection of intellectual property ought to be valued above open source innovation.”

The Good: Value-Application Balance.

This is another topic area that Stoa has been playing with for a long time. It gets timelier every year. The current pandemic has ushered in a slew of interesting applications, like the violation of IP to create parts for life-saving ventilators. 

Our favorite thing about this resolution is that it should invite value-centric cases just as well as application-centric ones. For example, you could run a principled affirmative about the human right to property, or a practical one arguing that science advances faster when IP is protected.

Unfortunately, the value-application balance is damaged by poor wording. 

Bad: Goal Specification.

Value resolutions suffer from context that specifies a goal. Homeschool debate had a similar problem many years ago with a resolution that began: “In the pursuit of justice …” Some debaters took that to mean “In the justice system,” while others took it to mean that the only acceptable value was justice. That conflict was shallow, tedious, and semantic: academic debate at its worst. 

What makes this context particularly odd is that it’s unnecessary. The conflict between intellectual property and innovation is perfect as-is, and any contexts – scientific or otherwise – should be fair game.

This problem won’t break the resolution, but it’s enough to drain our enthusiasm for it.

What it should have said: “Protection of intellectual property ought to be valued above open source innovation.”

Verdict: 4/5.

Final Verdict: Option 2.

This resolution is having a moment. Let’s take advantage of it.

Final note: Most value resolutions boil down to some version of “Individual vs Group.” None of these resolutions are so simple; that means there are unique new philosophical conflicts to explore. Whichever one wins, it’ll have a lot to offer seasoned competitors who are returning for another year of value debate. This can’t have been an accident. We applaud the committee.