We’re Back! October/December Topic Analysis Covers Living Wage, Energy, Aging, and Democracy
We’re back by popular demand! In this topic analysis, we’ll be covering the October/December topics. The breakdown is as follows:
THW implement a living wage by Suchit Ineni
THW nationalize energy companies by Effie Shen
TH, as a state with an aging population, would opt for policies that increase immigration (e.g. more visas) rather than ones that encourage citizens to have more children (e.g. tax benefits) by SunHee Simon
This House regrets the narrative that democracy is the best form of governance by Sahith Morcharla
If there are spelling or grammar errors…no there aren’t :) happy reading!
THW implement a living wage
Context
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation surged worldwide. With additional global events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the housing shortage, prices were increasing at a rate far greater than wages. This wasn’t the first time that this situation arose, however. The United States hasn’t increased its minimum wage of $7.25 per hour since 2009, despite cumulative inflation since then being nearly 40%. Real minimum wage growth, which is the change in minimum wage adjusted for inflation, has been stagnant in many countries worldwide.
A living wage is where if someone works a single full-time job, at minimum they can afford all of their basic necessities, such as food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc. This is dependent on cost of living, so the amount changes by location and year. In Texas, a living wage is about $22/hr.
Framing
The motion says “This house would implement”, so we can infer that this is a policy motion. That means we need to have a model on prop and can have a countermodel on opp. For prop, while this is a policy motion, it’s important to think from a global perspective. Establishing a blanket wage such as $25 per hour doesn’t really make much sense around the world, so when explaining the model, I’d suggest using a reference number to an area people are familiar with e.g. $22 in Texas, and then mentioning that this should be adjusted based on cost of living around the world. A living wage should also keep up with inflation, so make sure that there is some mechanism to do so, such as re-evaluating the figure every year to keep up with current costs.
For opp, there’s a couple of counter models that can be used. The first would be to abolish the minimum wage altogether. Now this is a really hard-lined stance, so it would make all of prop’s arguments sound a lot stronger. However, it prevents your own arguments from contradicting your side. Another idea would be through increasing the social safety net. This would help marginalized stakeholders that prop would focus on. The issue here would be in feasibility, so make sure that you have some mechanization, such as increasing taxes or rerouting funding from other sectors.
Other parts of framework, such as a counterfactual or stance aren’t really necessary, and both sides should defer to each other to contextualize what their world means. That means prop doesn’t need to say that the opp world is the status quo in the Prop 1, rather they should wait until the opp explains their countermodel or doesn’t present one before making decisions on what to attack. In regards to specific attacks on framing, the Opp 1 should be listening for specific numbers during prop’s framing. If they set the living wage too low, then the Opp 1 should immediately call them out for not solving any of the problems they bring up. Conversely, if the living wage is too high, then the Opp 1 should say that all of their arguments are even more valid. For the prop, the main things you should be on the lookout for are feasibility and mutual exclusivity. If the opp’s model is just utopian, requires too much money, or any other unrealistic process, call that out. If the counter model in not mutually exclusive i.e. it’s possible to do both the living wage and the countermodel, mention that both can be done, so any offense they gain from the countermodel would be a wash
Prop
The first argument that I have on prop is Exploitation. This is primarily a principled argument. This argument has two parts. The first is explaining what exploitation is, and why paying someone below a living wage is exploitation. The second part is explaining why exploitation shouldn’t exist regardless of overall benefit, and how governments have an obligation to stop it.
Exploitation is defined as treating someone in an unfair manner in order to benefit from their work. Paying someone below a living wage directly constitutes exploitation. Why? Because if someone is providing you forty hours of work year-round, they are providing you the ability to exist as a company. Without labor, companies cannot exist, therefore there is a need to reciprocate that relationship. Employers have to make sure their employees have the ability to exist, which is to say be able to take care of their basic needs. In order to do so, workers need to have the money for that, which comes in the form of a living wage. Beyond that, workers give up their ability to do more work without risking their own health. There are studies that show that working ten hours a day results in a 60% increase in risk for heart disease, as well as more mental health struggles due to burnout. If a worker is giving up their reasonable ability to do any more work, therefore preventing themselves from making a living in other ways due to a business, then that business is by definition exploiting them because they are putting the worker in the unfair position of deciding between meeting their basic needs or sacrificing their health while benefiting from their labor.
Exploitation is wrong regardless of the benefit to either party. It’s pretty intuitive why benefits to the company are irrelevant here. The easiest example here is slavery. The fact that some rich landowner was able to plant more crops doesn’t make it right for them to enslave other people. People have freedom to the point that they don’t harm others, so at the point someone is harming someone else, they must be stopped. The trickier part of exploitation is explaining why proving some marginal benefit to someone while being unfair to them is still wrong. For starters, it justifies regression and creates stagnation. As a society, we have been and ought to strive for the increased well-being of people. This is why we build communities, innovate, and develop. By creating a precedent that as long as I provide some benefit to a person in relation to nothing that I am morally justified in, allows us to advocate for regression. For example, if a school were to say that they don’t have to meet educational standards because they are still helping students out, then this justifies us diminishing standards more and more and getting to the point that we essentially teach nothing. As this takes societal well-being backwards, we should reject the framing that allows us to get there in the first place. The government has the obligation to pass policies that push societal narratives and advance society, therefore the government holds an obligation to prevent the moral excuse for regression from happening, thus they must pass policies that result in a fair compensation, not just a benefit relative to unemployment.
You can add on to this argument by advocating for other parts of a government’s obligation, such as overall well being, which includes the working class or even just general stakeholder analysis to whom a government should prioritize. Using multiple different analogies would also enhance the argument.
The second argument is on a practical level and considers the well-being of people and macro economic benefits. People without living wages are in terrible circumstances. There are two scenarios that they fall into. First one is people who don’t have their basic necessities met. Between 40% and 60% of homeless people in the United States have a job. The reason why they don’t have a place to live is because their wages are too low. Without a living wage, people don’t have access to basic sanitation, they risk their lives depending on weather, they have mental health struggles, and not having an address makes it nearly impossible to work their way to a better job, because most jobs require having an address. The second scenario is where people without living wages do meet their basic necessities. The only way this happens however, is by working an inordinate amount of hours, usually between multiple jobs. Working this many jobs harms people’s physical health and mental health as mentioned in the principle argument. The difference now is that the issue isn’t the choice that people are put in, but rather that having a living wage stops these issues. Additionally, people are often forced to take payday loans or live paycheck to paycheck when they are below a living wage.
The economic layer of this argument primarily uses what’s called the multiplier effect. When there is a living wage, more people have more money. With that extra money, people spend it, both on needs and wants. By spending more, they give more money to businesses, who then can create more products, pay employees more, or invest in development, all of which then push money back into people because there are more jobs/wages, who then spend the money they have. The economy is inherently cyclic, therefore introducing economic stimulus allows for everyone to benefit.
Opp
The first argument on opp is going to be job loss. The first part of this argument is regarding characterization. Businesses are all profit motivated. To maximize their profit, they need to keep costs as low as possible. Even non-profit organizations want to keep their costs low so they could donate it to specific causes. You can also talk about actors like board members whose jobs are almost entirely dependent on the stock price of a company, which is linked to profit. Insofar as this is the case, companies will limit costs whenever possible. If there is a substantial increase in minimum wage, regardless of capacity (even if they have the ability), companies will layoff workers to save costs.
This is especially important considering the rise in automation/AI. The reliance that businesses have on human labor though still existent is dropping. Restaurants are using kiosks more and more instead of cashiers. Customer service jobs could be replaced by a voice bot. Self-driving cars can replace trucking jobs. One of the biggest reasons companies aren’t switching is the high cost of transition. However, if labor costs significantly increase, then it could become financially strategic in the short-term and long-term to shift away from human labor. When people aren’t employed, they don’t make any money at all, which you then can impact the same way as the practical argument for prop, just with greater overall magnitude as now instead of making a small wage, there are people making nothing at all. It’s also important to be comparative with this argument not just in the sense of no wage being worse than a small wage, but also which impact comes first. If someone is unemployed, then they cannot access any of the benefits of the living wage.
The second argument here is about small businesses. While it might seem intuitive that greedy multinational companies are paying starvation wages while local businesses are helping their employees out, typically the opposite is true. Labor is typically a greater percentage of expenses for small businesses in comparison to large companies. This is why companies like Amazon and Walmart have actually lobbied to increase the minimum wage. By doing so, they drive small companies out of business, thus reducing competition. Even in the status quo, large companies pay significantly above minimum wage (at least in countries where there’s some semblance of regulation) in order to compete better in the labor market. Additionally, the cost of automation is usually far more prohibitive for small businesses, so they cannot transition as easily. This paired with the fact that some small businesses, such as retailers and restaurants, have an average profit margin under 3% makes it infeasible to continue running.
The most important part of this argument is impacting. Why do we care about small businesses? For starters, small businesses are crucial to creating new jobs. While large companies are relatively stagnant, small businesses popping up and growing is what creates jobs in the first place. By making small businesses so much less profitable, they are less likely to start, thus none of these benefits materialize. Small businesses result in innovation, which helps overall standard of living. They act as another level of competition to prevent monopolies and price-fixing. Small business profits are typically reinvested as the owners live in the area.
Overall Takeaways
There are going to be some arguments that intuitively fall onto each side, such as standard of living increasing for prop and job loss for opp. Considering that, it’s going to be important to have strong defense on these arguments. But more importantly, it’s likely to be very difficult to win/defeat every argument in the round, so make sure that y’all are weighing your impacts strongly.
Further Reading
Suchit is a sophomore at the University of Texas at Dallas studying Mathematics and is an assistant coach at Coppell High School. In his free time, he enjoys watching sports and learning something new.
This House would nationalize energy companies.
Introduction
The debate over energy company nationalization is a classic one– the modern debate stretches back to at least the 80’s with the Thatcher administration, when the UK government began a process of privatizing as many industries as it could. It’s a debate that weighs the ethics of privatizing industries we refer to as “public utilities” versus the real benefits profit incentive can bring.
Governments often nationalize energy through literally seizing the means of production– that is, by taking control of the sources of energy (like coal, oil, and gas) and the facilities that turn those sources into electricity (like dams, solar fields, and power plants). One of the earliest examples of nationalization was in 1938, when Mexico chose to nationalize its oil supply. This nationalization occurred after years of mounting dissatisfaction with foreign control over Mexico’s resources. This move was not without consequences: many corporations refused to buy any more Mexican oil[1]. Despite this, many more countries followed suit over the course of the century. Today, a majority of the world’s oil reserves are in the hands of governments, such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Renewable resources can also be nationalized. As part of New Deal policies, many of the hydroelectric dams in the USA are under state control.
Finally, there are two other steps of the energy sector that can be nationalized: first, the corporations that sell energy to consumers (the ones you pay your energy bill to every month), and second, the management and construction of the infrastructure that brings energy from power plants into the home. This debate likely won’t distinguish between these different stages, but it’s something to keep in mind when considering the mechanisms through which nationalizing energy will affect stakeholders.
Framework
This motion is a woulds motion. This means that we need to examine the actual harms and benefits of a country taking a certain action, on both a practical and principle level. It’s also not an actor motion– that is, the actor isn’t specified, thus all the analysis should be based on a broader analysis of the incentives that most countries face, not just one uni que instance.
There are a few key points that need to be clarified over the course of the debate: One, what does it mean to nationalize an energy company? Two, what are the differing incentives between private energy companies and public management? And three, how do these processes and incentives change when looking at developing, versus developed, countries? A country with more money and more consumer power is more likely to avoid or reduce corporate threats to economically punish behavior. A country without those things might struggle to regulate industries altogether. Because of these differences, you might want to distinguish between the mechanisms and benefits of either side when constructing your case.
Lastly, energy is often referred to as a natural monopoly: an industry with high barriers to entry, resistance to newcomers in the market, and a tendency to consolidate into a few large actors. In many ways, the energy sector is a textbook example of this. While being reliably profitable in the long term, the infrastructure often has massive upfront costs that can often not pay off in a reasonable amount of time for a corporation trying to break into the industry.
Proposition
Access to electricity and gas is essential for modern human life. It keeps people from freezing in the winter, gives them the means to cook their food, and is often essential for their jobs. Much like people regard water, food, and housing to be essential rights, electricity in our modern world could be considered the same. Because of this, one of proposition’s foundational arguments is based on the social contract. The government, in exchange for some freedoms, grants certain protections– and among them, access to energy should be included.
In order to make this argument, you would need to prove two things: One, that the government is actually obligated to perform this, and two, that the government would actually improve the situation post-nationalization. For example, you could draw upon examples of energy prices in the UK to suggest how corporations chasing profit can lock out low-income consumers[2], or explain how profit incentives can reduce the amount of infrastructure in rural areas.
On the practical side, there are two major arguments to go for. First, is the practical argument for the economic and humanitarian benefits of nationalization. This can be mechanized through access or through increased government accountability in regards to workers and environmental rights. This would be a good place to put arguments about corruption and lobbying. The second argument is specifically about developing countries. Often, corporations that provide essential services to these countries can have an outsized amount of influence on developing governments. This dovetails into arguments like neocolonialism and energy colonialism.
Opposition
The biggest mechanism opposition has in its favor is without a doubt profit incentive. Unfortunately, and as you may have noticed, this mechanism is a double edged sword. Opposition will likely have to balance out the positives of profit incentives with mechanisms and explanations for why the negatives will be minimal or outweighed. This is most easily achieved with government regulation, which has the chance of having the best of both worlds in terms of accountability and government oversight, as well as still having the benefits of innovation and growth.
With that in mind, the most obvious argument opposition can go for is innovation. While proposition will inevitably have arguments about stagnation due to stable profit incentive and monopolization, there are plenty of ways to refute that. Corporations always seek to cut costs, at the very least, which can lead to innovation in and of itself. Additionally, you can look into examples of innovation: the rise of fracking in the US (although you might want to avoid that as an example in round to avoid running into an environmental debate) or the innovation of solar energy in Texas' less-regulated energy grid.
Another argument you should go for is a monetary one. The investment in infrastructure is often more expensive than a government to handle. Even just nationalizing existing infrastructure can be too expensive, especially for developing countries that lack funds to begin with. In other words: governments can offload the cost of essential infrastructure onto corporations, and use their own money and resources for other benefits to their people. In addition, instituting a few regulations (such as policies that require corporations to build a certain amount of infrastructure in rural areas whenever they build an amount in better-served areas) is much cheaper than the alternative.
Lastly, taking some infrastructure out of the government might be beneficial for stability and access. Authoritarian governments will often cut off utilities access to areas to suppress protest or to punish certain activity. An unstable government collapsing has often led to a halting in utilities in general. Governments often lack incentive to restructure inefficient systems due to a lack of pressure from constituents (public utilities are not often the primary voter for citizens, even in the best democracies). Corporations can act as a balancing force towards governments, just as governments can keep corporations in check.
Conclusion
This debate rages on in public life, through the conversations in the UK about the rising price of energy or the think pieces on how Venezuela’s oil experiment went wrong economically. In order to have a successful round, both sides should understand the benefits of the other side, and why their side is still better.
Further Reading
Mexican Expropriation of Foreign Oil, 1938[1]
What nationalising energy companies would cost – and how to do it[2]
Effie Shen is a first-year Computer Science student at UC Irvine and alumnus of Coppell Speech and Debate. If she's not in class or studying, you'll find her pursuing whatever new topic has caught her interest that day!
TH, as a state with an aging population, would opt for policies that increase immigration (e.g. more visas) rather than ones that encourage citizens to have more children (e.g. tax benefits)
Context
This is a really cool motion that gives you a great opportunity to really put on your global lenses. Before getting into the nitty gritty, let’s go ahead and define some terms.
A state is defined as “a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory” [1]. In other words, a country. Don’t assume this is about the United States in particular.
Next, we have to define an aging population. According to Aetna International, an aging population is “one where the proportion of older people is increasing. This is also known as ‘demographic aging’ and ‘population aging’. Typically 65 and over” [2]. Opt is defined as making “to make a choice, especially of one thing or possibility instead of others” [3]. Given the definition, you could ask yourself some important framing questions surrounding this term. Is it a preference? An option amongst others? The only choice?
Next, let’s define immigration. It means to “travel into a country for the purpose of permanent residence there”. For the most part, we are not talking about temporary stay. This makes sense because if it is a solution to the population’s age, we can assume immigrants would need to stay there for a long time, if not permanently, in order for it to be a real solution. We have some examples from the motion you might want to be familiar with as well. For example, visas are defined as “an endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country”. Tax benefits can take many forms but they are ultimately defined as “a reduction in the amount of tax that a person or organization would normally have to pay in a particular situation, for doing something that the government is trying to encourage” [4].
Based on the wording of the motion, it is safe to say this is a policy motion over a value one. What I mean by this is the motion is not simply asking you what you believe would be best but it’s asking what sets of policies would best address the central problem: an aging population. The words “would” and “policies” seem to make this very clear. Furthermore, both sides agree that an aging population is a serious issue, it’s simply about what to do in the face of this challenge.
Given that it’s a policy motion does this mean you need to have a very specific policy that you defend? Not quite. This is World Schools and not CX after all. Instead, focus on the types of policies that match your side of the motion. You can even use countries that already have pro-natalist and pro-immigration policies as a model/inspiration for your framework. Furthermore, the motion literally gives you examples of the type of policies you can defend (“visas” and “tax benefits”). Feel free to use this as a starting point for your research and what you think your world will look like and reasonably include.
Proposition
The first direction you can go in has to do with the economy. An aging population can have devastating effects on the economy. They are unable to work, they don’t spend much of their remaining life savings, and, in countries with some form of social security, they must be bankrolled by a younger generation. While it may be a gradual process, it will inevitably lead to a stale and ultimately failing economy AND we are already seeing the effects of this today. Many of the world’s major economies (Japan, United States, China) belong to countries that are dealing with this crisis [5]
There are a few areas you can look into when discussing the benefits of pro-immigration policies. First, immigrants can bring in a literal influx of people. Given that their presence is an attempt to resolve the aging population issue, it’s safe to assume many of these people are younger. This by definition creates a quick fix to the average age issue. Secondly, however, they are eager to get into the workforce to make a living for themselves and, in many cases, send some money back to their loved ones in their homeland. This desire to find an opportunity can take two paths. Either a) they will enter traditional industries with established businesses OR they might create their own small business to make ends meet. Additionally, one could argue that in the long term, they have more purchasing power. As they get their barrings, have children, and integrate into the community, their dollars go back into the communities in which they reside.
Another argument that could be worth exploring on the proposition is how this helps migrants in particular. Immigration, to an extent, is a part of the status quo. However, the process of immigration has been really hard for many immigrants from the application well into their settling in the country of their choice. So how could the proposition resolve this? First, it provides an opportunity for migrants to escape from a terrible situation especially when coming from dire circumstances. For example, being a refugee is a particularly vulnerable position. Whether caused by climate changes or sociopolitical struggles, many are desparate for any type of stability. Proper immigration and as EASIER immigration process is quite literally a life line for those on the verge of death and despair. These explicit guidelines can streamline the process to place those who need new homes and new communities and places that need them too!
This can also be another area of argumentation to explore. If immigrants are brought to the country with the purpose of helping said country, this can lead to more buy-in from those there. For example, an influx of immigration to solve an aging population means the elderly can retire without fear, enjoy their old age, and they can do so without the fear of their country collapsing looming behind them in the background. Furthermore, more diversity is shown to help create multicultural and openminded communities [6].
Opposition
Meanwhile, on the opposition there are some really cool arguments that can be made too! One group to focus on can be young to early middle aged adults in these countries. In many of the countries, the reason the average age is going up is because those between 20-40 do not want to have children. However, upon closer inspection, it’s not just that they don’t want kids because they aren’t interested. Rather, they don’t want kids because of a variety of external circumstances, namely finances and work culture.
So, how can pro-natalist policies address this? First, they would necessitate that the government and its constituents change the way they look at things like work. Excessively long hours, unfair pay, and/or a lack of maternal/paternal leave are huge obstacles to people wanting children. They are forced to choose between their career and starting a family. Given that they need to survive, many are of course choosing their careers. The opposition’s stance can have phenomenal effects on work/life balance for the younger populations in these countries. It can also create more equity. For example, if maternal/paternal leave is standard practice across genders, it’s hard to say that hiring a woman specifically is a risk for a company to take since her getting pregnant means paying her while she’s gone. This is just one example, but a lot of how society thinks about work must change in a world where they are encouraging people to have more children.
Another interesting topic area for the opposition has to do with the economy and spending. Ask your parents: kids are expensive. Not only is it costly to have kids (especially in countries without universal healthcare), but you spend tons of money on their necessities and their interests from birth until they turn 18. And, in many families, the obligation doesn’t stop when they become legal adults. When young people don’t have kids, entire industries could lose their viability. The government can “front the bill” of subsidizing early child care, covering excessive hospital bills, or giving a general stipend but the reward would be of immense value to the economy.
This is an especially helpful argument to think about if the proposition tries to say that babies don’t solve economic concerns until they are of working age. That may be true, but the proposition isn’t accounting for the wallets of their parents. This can also spawn and/or revitalize child care industries. If the government gives stipends for child care, there is guaranteed income for the person who wants to open a new local daycare. If the government says they will help cover childbirth costs for first-time parents, that provides an opportunity for a doula to expand her business. If there is a tax credit per child, maybe a parent will be more willing to spend some money on sending their middle school-aged kid to debate camp! There are entire networks built around starting and nurturing families. So much is lost when new generations get smaller and smaller.
Conclusion
While my thoughts are a place to start, there are so many ways you can add your own spin and think of arguments not included in this topic analysis. I hope I get to see some of you debating this topic. I’m sure you’ll do great! Feel free to check out the further reading below for more ideas on policies and consequences on this motion.
Further Reading
Immigration Can Alleviate the Ageing Problem
How Immigrants are Solving Labour Shortages and Boosting Business in Canada
7 graphics that explain: What is an ‘ageing population’? | Aetna International
Transition from anti-natalist to pro-natalist policies in Taiwan
Policy responses to low fertility: How effective are they? Technical Division
SunHee Simon is the co-director of Speech & Debate at Coppell High School and a coach on Team Texas. She also founded and loves WOWI very much :)
This House regrets the narrative that democracy is the best form of governance.
Context
Definitions
A democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. It can look different in different countries; also has different forms ie: representative, direct, multi-cameral, uni-cameral, etc. The fundamental idea is that there is some version of representation by the people for collective decision-making. What this topic is asking you to consider is how has the past inserted narrative and assumption of democracy being the BEST form of governance played out on the global stage, was that outcome good or bad, and were the alternative outcomes likely and preferable to the world we have now.
Framework
Given that this is a regrets motion–specifically addressing a narrative we need to do a few things in framing:
Identify what the historical narrative means and what it looks like
What impacts has it had
Do we like/dislike those
Crucial: Prop here should provide an ALTERNATIVE narrative/outcome about what would’ve happened had we not pursued this democratic preeminence (likely a different alternative narrative post WWII when Democracy took the forefront of global perception)
Proposition Framework
Your explanation and utilization of the narrative should be four-pronged:
Countries under this narrative always pursued democracy at the downfall of other options
Democratic countries have been upheld and supported regardless of the actions of the regime
Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Yemen, Iraq have all had American/Western intervention to implement democracies–with varying degrees of success
By promoting this narrative, western imperialism is strengthened and instead of prioritizing good decision making we prioritize a type of decision making ⇒ a flawed metric upon which to make decisions
Flow into a debate about how practical always outweighs because principally why do i care about *how* a decision is made if the decision is horrendous?
Alternatively, if we pursued a focus on peace-making and humanitarian development–instead of focusing on implementing democracies everywhere–we could’ve had numerous self-sustaining countries that weren’t destabilized by western arrogance etc
Opposition Framework
Your explanation of the narrative should be focused on why democracy is in some ways idiot-proof → it checks against evil by spreading responsibility
Explain how if democracy wasn’t prioritized europe/america wouldn’t have been galvanized into the strongest period(s) of economic growth the world has seen
Utilize Berlin & the Korean Penninsula as side-by-side examples of why democracy is always the better solution
Democracy is a better solution towards self-governence and sovereignty
Paint the narrative as a useful tool towards creating a more stable, humanitarian, and equal world order
A smart/creative extension could potentially be explaining how the prioritiziation of democracy is what set/established the precedent and enabled the formation of international bodies (the UN) which allowed for the first ideas of international checkback, humanitarian accountability, and global responsibility to take root
Note that even if the actions are flawed, the intentions are far better and the incentives in a democracy are always more outward and people focused than in an authoritarian regime
Historical/Contemporary Context
Historically governments/ruling powers have been under a few different modus operendis
Royal-succession based, elected, and authoritarian
Developing countries tend to be more authoritarian as the lack of resources tends to incentivize populist leaders who take control
I.e.: Cuba with Castro, Omar al-Bashir with Sudan, and Nakib Bukele with El Salvador
Note Here: El Salvador is a presidential democracy but functions as a dictator (which can get messy in rounds so be careful)
A narrative of democracy preeminence likely means that
countries are more likely to ally with & partner with other democratic countries
Developing countries are incentivized to form democratic governments
There is a stigma/lack of cooperation with non-democratic countries
Proposition
Principle-wise, I think the easy fruit here is sovereignty. This debate really plays easily into ideas of western imperialism, western arrogance, and other forms of false regimes. For example the international suppression of Nakib Bukele (for debate’s sake) shows how disconnected the west can be from development. Although El Salvadoran’s are safer, happier, and more prosperous than they have been in decades–foreign leaders are worried because Bukele is functioning as a dictator. This disconnect demonstrates the divide between result and ideas. While democracy can be good in theory, when decisive action is needed, sometimes other alternatives ought to be pursued–the narrative doesn’t and didn’t allow for that when it was needed and necessary.
Countries can only BE sovereign when they can make their own decisions–about everything–the narrative of democracy being the best form of governance inhernetly harms that because you’re cutting off other possible alternatives, reestablishing western-hedge, etc.
Another argument on the propagation of western ideals, the stigmatization of cultural norms/practices of the east, the homogenization of culture etc → all simple cultural/global practical arguments you can make.
The strongest argument is likely just the idea of independence and prosperity stemming from less intervention and more multi-lateral respect as different countries are better equipped to handle their own independent situations: Singapore is a great example of a thriving non-democratic country. The forced transition to democracy eschews rational decision making + the west will uphold a BAD democratic leader over a GOOD non-democratic leader ⇒ stems from narrative ⇒ people get hurt instead of thriving from good policy-making.
Opposition
I think first you establish that the narrative was necessary and the only way to unify the western world–a critical step given the advent and advancement of the soviet union (timeframe this to McCarthy & Post-WWII). Explain how any other alternative pursuit would’ve weakened the western bloc, abandoned the balkan and scandinavian states, and empowered a HORRIBLE actor.
Explain how in instances of two good leaders–both democracies and auth. Regimes will function; however, when there are two bad leaders–democracies can CHECK that action whereas authoritarian regimes will crumble. Dive into examples of western benefits, europewan revitalization under the marshall plan, the destigmatization and development of tolerance around the world, a more interconnected and globalized appreciation of culture, travel, & trade.
Explain how multi-lateralism only functions in a hegemonic democratic world because it asserts a core basis of human value–equal representation–and provides a framework within which we can co-exist. International bodies are framed off of democratic structures and without widespread adoption of those ideas those forums wouldn’t and couldn’t exist.
Last Thoughts
This debate centers around (really) one delta: Does your world result in a better one than the other; however, you can measure ‘better’ in different ways. For prop I think it is most strategic to say that ‘better’ means more independence, varied/multiple routes to development, and a more stable global world. Opp should likely pursue similar ideals but explain how any other pursuit likely inflames other actors, doesn’t unify the western bloc, and leads to a more individualized world that doesn’t value any notions of global interconenction.
Further Reading
Pro Democracy
How democracies implementation at crucial nascent stages of existence can be critical to the long-term growth of a nation
A focus on the humanitarian aspects of democracy (incentive analysis)
Self-explanatory tbh
How developed and developing countries can align their economies through democratic principles
Honestly a massive research paper
Anti-Democracy
Democracy in crisis, or: just how development-friendly is democracy
Just how necessary is democracy to development?
Highly Recommend: Why democracy does not guarantee development
A really cool observation on how just following the world order doesn’t guarantee success
Could play around with puppet-state development // lack of sovereignty
Sahith is a second year Accounting & International Relations student at the University of Texas at Austin. When he isn't studying you can probably find him attempting to recreate a viral recipe or binge-watching 2000s sitcoms!
