Stoa Lincoln-Douglas 2021-22 Resolution Voting Guide
The new resolutions have arrived, and voting starts on April 15. Let’s look at our options.
Resolved: Hegemony is superior to the balance of power in international relations.
The Good
Most competitive value resolutions revolve around the same conflict: individual vs group. At first glance, this might look similar: one nation vs many. While it’s structurally similar, the conflict is unique. You can expect to explore some philosophies that you won’t see again in your time as a high school debater.
The resolution is well worded. The limiting context of “international relations” isn’t airtight, but it does the job. The terms are clear and the conflict is obvious.
The resolution encourages a deep study of world history and presents lots of fascinating applications.
The Bad
History teaches us that hegemony requires bloodshed and oppression to create and maintain. Consider what Stoa put forward as positive examples:
Persia. Various genocides including the Magi. Brutal wars of conquest. Just the wars of Cyrus the Great killed about 1 per 1000 people living on the entire planet.
Rome. About a quarter of the Roman population was enslaved. Mass slaughter of defenseless, sick, and prisoners of war. Violent subjugation of minorities. Brutal wars of conquest caused millions of deaths.
Mongolia. Brutal wars of conquest, spreading fire and sword across the globe and orchestrating a genocide with a death count that is shocking even by modern standards. As a percentage of the global population, Mongolia caused almost 4 times more deaths than World War 2.
Britain. Genocide and brutal wars of conquest. Enthusiastic pioneers in the slave trade. The atrocities committed in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere are a monument to the creative depravities to which humanity can fall. Just one example: manufacturing a famine in India that killed 60 million people.
United States. Genocides that, in some cases, wiped out more than 80% of the target population. At one point, one in six Americans were slaves. A list a mile long of crimes against humanity, mass rapes and massacres, and the distribution and use of weapons. Countless attempts to assassinate opponents, overthrow governments, stage false flag operations, and install puppets to protect US corporate interests. Cherry on the top: brutal wars of conquest.
The resolution forces us to look at these countries in the worst possible light. To be fair: they all had their share of positive achievements. Persia was a scientific powerhouse, Rome built dazzling edifices, Mongolia’s bureaucracy was legendary, Britain produced great works of art, and the United States created a blueprint for constitutional democracy.
But the things that were good about them were in spite of their hegemony, not because of it. The cost in death and misery easily outweighs any good that the hegemon paid it for. That one response easily defeats all affirmative cases.
Even for advanced debaters, the task of supporting this resolution is daunting. It would be a lot of fun, but even the best affirmatives would lose the overwhelming majority of their rounds.
This imbalance would not get easier with more research. Instead, it would get worse as negatives dug deeper and deeper into the universally putrid histories of human empires.
Verdict: 2/5. This is an interesting and educational topic, but it is woefully skewed in favor of the negative.
Resolved: In criminal justice it is more important to protect innocence than to punish guilt.
The Good
The topic is important.
The wording is almost perfect.
The Bad
The conflict is hopelessly narrow; expect cases to stagnate by January at the latest. Applications may change, but the basic case patterns will calcify and you’ll be forced to have the same two debates over and over.
There should be a comma after the word “justice.”
Here’s the real problem. The resolution affirms a foundational principle to modern legal systems, with hundreds of years of supporting jurisprudence. It’s hard to capture how important this concept is, but we’ll try: It’s the reason we have due process.
Any judge with a high-school-level education in liberal arts will walk into the room ready to vote for the resolution. But if there’s any doubt, the affirmative will have the overwhelming preponderance of applications at their disposal.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t negative positions, but they can be easily defeated with obvious arguments. Even advanced debaters will consistently lose to novices whenever they are forced to go negative. In short: this resolution might be skewed even more badly than the first.
Verdict: 2/5. The topic is important, but as a debate resolution, it’s just not interesting.
Resolved: In the field of biomedical engineering, restraint ought to be prioritized over scientific advancement.
The Good
This is a fascinating topic with a wide range of applications.
Studying this resolution will help you understand and prepare for the future. A+ educational value.
The resolution is perfectly balanced between value-centric and application-centric cases. This isn’t essential, but it’s a great feature for something we’ll be using for an entire year. Center balance means more case diversity, a metagame that lasts longer, and satisfying paths to victory regardless of your preferred style.
This resolution invites debate over ethical dilemmas, which is where the LD format shines brightest.
The Neutral
At some point in the year, the metagame will revolve mostly around interpretation. We’ll ask questions like: Who is exercising restraint? Are all atrocities committed in the name of science fair game? While it’s impossible to know for sure, we’ll probably hit that point in January and then develop past it into other conflicts.
This is pretty common among robust value resolutions. It isn’t bad per se, nor is it caused by sloppy wording and pointless ambiguity. But you should know what you’re signing up for.
The Bad
The ongoing public debate over abortion has made any conversation about embryos emotionally charged. The problem isn’t bad enough to break the resolution, but you may have a few frustrating rounds.
Verdict: 4/5. This is a solid resolution.
Final verdict: 3.
Voting is important, but the decision is not interesting because there is only one competitively balanced resolution available.
Up next: thoughts on the wildcard events.