The new resolutions have arrived, and voting starts on April 15. Let’s look at our options.

1) Resolved: “The USFG should considerably decrease its military commitments.”

The Good

This resolution is a perfect example of striking the right balance between breadth and depth. It gives the affirmative effectively infinite case options, enabling a lively metagame where new cases continue to emerge all the way to NITOC. But all those cases will have a few general things in common, so negatives aren’t facing a frustrating mountain of research requirements. All they have to do is be conversational in America’s current military commitments.

The American military has about 165,000 soldiers currently deployed in more than 150 countries. While the obvious affirmative case is to simply cancel a deployment and bring the troops home, the really exciting cases will seek to replace soldiers with some other tool.

The Bad

None. The word considerably is unusual, but not a drawback. It should work just as well as the more common “significant” or “substantial.”

Sample Cases

• Close Guantanamo Bay.

• Withdraw from Iraq.

• Cancel the Space Force.

• End participation in foreign drug wars.

• Withdraw from NATO.

• Withdraw from South Korea and proportionally increase aid.

• Cut military aid to the middle east.

Verdict: 5/5. A rock-solid resolution. 

2) Resolved: “The USFG should substantially reform one or more of the laws administered by the Department of Labor.”

The Good

Stoa keeps putting this forward in various permutations, and rightfully so. This is an outstanding topic that has deserved to be represented in a live resolution for a long time. It’s particularly timely now, with unemployment in America rising above 30%. It’s dauntingly broad, but not too much so. 

The Bad

Year-long resolutions work best when the propose big-picture policy changes. This one proposes a change as small as a single law. The words “substantially reform” do nothing to fix this issue. The resolution will work as intended until around Christmas, at which point negatives will be forced to play whack-a-mole against increasingly tiny affirmatives. And because of the poor wording of the resolution, the standard defense against tiny affirmatives – a topicality press – is off the table. 

What it should have said: “The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its labor policy.”

Possible Case Areas

• Wages

• Overtime

• OSHA/Safety laws

• Employee benefits

• Independent contractors

• Gig workers

• Unions

• Paid leave

• Layoffs

• Temporary workers

• Agricultural workers

• Immigrants

Verdict: 3/5. Once again, great intentions and topic are hindered by clumsy wording.

3) Resolved: “That a comprehensive program of penal reform should be adopted throughout the United States.”

The Good

Great topic; badly overdue for a resolution. 

The Great

This resolution doesn’t have a specific agency. In other words: unlike every previous Stoa resolution, it isn’t limited to the federal government. You’re free to run cases that use state and local governments, companies, charities, whatever you like. This is a breath of fresh air, especially for people with 3+ years of policy experience.

As an added bonus, the phrase “comprehensive program of … reform” demands imaginative affirmative cases, including advanced structures like themed AJAX cases. (Note: If you don’t know what AJAX cases are, don’t worry. We’ll dive deep into them if this resolution wins.)

Case Ideas

• Nationalize prisons.

• Switch some major prison demographic (those with major mental health issues, non-violent drug offenders, etc) from criminal processing to something else.

• End three-strikes laws.

• Implement changes to promote rehabilitation.

• Implement changes to increase the chances of felons’ reincorporation into society.

• Implement changes to decrease crime inside prisons.

• Increase use of/end the death penalty.

• Reduce the power of sheriffs. 

Verdict: 5/5. The wording takes this resolution from great to outstanding. 

Final Verdict: Option 3

(But you can’t go wrong with option 1, either.)

Final note: Stoa made a strange move abbreviating “United States Federal Government” to “USFG.” This won’t make a difference in most rounds, but it may confuse some community judges/newbies, and could lead to silly alternate interpretations like United States Fidelity & Guarantee. Nothing good can come from using abbreviations in resolutions.

LD voting guide coming tomorrow.