September/November TAs: Foreign Aid, Two Party, Environment, and Acquisitions
We’re back with our second batch of TAs. This batch includes:
This House prefers conditional foreign aid to unconditional aid by Tanisha Chaudhuri
This House regrets the dominance of the two-party system in American politics by Anu De
This House believes that the environmental rights of future generations supersede the economic interests of current generations by Dawson Marold
This House believes that the acquisition of startups by large corporations does more harm than good by Sophia Ahmed
Happy reading!
This House prefers conditional foreign aid to unconditional aid
Context:
Foreign aid, generally, refers to financial or technical assistance given by one country to another. Foreign aid can take many forms, including developmental aid, humanitarian aid, and military aid. An aid package does not have to include all types of aid, for instance, humanitarian aid can be provided without the addition of military aid. Conditional aid is provided on the condition that the receiving country meets specified requirements. These are often tied to policy changes (e.g., reforms in governance, human rights, or economic policies). These requirements can be set unilaterally or multilaterally (e.g. the US as an individual state vs the UN). Comparatively, unconditional aid is given without strings attached, meaning the recipient country is not required to fulfill any conditions to receive the support.
My big tip on understanding international perspectives on conditional vs unconditional aid is looking at international discourse/perspectives on China’s Belt and Road Initiative. I’ll put some articles at the end for you to skim through. In short, China provides significant foreign aid and investment, often without imposing the political and economic conditions typical of Western aid. This is seen as a counterbalance to the dominance of Western nations and institutions like the World Bank and IMF, which often impose conditions that reflect Western priorities.
Critics of conditional aid argue that it can infringe on the sovereignty of recipient countries and often fails due to a lack of local ownership. Proponents of conditional aid, comparatively argue that it incentivizes reforms, governance, and accountability. Moreover, there’s an increasing emphasis on aligning aid programs with sustainable development goals, which often necessitates conditional aid to ensure outcomes like poverty reduction, gender equality, and environmental sustainability.
Framing:
You’ll hear this from every WSD debate coach about ‘prefers’ motions. Just because you have access to conditional and unconditional aid in both worlds does not mean that you access all the
benefits of both, there is always an opportunity cost of preferring one over the other. You have to prove, for instance, why conditional aid is so good to the point at which it’s more preferable than unconditional aid. It must come at the expense of opposition’s framing, or vice versa. If you get too far into the “we get both benefits” argument, you’re straying from the point of the motion while simultaneously undermining the efficacy of your own arguments.
Framing can be pretty straightforward in this debate: Proposition supports conditional foreign aid.
Opposition supports unconditional foreign aid. There is a second option that the opposition can take in this round. Opp can run a framework where they prefer both conditional and unconditional foreign aid.
I advocate for the first option, which is to just prefer unconditional foreign aid because it allows you to make more direct offensive arguments. BTW, offensive arguments are so important in round because it forces you to develop concrete reasons about the direct advantages of unconditional aid vs why conditional aid damages the status quo. You’re setting up the judge’s ballot with specific reasons why they should vote for you.
In my view, selecting the second option would likely complicate opp’s job in the round. As I mentioned before, if you take the stance of preferring both, you undermine the efficacy of your own arguments. Opp has less access to their impacts about why unconditional aid is ALSO beneficial because you have less funding/opportunities to utilize it than if you were to actually prefer it. Additionally, you’re conceding lots of prop argumentation about the ‘endless’ benefits of conditional foreign aid. If you do choose to bring up the detriments of conditional aid, you’re only undermining your own stance which supports it. You’ll never access the same extent of benefits of conditional aid because Prop has more investment in it. Opp ground is thus restricted, positioning you to lose on either side of the bind. You’re making it difficult for the judge to have a clear ballot in your favor.
Next step, characterization. Characterization is essentially when you show the judge exactly what aid on your side looks like, past just defining the terms. You can explicitly define conditional or unconditional aid, but give the judge examples of when/how it was used.
For conditional aid, you can provide characterization through examples like Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) or EU Accession. In terms of SAPs, In the 1980s and 1990s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank provided loans to developing countries experiencing debt crises, particularly in Latin America and Africa. These loans were conditional on implementing specific reforms, such as austerity measures, trade liberalization, and privatization of state-owned enterprises. In terms of EU Accession, in the 2000s, countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, such as Poland and Romania, received conditional aid from the European Union (EU) as part of the process for joining the EU. In exchange for financial assistance, these countries had to adopt democratic reforms, strengthen anti-corruption measures, and implement human rights protections.
For unconditional aid, you can provide characterization through examples like China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which I mentioned earlier, or Development Aid from Scandinavian Countries. In terms of Scandinavian aid, Norway, Sweden, and other Scandinavian nations are known for providing relatively unconditional development aid to low-income countries. Much of their aid is focused on poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare, without insisting on major political or economic reforms from recipient governments. These countries, like Tanzania and Uganda, often prioritize local ownership of projects, allowing recipient nations to decide on the specifics of aid implementation.
Prop:
Principle: Govt Obligation (and why conditional aid is more in line with this obligation).
This principle is important because both sides will discuss why governments have the obligation to assist other countries that are in need of aid. Prop specifically has to be able to argue why conditional aid is more aligned with the government’s obligations and incentives in providing aid.
Countries providing aid are often doing so in the interest of fostering global stability, peace, and prosperity. Conditional aid allows donor governments to leverage their support to promote good governance, democracy, human rights, and sustainable development in recipient countries. This is part of a broader ethical responsibility that goes beyond mere financial assistance, donor governments have a duty to support positive change in the world and to avoid enabling systems that perpetuate harm, corruption, or inequality.
Also, governments have a fundamental obligation to act as stewards of public resources, ensuring that taxpayers' money is spent wisely and effectively. When countries provide foreign aid, they are not only fulfilling humanitarian or development goals but also using public funds entrusted to them by their citizens. Conditional aid ensures that these resources are used responsibly by establishing clear criteria for how the aid is spent, ensuring it achieves its intended purpose. Remember, this is a practical outcome of the principled argument. In this first argument, stick to warranting the principle and how it aligns with conditional aid more.
Effective use of aid:
The next argument you can make is the effective use of aid. Conditional aid ensures that financial resources are used effectively and efficiently. By setting specific requirements, such as anti-corruption measures or targeted spending on healthcare or education, donors can ensure that the funds are directed toward critical areas that need development. This prevents the misuse of funds for unrelated or less urgent purposes and increases the likelihood that aid will have a lasting impact. For example, in the 1990s, the World Bank and IMF tied aid to governance reforms in Ghana. Conditions like improved financial management helped ensure that the country spent aid more wisely, contributing to long-term growth.
This is likely an argument that the other team would be expecting, so make sure that you contextualize well, warrant your arguments, and add multiple layers of impact. Ask questions like, “Why do we care about aid being used effectively?”, “Why is the effective use of aid beneficial to the beneficiary?”, and “Why would it be preferable to countries providing aid?”
Sustainable development:
Conditional aid can encourage structural reforms that create sustainable, long-term growth. By requiring countries to reform inefficient economic policies, open up markets, or improve their legal and regulatory frameworks, conditional aid helps countries develop systems that support sustainable economic development. Over time, this reduces their reliance on external aid. For instance, in the 2000s, Rwanda received conditional aid tied to improving agricultural productivity and governance. The reforms led to significant improvements in food security and economic growth, reducing the country’s dependency on future aid.
TIP: Remember, there are lots of situations where unconditional aid isn’t as unconditional as it seems. For example, with the Belt and Road initiative, unconditional aid often comes with significant financial loans rather than outright grants, creating a situation where recipient countries can quickly accumulate unsustainable levels of debt. If a country struggles to repay these loans, it can find itself in a "debt trap", where it must cede control of key assets or strategic infrastructure to the donor country (in this case, China). This undermines national sovereignty and can lead to foreign control over critical resources. Use examples like these to further attack their autonomy arguments.
Opp:
Principle: Autonomy
On opp, you should focus on the autonomy of the developing world and communities that require cultural knowledge and understanding of their economies to make decisions on how aid is allocated. This sets up a nice contrast to a lot of prop arguments by being more realistic in understanding what aid beneficiaries need vs how other countries believe they can solve a problem.
A core principle of international relations is the right to self-determination, which asserts that every nation has the autonomy to make decisions regarding its own political, economic, and social systems without external interference. Unconditional aid respects this principle by allowing recipient nations to decide how best to use the aid based on their own priorities and circumstances.
Attaching conditions to aid often imposes external values or policies on a recipient nation, undermining its sovereignty. When aid comes without strings, it ensures that recipient countries maintain full control over their development strategies and policy choices, preserving their independence in decision-making.
Response to Urgent Needs:
In the middle of war, natural disasters, humanitarian crises, etc, it’s much more difficult to come up with a list of conditions a country must abide by in order to receive aid. Unconditional aid is particularly useful in situations where immediate assistance is required, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters, humanitarian crises, or pandemics. By removing bureaucratic hurdles and complex conditions, unconditional aid allows donor countries and organizations to provide quick, flexible support that can be deployed immediately to address the most pressing needs. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries provided unconditional financial assistance and medical supplies to hard-hit nations to help them manage the crisis quickly, without waiting for them to meet certain conditions.
This is a unique argument because it allows opp to further any efficacy arguments you want to make. If we’re quicker and more efficient in solving a specific problem a country has, we’re bound to see more solvency. But remember, you can’t just say that. Spell out to your judge why we see more solvency when uniquely responding to urgent needs.
Neocolonialism:
Unconditional aid respects the inherent dignity of recipient countries, treating them as equal partners rather than as subordinates who must comply with external demands. It allows countries to pursue development according to their own cultural, political, and social contexts, empowering them to chart their own path without coercive interference.
Conditional aid can be seen as a modern form of neocolonialism, where wealthier nations impose their economic and political priorities on poorer countries in exchange for assistance. This dynamic can create unequal power relationships and diminish the dignity of the recipient nation by forcing it to comply with conditions that may not align with its unique needs, culture, or development goals.
Governments in recipient countries often have a better understanding of their local context, priorities, and needs than external donors. Conditional aid can impose rigid frameworks or policies that may not be suitable for the specific circumstances of the recipient country, potentially leading to ineffective or harmful outcomes. For instance, economic liberalization or austerity measures tied to aid might undermine social welfare programs or exacerbate inequality.
TIP: Remember, there are a lot of situations where conditional aid didn’t work. For example, because of SAPs in the 80s and 90s, countries like Ghana and Mexico had to devalue their currencies, cut public spending, and open their markets to international competition. While these reforms often stabilized economies, they also led to social unrest and worsened poverty in some cases. Use this as a further attack on their efficacy arguments.
Final Thoughts:
This is a really fun debate and you guys have already debated it before. You’ll be great, don’t worry! Hopefully this TA gave you some new perspectives to think about to strengthen your cases. Good luck!
Further reading:
Tanisha is a third year Economics and Plan II Honors student at the University of Texas at Austin. In her free time, she's either baking cookies or watching Turkish TV shows.
This House regrets the dominance of the two-party system in American politics.
Context
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” — John Adams; second President of the United States
For as long as the United States government has been established, the debates surrounding the two-party system have been conducted. Despite these debates, for much of U.S, history, we’ve had two formal parties (i.e. Federalists vs Anti-Federalists or Democrats vs Whigs). But, why does this inclination to two dominant parties happen in the first place?
We must look at the structure of the elections. American politics is set up so the majority wins (and takes all with their win). However, this often means that major parties which accommodate a broad range of political ideologies are more likely to gain the majority as opposed to multiple smaller parties with narrow interests [1].
So, why are we debating this topic right now? We have continued to see rising trends in the numbers of not only independent candidates like RFK Jr. (which may have prompted this motion) but also voters who identify as independent [2 & 3]. While we won’t go into specifics about third party beliefs in the TA, if you’d like to learn more about some of the most popular third parties, GoodParty talks about a couple of them [4].
All in all, this debate is a microcosm into the greater discussions surrounding political reform. We can assume political debates have become more frequent because this year is election year. As such, we should not be surprised to see impromptu motions discussing Supreme Court Justice restrictions, voter ID laws, etc.
Framework
Framework is the lense through which we view the debate. There are two overarching clarifications we’ll make here before getting into the specifics. First, both sides should acknowledge this is a “regrets” motion. Second, this motion centers on American politics. So, it’s important to extend the impacts of what we argue for to American politics specifically. With that being said, we can—and should— reference countries with different political systems and what has or hasn’t worked for them to justify our arguments. Sahith does a great job explaining the implications of a regrets motion in his topic analysis [5], so for this motion we should:
Define: what dominance means and what the two-party system is
Contextualize: 1) when this dominance started, 2) what it looks like in the current day, 3) what impacts this has had (you can touch on this a little within framing if you feel the need to)
Identify: this is a regrets motion which means we are looking retrospectively to imagine U.S. politics if a two-party system never existed at all
Illustrate: have a clear stance because you want your judge to know what you’re advocating for from the beginning
On Prop: this counterfactual should be an ALTERNATIVE narrative/outcome about what would’ve happened if a two-party system never became dominant in the first place i.e. a coalition government like we see in the U.K. and many other parts of Europe [5]
On Opp: in order to make this debate have arguable ground, opp would logically argue for the status quo, or the world we live in right now where a two-party system is more dominant
Prop
When we’re running any argument, we want to think about whether it is principle or practical. Principle substantives generally have some moral implications or values behind them. I would typically use principled warranting with practical implications for a majority of my arguments, so I’ll do that here, but how you structure these general thoughts is of course up to you! We can have a principle argument centered on representation/autonomy. I would personally couple this with argumentation on minority voices. Under this argument, we want to explain the purpose of democracy in expanding our autonomy. Then, we’d warrant out how two-party politics decreases autonomy on practical grounds, both for candidates and citizens. Third-party candidates are more likely to be minority voices structurally held back from visibility because of ballot access laws, a lack of funding that already established parties have, and the winner-take-all nature of elections which is dependent on majority win (which third-party candidates are not typically able to get leading to even less running and a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Voters are also less likely to find candidates that represent their beliefs and either choose to align with one of two major parties due to the perception they are the only options, excluding voices of those most affected by political decisions, or they feel apathetic and drop out because they’re faced with two (often unpopular) choices. Based on your strategy for the debate, it is up to you to choose either or both of these arguments to warrant. I’d personally weigh the latter more because as more people drop out, it means public policy is shaped by representatives chosen by around 60% of us [6]. This offers those most disadvantaged even less pathways to change, barring institutional change to those who need it.
Practically, we can also explore how a two-party system is politically ineffective. We should first establish that the government creates change by passing policies, so if it’s unable to, it can stagnate progress. Next, we should create layered arguments for why a two-party system is unable to pass policies. First, we can talk about how a majority of policies aren’t even created because of the vastly different ideologies from both parties. Second, even if policies are created, it takes massive amounts of time to have them implemented. The necessity of negotiations and the delaying of passing policies (through means like a filibuster) hinders the policy-making process. Finally, even if a policy is passed, a two-party system means inconsistent policies are created. If Democrats pass legislation, Republicans can reverse those policies when they are in power and the other way around. We can use this threefold warranting to show how current policy making stagnates urgent policies and in the long-term leads to less progress.
Another interesting argument we could explore is corruption. Since a two-party system inherently makes campaigning far bigger and the costs that come with running for public office, candidates must rely on donations from wealthy individuals and corporations to fund campaigns. It looks like the military or corporations lobbying in exchange for favorable legislation. This can result in politicians being more responsible to those who fund them compared to the general public. In impacts, we can extend the impacts of this to climate change because corporations might lobby for more corporate-friendly policies at the risk of sacrificing environmental protection. We can also examine the cyclical weighing of this where wealthy donors continue supporting laws that enable them to continue campaigning, which keeps the incumbent candidate in power and perpetuates cycles lobbying.
One of the most important things to keep in mind for all these arguments is that this is a regrets motion. I often see people create substantives for regrets motions without acknowledging how their counterfactual solves. So, please make sure to explain how in a world where the dominance of a two-party system never existed, you’re able to solve the problems you mentioned!
Opp
On opp, we’ll look at similar concepts for arguments with different warranting, so we can have more engagement within this outline. First, for our more principle argument on accessibility. This argument attempts to turn the corruption argument proposition will try to make and engage with their first substantive on representation. There are two main stakeholders here: minority candidates and voters. Minority candidates would in a prop world have to surpass extremely high burdens to even become politicians (i.e. establishing a political party, manage funding by themselves, etc), but they now have a party that can help them establish support and secure funding. Opposition can reference how Kamala Harris has raised $1 billion in funding mostly from grassroots donors. The connections to other politicians within a pre-established political party is one of the best ways minority candidates can raise awareness about what causes they want to and gain screen time because they have the credibility of a party backing them.
The second stakeholder we can use for representation is voters. You can decide to make voters its own substantive based on how much time you find yourself spending on it! Within this argument, however, we can talk about accessibility of information. It is much easier for voters to understand the general beliefs and policies of two parties compared to multiple. For the general citizen who doesn’t have time to sift through all the parties, politics becomes more complicated than it would be in a two-party system. Media may be inclined to cover the most radical parties which leads to greater polarization than we would have when parties have a wide spectrum of views, making media more likely to be moderate. Opposition can create a double bind with this argument: either voters become so radicalized because the parties being promoted are more extremist or more apathetic because they do not have the time to do all the research necessary to understand each and every party.
Opposition can also argue about political efficiency with the two-party system. If proposition argues for a coalition-building system of government, we can argue about two reasons why political decision making is less effective. First, government formation is difficult because coalition negotiations are harder. This can have a disproportionate effect on smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats in the U.K. which was scapegoated for supporting unpopular policies while bigger parties are able to continue prospering, ultimately creating even less change for proposition with no accountability. We can turn representation by talking about overrepresentation from smaller parties. Smaller parties in a coalition system can wield too much power and threaten to pull support to win concessions. This happened in the U.K. when the Labour Party had to negotiate with smaller parties like the Scottish National Party which could potentially stall policy making [7]. While making this argument depends on the counterfactual prop pushes, figuring out the cons of any world prop pushes and having a sub based on political efficacy would be helpful.
Once again, remember to be comparative! You probably noticed how substantives on prop and opp were able to engage with each other, and they often had opposing points. Use that to your advantage! When you notice similar arguments with different warranting try to figure out why and use weighing to explain why your side’s arguments make more logical sense. While I feel being comparative is intuitively easier on opposition, you want to be mindful about explaining why your solutions are unique to your world and why the other side could never be as great as yours.
Conclusion (Overall Takeaways)
This debate is interesting in that it has multiple stakeholders (i.e. voters, candidates, and policymaking as a whole), and both sides seem fairly balanced. With that being said, when you’re writing your case, try to get a grasp on what stakeholders are more important to you and if your side is better at fulfilling a better quality of life for that said stakeholder. Remember it’s ok to not win all clashes in a debate if you’re able to prove why the clashes you are winning win you the round (so weighing is the WAY). Puns aside, good luck!
Further Reading
Why Are Two Political Parties Dominant in the U.S.? | Britannica
In a Tight Presidential Race, Third-Party Candidates Present a Wild Card - The New York Times
5 Examples of Third Parties in the United States | GoodParty.org
We’re Back! October/December Topic Analysis Covers Living Wage, Energy, Aging, and Democracy
Europe shows coalitions can work
Voter turnout in US elections, 2018-2022 | Pew Research Center
Anu is a freshman at the University of Texas at Austin studying Business and Plan II. They love taking walks, reading literature from different parts of the world, and trying to learn Japanese - so if you have any tips their ears are open.
This House believes that the environmental rights of future generations supersede the economic interests of current generations.
Hi everyone, I hope the season is going well for you so far! I know these motions have already been in cycle but I hope this batch of TA’s will be helpful for teams regardless of your case progress!
Context
Nearly 1 in 11 people live in extreme poverty, consumer prices have raised 21.4% in the past 4 years, 2023 was the hottest year on record, and it's estimated that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year.
While quarantine still might feel like an era, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has had major implications on our world through economic inflation, unemployment, and has massively devastated the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal initiative to reach its 2030 target goals. However, we still are at a weird period of adjustment/stabilizing and adapting to virtualization, new supply chains, and new problems. It is clear that there are a lot of problems in our world and this motion attempts to find the delta within our political system's decision making priorities.
Framing
I think this motion can be really intimidating and requires a lot of motion analysis, so lets break it down!
I think whenever motions have these longer grouped up words it is better to define them holistically rather than word by word to help paint a better picture of your world from the start. So specifically with this motion I think it is important to define “environmental rights of future generations” and economic interests of current generations” and from these terms we can analyze what does a world that believes one of these rights supersede each other look like to start building mechanisms for our substantive arguments.
Environmental rights of future generations: People who have no attachment to current political systems having access to clean and healthy natural resources such as air, land, water, etc.
Economic interests of current generations: efforts or mechanisms aimed at improving economic conditions of those who are impacted by the current economy
Clarification: I think that distincting future/current generations can get messy and in some rounds I’ve seen it come up as a definitional debate but I would default to one's attachment to political systems on prop to help contextualize that they are people who cannot change the squo but will eventually be impacted by it
On supercede I think this is a parallel to a prefers motion such that both sides probably get access to the other side's mechanisms/impacts but not to the same extent. Feel free to reference my transportation infrastructure investment TA for more clarification on this.
For world building I think a lot of people can get caught up in motion wording to impact how they mechanize and defend their world. While yes, motion wording is very hypothetical and moral based, a big part of this debate is practical and is burdened by proving economic/environmental solvency. Thus, it is important to have some type of mechanization as to how a change in evaluation of rights impacts policy and the state of our world.
For prop I’d suggest adding some type of mechanisms to help grant you solvency on solving the climate crisis. I think referencing specific types of policies and regulations such as carbon cap and trade, green energy subsidies/quotas, public transportation investment, you name it. I think the way to justify access to these policies is to warrant that a world that believes environmental rights supersede current economic rights changes people's perception and priorities in voting, government's goals, and then policy gives you access to these things. I think this warranting is also good to preempt any rebuttal regarding buy in. Some things to keep in mind is evaluating how your mechanisms impact the economy and how you cater to those who currently have low socioeconomic status and how these things can intersect.
For opp I don’t think you necessarily have to be the status quo and if you want you could argue that various reasons that the status quo doesn’t prioritize current economic interests or that it doesn’t prioritize economic interests in the right way and that you prefer a world that prioritizes increasing social mobility for those of lower socioeconomic statuses rather than general writ large economic development. I think this is strategic because it gives you a better answer to any examples the prop brings up. On this I think you can then advocate for more efforts that do aim to increase economic mobility such as increased welfare, affordable housing, health insurance, access to goods, etc. And these things help strengthen your ability to generate offense on the most marginalized of the status quo which can be pretty persuasive.
Proposition
On proposition, I think your ground seems relatively intuitive and your biggest challenge is going to be justifying the future prioritization of people that don’t exist over current struggles of today.
On the principle, I think there are various ways to justify this prioritization. Firstly, is the government's obligation argument. With this you need to prove that these people will inevitably exist and that if we don’t prioritize environmental rights they won’t be able to live a prosperous life (this also burdens you with proving the severity of the climate crisis and the importance of environmental rights). You would use this to justify that the purpose of the government is aligned with protecting those rights of the people such that if we don’t take huge steps now there will be huge irreversible consequences that prevent people from ever accessing their rights to a healthy/safe environment. Another way to justify this would be the lottery of birth principle. This thought experiment states that your conditions of birth are uncontrollable and thus arbitrary (so when you are born you don’t get to choose where, under what family, under what ethnicity, gender, etc.) and thus because you don’t know you should build a world that strives for equality that way if you don’t “win” you still have an ability to succeed and experience a happy life. Under this motion you would take these arbitrary factors of birth and also add the time and environment that you are born in. The conclusion then is that if you were someone who was born in the future how would you want the current society to set you up to be able to live. While the lottery of birth may be something that is less common in circuit I think it's the stronger principle given that it justifies the direct prioritization of future generations and is more independent of a principle given that it is strictly about the way we prioritize groups of people and not on solvency
On the practical side I think the more intuitive clashes are surrounding the environment and the economy. The previous warrants and mechanisms discussed from characterization can help you better mechanize out your world. In particular I think talking about differences in policy shifts and changing habits that promote better environments is very intuitive but an argument you need to fully develop. Furthermore, I think it is very important on the prop to also talk about how people within the status quo are suffering from climate change in vulnerable areas, especially the developing world. I also think it’s important to discuss how the worsening of environmental conditions also worsen economic conditions. Such that natural resources become more expensive because there is less good quality produce or agriculture, more people on the planet, etc. This will help teams in regards to responding to economic needs in addition to improving the environment actively benefits or prevents harm of current generations
Opposition
On opposition I think the general strategy is to prioritize the here and now given that we are still facing huge economic problems that are guaranteed to impact large populations of current generations.
On principle there is also a government obligation argument to be made. The easiest warrant for this is the social contract such that constituents implicitly give up some rights in exchange for the government's protection and security. You then need to center why economic rights are important and why they are the bulk of factors that people vote for or are the most central and important to voters. You then need to identify how upholding economic interests upholds the social contract, as well as how prioritizing future environmental rights violates the social contract. I think the main warrant for this is the fact that voters and people legitimize the government through choice and prioritizing agendas that differ from choice is unjust will help in addition to the fact that these people quite literally do not exist and would be prioritized at current suffering peoples expense.
On practical I think there are a few ways for opp to go. First is on implementation, I think by poking holes in the props ability to solve the climate crisis and outlining how a potential solution is at the expense of solving tangible current economic issues.
For specifics I think a unique aspect is looking at innovation. This would require you setting up how innovation is important to solving the climate crisis and also how an empowered economy better sets up innovation to create better technology. This is usually done with the warrant on being able to reinvest or have the capital to invest in these initiatives and must be able to provide for their immediate needs to have enough leftover to invest back into the economy.
Furthermore I think many opp teams neglect economic interests outside of those that intersect with the environment. Teams should consider arguments that also talk about decreasing income inequality, promoting social mobility, and improving the economy writ large. This is a great way for opp to develop a unique offense that is harder for prop to hijack. So talking about increasing welfare programs, access to affordable housing, affordable healthcare, etc. are great ways to have impacts terminal to social mobility and economic upliftment that tangibly improves quality of life.
Overall I think opp teams also must consider how they address the climate crisis and have a clear stance and mechanization of how their world changes these things because without it you let prop be able to get away with huge amounts of offense. I think going for implementation and innovation are ways to get out of those debates and potentially turn them in your favor, as well as make your independent economic arguments that much more persuasive. Personally I think the principle is not as strong as the prop principle so if you’re able to redevelop it in a way that works then great! Otherwise, I’d recommend prioritizing the practical argumentation and going for economic and climate solvency
Further Reading
How vulnerable is the global economy? Here’s what chief economists are saying
How will acting on climate change affect the economy?
How climate colonialism affects the Global South?
Dawson is a third year student at The University of Texas at Austin double majoring in Sustainability Studies and Government with minors in Applied Economics and Risk Management. In his spare time Dawson loves thrifting, yapping, and coaching for Coppell Debate!
This House believes that the acquisition of startups by large corporations does more harm than good
Context
An important thing to know before diving into this motion is what an acquisition is. Two commonly confused terms are merger and acquisition, so let’s make the distinction clear before further research. A merger is when companies of similar size conjoin and an acquisition is when a larger company absorbs a smaller one and takes complete control over their stocks and assets. Through acquisitions, we’ve seen countless massive corporations rise to power. Think Amazon, Facebook, Disney, and Walmart. The big picture of this motion is analyzing the overall effect this rise to power has had on both the economy and the individual.
Now, I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of how these acquisitions actually happen (though I do recommend doing further research as it’s surprisingly interesting!). In short, large companies acquire startups to increase their positioning and have access to new markets.
One thing to differentiate between before we head in is that startups and small businesses are not the same! So don’t confuse that mom and pop store in your town with a startup as they’re vastly different in their intention. A startup is a company in its early stage of operations that has a unique product within a specific industry. A small business is an independently owned and operated business that has less employees and less revenue than a larger business.
That being said, let’s jump into both sides of this motion.
Prop
Framing
This is a harm vs. benefits motion, therefore it’s not the responsibility of the prop to prove there’s a better alternative, all you have to do in the round is weigh harms over benefits and vice versa for the opp.
However, I think you could get a strategic advantage if you propose what the alternative could be. Think this, if acquisitions ceased to exist, how would the market function? When researching I came across a ton of alternatives to M&As like market collaboration and Mezzanine financing (companies receive capital loans as opposed to any collateral, super similar to debt and equity financing, however it’s a relatively new process so make sure to do tons of research if this is the alternative you’re going with). There are other alternatives you can find if you don’t like the two I provided, the most important thing is to characterize and contextualize. Tell me what your alternative looks like and WHY it would be the likely alternative over any others in framing. Now as I said, any alternative is optional and dependent on what your team feels comfortable doing.
The biggest argument I see for prop is exploitation. This is a very simple, intrinsic, principle.
When framing this argument, it’s very important you contextualize properly, essentially, tell the judge what exploitation is in this context. A key term here is commercial exploitation which refers to all activities that allow business to benefit commercially or financially, however this motion isn’t limited to just that, think creative exploitation as well. Even if large corporations allow these startups to flourish economically, small companies are still exploited as they no longer have a say over things like contracting, use of their data, or creative ventures, all of which being important facets of those systems and processes mentioned earlier.
The process is fairly intuitive. Large corporations lure startups into an acquisition to take advantage of their intellectual property. These big companies leverage their finances in order to pressure smaller companies into selling their assets. What ends up happening is that the systems and processes the small company originally had need to be altered in order to adapt to the new, more efficient company.
This is bad because value for the small companies is lost in this transition as those unique systems and processes that drew clientele to that business are now completely different. A bureaucratic system falls into place, undermining the integrity of the company, making it a puppet of the corporation. I recommend impacting out more macro ideas, really emphasizing the loss of uniqueness and creativity the small companies originally had over their product. I would also impact out to the exploitation of buyers because these large corporations place really high fees that mainly go back to the big company. I linked a great article about Amazon in further reading that I highly recommend taking a look at to grasp that concept.
I know a big counterargument here is autonomy of the small company as they did consent to a large company taking control of their process. Note, that although on paper there is clear consent, in majority of cases the power imbalance, financial leverage, or false promises is what coaxed small companies into selling their rights and assets. Remember, this is a believes motion, therefore you have to stay strong in the stance that had this pattern never been established, small companies would be able to grow on their own accord, now you do have to properly mechanize this in some way in both framing and your substantive. When writing principles like exploitation, I like to focus heavily on the perpetuation of power imbalances and how that’s proved to be immoral, so you can link the power imbalance to the acquisition of startups by finding empirics about the effect in the squo.
A great way to impact out to the micro level is the pharmaceutical industry. Think big pharma and its impact to buyers, especially those in lower socioeconomic groups who are in desperate need of medicine.
Second potential argument is Innovation, the link to this substantive is a bit similar to that of sub 1, however all impacts are purely practical.
Now, innovation is kind of a tricky argument for this topic in particular is it can kind of go both ways.
Innovation is the creation of new technology or spread of new ideas that create diversity in the economy and various markets.
When startups get acquired, it’s difficult to compete with them, so smaller companies who attempted to make similar products get phased out due to the gap of resources. A good example is the acquisition of BioNTech by Pfizer. BioNTech was a small German company innovating a mRNA covid vaccine before eventually getting bought out by Pfizer. Before this exchange, there were a lot more biotech startups competing with BioNTech to make this vaccine, however since Pfizer has more resources, those smaller companies were eventually phased out of that competition.
It’s integral when framing both of these arguments you establish uniqueness and analyze incentives of big companies, especially why acquisition is the main mechanism in which exploitation occurs and innovation is stifled.
Look into more examples about pharmaceuticals for this substantive as well. There is some great great great evidence about innovation in that sector specifically that is very convincing. Additionally, make sure to weave well supported analysis about how your alternative (if providing one) fosters innovation throughout this argument as well.
Opp
Framing
This motion is super cut and dry (unfortunate for my fellow lovers of creative framing), however there are few key things to consider.
Though prop doesn’t have to prove an alternative so technically opp doesn’t either, I think it’s wise to get creative in a comparative. As long as you back it up with some empirics, this is a great way to get defensively ahead and set up your offense in framing.
Secondly, I think a smart clarification could be about the behavior of large corporations, how they’re likely to still behave in monopolistic ways, therefore the motion mainly lies in the benefits to the smaller companies as the extension of power is widely non unique. The most important beneficiaries of this debate should be the startups and the economy as a whole.
Finally, some contextualization about how these acquisitions occur and how the process is quite transparent. I know that some might be laughing at that but it’s true for acquisitions that have had longevity. Secondly, it’s important to note that there are a lot of policies being pushed that have made transparency a central part in those deals, and a lot of policies that attempt to limit monopolies.
A potential argument for the opp could be innovation.
Startups aren’t able to compete with large corporations adequately by themselves and they’re created because they offer something cutting edge or ingenuitive. The problem is resources, startups just don’t have the same capital that a large company does so having access to those tools allows more ideas and innovation to be spread within that company.
Also, if entrepreneurs have an accessible exit strategy of selling to a large corporation that also leaves them with more money in the end, they’re more likely to take on more business endeavors which inherently fuels innovation.
Prop will try to push the debate to lie heavily in the principle. I think one way this principle can be easily squashed is by characterizing startups properly. As I said in context, startups are not small businesses, therefore they often want to become bigger and reach the status of that large corporation. All of the massive companies that we’ve discussed like Amazon, Disney, Facebook, etc. started out as a startup. The most important part of debating and researching any believes or harms and benefits motion is analyzing the status quo correctly and not conceding false characterizations. So when devising your round strategy and characterizing the actors in this motion, keep that in mind.
For a second potential argument, you could focus more specifically on startups and their ability to grow. The link is a bit similar to that of the first argument (more access to resources), however the impacts are a lot more micro. Tying in that characterization I mentioned earlier of startups wanting to reach a much larger and widespread market and then impacting out to specific industries could work.
Conclusion
When debating this motion, don’t get bogged down by hyperspecific technicalities of startup acquisition. This motion at face value is about the amount of control large corporations have over the economy and whether that has been good or bad. There are so many different ways you could go about both sides of this topic completely independent of the ideas I provided, the most important part is having sound evidence and convincing examples. I’m interested to hear about the rounds on this topic and wish you all the best of luck! Here are some great articles I found when researching if you want a place to start.
Further reading
How Big Tech got so big: Hundreds of acquisitions
How big business exploits small business
Can big pharma buy every biotech startup?
Do Acquisitions Help or Hurt Innovation?
The effects of startup acquisitions on innovation and economic growth | CEPR
Sophia is a freshman at the College of William and Mary and a Southlake Carroll alum. In her free time she loves to run, spend time with her friends, or learn a new song on the guitar!
