September/October 2024 LD Topic Roundtable
Victory Briefs presents a topic roundtable, where we solicit coaches and members of the debate community to provide input on which topic they believe should be selected to debate for the upcoming topic slot.
This entry covers the three potential topics for the 2024 September/October topic slot.
Voting is now open! To vote: log in to your NSDA account, click the “Topic Voting” red bar on the left, and click the blue “Vote” button in the “2024 September/October LD Ballot” row. Voting closes on 7/31/2024.
The potential topics for the 2024 September/October topic slot are as follows:
Resolved: The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing.
Resolved: The United States ought to substantially increase restrictions on the Commander in Chief powers of the President of the United States.
Resolved: The United States ought to require that workers receive a living wage.
We have invited seven coaches to provide their reasoning for which topic ought to be selected.
Jacob Palmer — Any (…Carbon Pricing)
I am honestly pretty excited about all of these potential topics. The living wage, carbon pricing, and commander-in-chief topics all offer us some timely debates over some issues that have seen significant developments
over the past year, such as how we can effectively deal with ongoing inflation, whether our current efforts like the IRA are sufficient to deal with climate change, or what the scope of the executive office’s authority should entail. Ultimately, although I think any of these topics would be decent, my favorite is the carbon pricing topic because it is the best balance of the scope of arguments available for either side and the quality of arguments for either side.
The living wage topic is relatively small in terms of its scope. After watching debaters on this topic develop throughout VBI's camp sessions, it became clear, even early in the camp session, that there are only a few convincing arguments for either side. A small topic is not inherently bad, especially for a shorter topic cycle like September/October. There will only be a couple of opportunities for most debaters to compete on this topic, so keeping debates relatively predictable will ensure debaters can clash and engage in high-quality and meaningful debates. The downside to this topic, though, is that the predictable ground that does exist is not as strong as the ground on other possible topics for this cycle. The quality of link arguments for the negative that shows the aff might lead to some undesirable harms are generally not particularly strong, and the quality of affirmative solvency arguments that show they can resolve or avoid some undesirable harm is also not as strong as the link or solvency arguments on the carbon pricing or commander-in-chief topics.
The commander-in-chief topic has almost an inverse set of benefits and downsides compared to the living wage topic. The commander-in-chief topic is really huge. Affirmatives can limit a wide range of commander-in-chief powers, creating a massive variance in how different teams will approach this topic. This will require a considerable prep burden when trying to adequately prepare for the negative side of the topic. Of the ground that does exist, though, there are some incredibly strong affirmative advocacies with high-quality solvency arguments, such as affirmatives that limit commander-in-chief powers regarding the president’s ability to launch nuclear weapons. There will also be some solid link arguments for the negative regarding the importance of maintaining the president’s crucial role in organizing military strategy and coordination so that we can maintain effective deterrence. This means that unlike the living wage topic, which is relatively small and more predictable but has lower quality ground, debates on this topic will be much less predictable, but where clash does exist, the arguments will be of decently high quality for either side. I worry that this topic's scope will just be far too broad for a short topic cycle like September/October. If this were one of the topic options for the January/February cycles (which really starts in December and ends in April if you attend the earliest and latest tournaments on the January/February topic), I would gladly vote for it. Still, the limited set of tournament options in September/October means this topic will never have the time it needs to mature and for teams to develop quality prep for the wide range of debates within this topic.
This final topic option is carbon pricing, which is the best of both worlds in terms of scope and quality. This is also a relatively large topic but is substantially smaller than the topic on commander-in-chief powers. With the carbon pricing topic, affirmatives will be able to read a wide range of arguments about how we will go about pricing carbon, such as whether we should adopt a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax and how we might enforce each of those systems. There are some robust defenses of both cap-and-trade systems and carbon tax policies, which will give the affirmative a good range of distinct solvency arguments at their disposal. Against all affirmatives on this topic, though, the negative will be able to read arguments about the importance of fossil fuels for the US economy and for maintaining the strength of specific US industries, which will give the negative a powerful arsenal of arguments against the wide variety of affirmatives on this topic. The carbon pricing topic will be big enough that affirmatives will be able to innovate through the end of the topic. Still, it will be limited enough that no matter what the affirmative says, the negative will be able to meaningfully engage.
Lawrence Zhou — Carbon Pricing
Between the three options presented, I think this is a fairly good slate of LD topics, but my vote would be in favor of OPTION 1, carbon pricing.
I think OPTION 2 (presidential powers) is dead last. While not identical to the 2018-2019 NDT-CEDA college policy topic concerning restrictions on the executive power of the President, it is fairly similar, and I don’t take that in a great way. I don’t think there are many who debated or coached on that topic that look back on the executive power topic with all that much enthusiasm. In the context of LD, I think this topic option suffers from two major concerns.
First, the possibilities for specific plans are simply too many. Obviously, the affirmative could propose the obvious, such as introducing something like a revitalized War Powers Act[1] or repealing the AUMF.[2] There are many such proposals related to just questions about troop deployment, and the proper balance of authority between Congress and the President.
But then you look at some of the other areas encompassed by Commander in Chief powers, and it includes such things as the treatment of detainees at Gitmo[3] and the sole authority of the President to launch a nuclear strike.[4] Prohibiting first use by the President is itself a massive area of debate,[5] itself basically an entire year of college policy debates from the most recent year’s topic. The idea that no first use (NFU) would become just one subset of a massive topic (that isn’t even Jan/Feb) strikes me as simply too unlimited to foster high-quality or interesting debates. If we just wanted to debate NFU, that is already a fairly sizable topic—making it just one part of an even larger topic would be simply too much in my opinion.
On the flip side, for more traditional circuits, it becomes nearly impossible to debate this topic in any specific way without introducing something that resembles a plan. What does it mean to generally restrict the Commander in Chief powers of the President of the United States without reference to a more specific proposal about specific powers? The arguments for why Congressional or judicial oversight might be good will vary radically depending on the specific powers that are being discussed. The legal rationales that will inevitably be discussed throughout the topic literature will reference very specific powers in specific situations, and it’s difficult to see how good, traditional debates could ever occur with this topic. Of course, some might point out that it’s possible to have some principled debates about separation of powers and checks and balances in a democracy, but it will be hard to have particularly engaging debates about these issues without referencing specific powers and examples.
OPTION 3, or the living wage topic, ranks much closer to carbon pricing in my mind, and I certainly wouldn’t be upset if this topic were selected. The debates on this topic back in Jan/Feb 2015 were of relatively high quality, encouraging good philosophical debates about the proper role of government and in-depth empirical debates about the effects of wages on poverty and unemployment.[6] While perhaps a bit slanted in favor of the affirmative, I think this topic still invites nuanced and in-depth debates over a few core arguments that are fairly relevant to contemporary discussions about inequality and justice in America. I also think this is a reasonably good topic for traditional circuits as well. The main downside of this topic is that it is fairly small and there isn’t a ton of super recent evidence, but I don’t view either as a fully disqualifying condition.
OPTION 1, or the carbon pricing topic, seems the most interesting to me and I think there are two reasons why I favor this topic over the rest. The first is simply that it’s a good area to debate. The environment versus the economy is always a good topic area.[7] This was a college policy topic a few years ago, and while debates on that topic became somewhat stale by the end of the year, the topic was more than large enough to sustain at least a few months of innovating and high-quality debates. Minimally, the affirmative has access to two proposals—a carbon tax and (arguably) cap-and-trade.[8] Each of these approaches have their advantages and drawbacks, and I can imagine that the research done over just these two proposals alone would be enough to sustain two months of debate. The negative not only gets obvious objections to carbon pricing, such as economic concerns, but they are also able to debate specific details[9] of carbon pricing proposals, and offer various counterplans to try to solve the environmental concerns raised by the affirmative.
The second is that this topic area has not been explored before in LD. While issues of environmental ethics have cropped up every so often (e.g., the Nov/Dec 2022 China environmental protection/economic growth topic, the Nov/Dec 2019 topic about fossil fuel subsidies, and the Jan/Feb 2014 developing countries topic), we have never had a debate about carbon pricing in LD, which is surprising given that it has shown up on the topic voting slate numerous times. I think it’s about time that LD debates directly about climate change.
In the end, carbon pricing is pressing, unique, and debatable. It’s fairly well balanced in terms of the quality of ground, has ample new research about it, and contains enough flexibility for innovation while preserving enough stability for clash. To me, it is clearly the best topic on the Sept/Oct slate of topics and one of the best topics for the entire upcoming season. Vote carbon pricing!
Lizzie Su — Living Wage
The living wage topic (Option 3) provides the best ground to avoid stale debates!
The carbon pricing resolution (Option 1) will reproduce the same debates we’ve seen with previous (and recent) environmentally-inclined topics: the affirmative introduces a policy that would mitigate global warming, strengthen climate leadership, etc. This generic affirmative sounds quite similar to those read on the November-December resolution this past season (on the prohibition of fossil fuel extraction from federal public lands and waters). While there is an argument for 3rd and 4th line testing of carbon pricing as a unique mechanism, the fact that a carbon tax often functions as an effective advantage counterplan on other environmental topics means students will engage in those discussions inevitably. Should the LD community find the nuclear power topic the most appealing on this year’s November-December slate, we may find ourselves debating the most effective climate mitigation strategies for four months straight. To be clear, this is a valuable debate to be had. However, debaters should be given the opportunity throughout the year to research a variety of economic, political, and environmental issues, as prescribed by the nature of the LD topic rotation.
Some traditional circuits may also deal with vagueness issues, since “carbon pricing” may come in the form of a carbon tax, cap and trade system, or carbon credits. Each definition would have its own advantages, disadvantages, and solvency claims, making it difficult for debaters to engage with their opponent’s arguments (in the case that plans are banned).
The Commander in Chief powers topic (Option 2) will likely be rife with recycled backfile-esque cards on whether or not presidential war powers are good or bad. These cards tend to be “laundry list impacts,” where a number of high-magnitude scenarios are included in the same card with little explanation as to why executive flexibility is key to solve (or cause) each impact. While there is room for further research and argument innovation on this topic, I would not keep my hopes up.
The living wage resolution will force students to go further in-depth on economic policy than they have on previous topics. While the Econ DA is usually a popular generic, this resolution could help debaters add nuance to their explanations of the financial impacts of the plan. Is it better to grow the economy from the bottom up or from the top down? Would a living wage cause an economic crash or slow growth?
As a bonus, I should expect philosophical ground on this resolution to be interesting as well. For example, it may be asked whether a living wage would enhance one’s autonomy (via the creation of financial slack) or hinder it (should a living wage be an unjust government interference in the markets).
Special thanks to Lucas and his merry band of fellows for inspiring this topic defense.
Evan Alexis — Carbon Pricing
Resolved: You Ought to Select Resolved: The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing.
It’s not the College Topic
While this topic is very similar to the college policy topic for this year (Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a clean energy policy for decarbonization in the United States, including a market-based instrument), there are some key differences.
First, the actor in the topic is the United States rather than the United States federal government. This means that the States counterplan is even less competitive than it otherwise would be, avoiding an oppressive functional limit on the topic.
Second, the Sept/Oct topic is more narrow in terms of the instrument to address climate change than the college one. As Trufanov put it bluntly in his breakdown of the potential college wordings carbon pricing is two broad affs: carbon tax and cap and trade. While this is admittedly somewhat narrow, subsets within these (focused on specific industries, for example) would provide a workable range of possible affs while still linking to core neg generics. A smaller topic can be problematic in policy where the resolution gets stale, but with a two-month rotation it’s the perfect opportunity for in-depth case debating to emerge, with excellent literature on both sides of these areas.
These differences mean that while there will certainly be some overlap and recycling of evidence from top college teams, there is still going to be a lot of in-depth original research done.
It’s a Good Topic
This is a good area to debate. The ground on both sides is very good. Beyond the obvious climate impact on the AFF, there’s also many geopolitical impacts (competitiveness, REE dependence, grid resilience, etc.) that could be accessed given the shifts to our infrastructure such a policy would result in. On the NEG, energy-based DAs (oil, LNG/Ukraine) are reliable and have extremely recent and high-quality evidence. Politics is of course phenomenal against such an impactful shift that could threaten vested business interests. While states is likely not competitive given the topic wording (this is a good thing), counterplans that compete off of the specific pricing mechanism are plentiful and offer nuanced debates over how market mechanics would work. Of course, kritikal and philosophical ground are phenomenal given that the affirmative literally has to defend markets in the context of climate change, two elements that both have incredibly deep literature bases on both sides of the debate.
It’s Better than the Other Two
The other two topics aren’t great picks. Presidential powers is interesting, since the recent Supreme Court decision provides both uniqueness and recent literature to draw on. However, I’d worry that the vagueness of the topic would either lead to a proliferation of different mechanisms (States, ConCon, self-restraint, etc.) and subsets (war powers, end military action in x region, terror, etc.), or it’ll just be Congressional sole authority affirmatives every single round. Living wage suffers from a lack of depth: there is really just one affirmative, and the negative ground seems like it would be process counterplan and politics or just a watered down econ DA. Yes, there is the libertarianism NC but the link seems contrived.
Charles Karcher — Living Wage
Although I had a great time joking with colleagues during camp about my obsession with the executive power topic and spent hours listening to Palmer’s impassioned explanations of the nuances of carbon pricing and its litigatory histories, living wage has my vote.
The living wage topic will offer a fantastic division of ground and will allow in-depth exploration of an economic issue that is highly relevant.
There have been two topics in recent memory that are similar to the living wage topic that is currently on the ballot. The first was the January/February 2014 topic, ‘Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.’ The second was March/April 2018: ‘Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.’ The former topic was the topic that I absorbed hundreds of hours of YouTube debates from when I was teaching myself technical debate. I debated the latter topic during my senior year of high school. That being said, my endorsement of the living wage topic may be influenced by the significant role that these two past topics played in my development as a debater and a coach. At the same time, this familiarity increases my confidence that the living wage topic will instigate debates of excellent quality.
On the affirmative, there are links to a comfortably-sized array of frameworks. First, policy-style debaters can derive a number of scenarios from the area of economic growth and quality of life. (Not to mention the high-probability advantage areas: the purported direct results of a living wage – less poverty, less stress, more opportunities for personal and creative endeavors – would be any hedonistic utilitarian philosopher/public policy analyst’s dream.) For more philosophically-inclined debaters, Rawls’ theory of justice would be a fantastic way to go about affirming the resolution.
On the negative, there are a handful of positions that have incredible strength of link. First, the inflationary effects of a living wage policy demand to be accounted for via an inflation disadvantage. Plus, given the current economic situation in the United States and the Fed’s ongoing response to it, an interesting uniqueness debate is on the table. Decent counterplan ground also exists. The states counterplan could be paired nicely with a federalism internal net-benefit; advantage counterplans that employ alternative policis (such as a universal basic income) would work well with other topic disadvantages. Finally, a libertarianism framework that prioritizes contracts would staunchly negate the idea of mandating that workers sell their labor at or above a price floor. (On this note, I came across an interesting book titled Private Government: How Employers Rule our Lives (And Why We Don’t Talk About It) by Elizabeth Anderson which offers an interesting rights-based analysis of modern labor issues and hints at an unorthodox method for organized labor to seek better treatment by their employers.)
One weakness of this topic that I’ve pondered is the ease with which the negative can contradict themselves, particularly in the 1NC. If inflation rates go up as a result of the aff, does the perception link on the bizcon disad get triggered? If a debater runs a UBI counterplan alongside an inflation disad, what’s the link differential between the two advocacies? These issues are likely to be resolved quickly by the hivemind if the topic is selected, but I could see them as possible sticking points in debates.
I encourage you to vote for the living wage topic. I have concerns about the breadth of the carbon pricing topic that I won’t be getting into here. However, I would not be too upset if the executive powers topic won the ballot.
I wish everyone a wonderful summer filled with fresh cards, good reading, and (maybe) a break from debate.
Kaitlyn Ernst — Carbon Pricing
My vote, and I hope yours as well, is for the first resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to adopt carbon pricing. Carbon pricing refers to policies that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, in order to internalize the social costs of climate change into production and consumption decisions.
Many of our peer nations have already implemented various forms of carbon pricing, with systems in place across Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and beyond. While the September-October topic area is focused on domestic policy, carbon pricing forces debaters to look beyond the US’s borders and consider the international impacts of domestic policy.
The stock position on carbon pricing will, naturally, center around economic and environmental impacts — November/December 2023, anyone? However, what makes this topic interesting is the potential for these impacts to flow both AFF and NEG. On one hand, AFF can easily talk about holding exploitative and polluting industries accountable and potentially even using that revenue to invest in green infrastructure or give back to taxpayers. On the other, NEG can mention how carbon pricing is often regressive — raising the energy costs for low-income households and harming Rust Belt communities. Also of note is the fact that “carbon credit” systems have often been exploited and used as loopholes — see Taylor Swift and her private jets. While economic impacts are just one example, this is a topic with substantial policy literature and empirical evidence available on both sides.
I will admit that this topic is very PF-y. Though there could be some room for philosophical debate, such as the tragedy of the commons and communitarianism on AFF or libertarianism on NEG, most debates will center around the policy implications of carbon pricing. However, because there is so much literature and potential ground to explore, carbon pricing, I believe, has way more to offer debaters than the alternative topics.
The second resolution (Resolved: The United States ought to substantially increase restrictions on the Commander in Chief powers of the President of the United States) feels simultaneously too vague and too specific. Too vague in that debaters will be forced to define “substantially” and what restrictions ought to be implemented, which will likely lead to futile definition debates. Too specific in that the topic seems to be in direct response to Trump, his convictions, and Project 2025. For local circuits with parent judges, I fear this topic will be too politically loaded and many judges will enter with preformed biases that will leave debaters frustrated. While this topic could have interesting philosophical ground to cover, it is difficult to find a literature base without specifying certain restrictions and then examining those impacts. I also worry that traditional debaters who do not wish to run plans with specific advocacy will struggle with the topic.
The third resolution (Resolved: The United States ought to require that workers receive a living wage) feels trite to me. Recent topics like the right to housing, federal jobs guarantees, and right to strike have all touched on similar general ideas and economic theories. Essentially, it would be a debate of where on the Phillips curve we should situate ourselves. Rawls and Nozick seem like obvious contenders for this topic, and debaters will need to be creative in finding philosophical ground outside of their frameworks. Lone wolf or small school debaters might be put at a larger disadvantage as compared to kids from schools with years of backfiles on topics like these. For a topic that lends itself to this kind of debate, I would much prefer the November-December wealth tax topic.
With many opportunities to compete on the national circuit in September/October, I would love to see a topic that provides debaters the freedom and evidence needed to think outside of the box instead of reading the same three cards over and over again. Carbon pricing seems to be the topic with the highest ceiling for debaters and judges alike to encounter inventive arguments they've never seen before.
Amadea Datel — Carbon Pricing or Living Wage
For the September-October topic, I urge coaches and debaters to vote for either carbon pricing or living wage.
Out of the three resolutions, commander in chief powers stands out as the clear worst for two reasons. First, our current understanding of "Commander in Chief powers" is vague and open to interpretation, which would make it challenging for debaters to gain a grasp on what a "restriction" on those powers might constitute. Although several authors have written articles on how courts have interpreted those powers over time, few have provided suggestions of amendments or laws the government might pass to reduce the scope of those powers.
Moreover, the executive branch also wields significant nonmilitary powers and influence that grants it significant leverage over the military, such as the Vesting Clause, which enables the president to appoint, direct, and remove all military officers. This leaves me doubtful that restricting Commander in Chief powers would have a sizeable impact on the overall power and precedence that the executive branch can assume in military decisions.
Second, the topic might be less appealing to traditional LDers given that the resolution makes less sense without reading plans since there are several ways one could "substantially increase restrictions" on Commander in Chief powers, all with different advantages and disadvantages. Although I do believe a resolution well suited to plans would work fine in circuit debate, I do wonder whether it could lead to vague and unclear debates in traditional circuits since those students would not be reading plans regardless.
Both living wage and carbon pricing would make solid topics due to their clear wording and extensive literature base, and I don’t have a strong preference for either of them. On living wage, aff debaters can read advantages about reducing poverty and inequality, along with econ DAs that can draw on a diverse set of links such as increasing inflation, decreasing opportunities of new workers, and harming employee benefits. The neg also has access to various counterplans to promote social welfare from a UBI to a federal jobs guarantee. One point in favor of living wage is the small size of the topic (which others might view as more of a disadvantage), which will force debaters to go in depth on core topic arguments rather than break new fringe plans of the week. However, I do recognize that debaters might be less motivated to do research given the breadth of recent evidence on the wiki from the 2023-2024 high school policy topic.
Carbon pricing also provides an exciting opportunity to debate climate change policies in a meaningful manner since its impacts on the climate would be much more significant than the federal leasing topic from Nov/Dec 2023. The aff can read additional impacts to climate change, such as leadership, economic growth, or grid resilience. Meanwhile, the neg will have access to oil/energy and econ DAs, along with a robust set of counterplans. One potential disadvantage of the topic is the recent climate topics (both the one mentioned above and the one about China’s prioritization of the environment from Nov/Dec 2022), but I do believe that a U.S.-focused topic centered around a proposal as relevant as carbon pricing would not feel stale or repetitive to debaters.
In conclusion, either carbon pricing or living wage would be excellent topics—vote for either!
[1] War Powers Act - 1973, Definition & Purpose (history.com)
[2] Biden backs new war powers vote in Congress, White House says - POLITICO
[3] Commander in Chief powers | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
[4] Nuclear Launch Authority: Too Big a Decision for Just the President | Arms Control Association
[5] Opinion | The President’s Sole Authority Over Nuclear Weapons Is Dangerous - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
[6] Research: When a Higher Minimum Wage Leads to Lower Compensation (hbr.org)
[7] Carbon pricing reduces emissions (nature.com)
[8] Carbon Pricing | MIT Climate Portal
[9] Why putting a price on carbon has been fraught with difficulty (ft.com)