Jan/Feb Topic Analyses: Affirmative Action, State vs Liberal Capitalism, Home Guarantee, and Feminist Social Media
This topic analysis contains the following:
As the United States government, this House would remove the ban on using affirmative action policies in higher education admissions by Meera Thamaran
This House believes that state capitalism is a more effective economic model than liberal capitalism for promoting long-term national development and economic stability by Andy Stubbs
This House supports the Home Guarantee movement. Info Slide: A federal Homes Guarantee means that every household in the United States — whether they rent or own — has a dignified and affordable home by Hanh M. Do
This House believes that social media activism has done more harm than good to the feminist movement by Aditi Singh
Happy reading!
As the United States government, this House would remove the ban on using affirmative action policies in higher education admissions.
Context
Definitions
Affirmative action refers to policies designed to address historical and systemic inequalities by considering race, gender, or other factors in decisions like admissions, hiring, or promotions. Within university admissions, specifically, affirmation action aims to counteract structural barriers that have historically denied students from marginalized racial backgrounds access to higher education. Race-based affirmative action has been a highly polarized and controversial issue in the U.S., especially due to a few notable legal developments seen below:
Affirmative action emerged during the Civil Rights movement as a means to address systemic racial discrimination. Notable case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke reified affirmative action as constitutional but prohibited quotas.
In October 2022, the US Supreme Court heard two cases filed by the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) organization that challenged and critiqued the efficacy of affirmative action at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions was unconstitutional in Fair Admissions v. Harvard, because it lacks clear and measurable goals, uses race in a negative way, involves racial stereotyping, and lacks meaningful end points. This effectively banned the use of affirmative action on college campuses across the country– however, colleges were permitted to consider how an applicant’s race affected their life in determining how the applicant might contribute to the institution. This has changed rhetoric on affirmative action from one of promoting equity to one of emphasizing diversity and inclusion, leading to colleges also exploring alternatives like socioeconomic-based admissions and outreach programs.
Framing
Typically, ban motions open up efficacy and ‘black market’ arguments. On efficiacy, many argue that bans won’t work i.e. if there isn’t a standardized way of approaching something, people will find other means to get/do it, which is more harmful because it has less oversight and is subsequently more exclusive (typically restricted to the wealthiest) and harmful.
For example, in the motion, THW ban lethal autonomous weapons, Opp can say that a ban a) won’t work because the weapons will still be sold b) and they will instead just be sold underground in more volatile, dangerous ways.
However, this is not a motion in which this standard ‘black market’ argument exists; instead, this idea can be turned into universities still considering race and class, but doing so in less standardized ways. University admisisons likely already reviews applicants in different ways to some extent, so there can be clarity or characterization here from both sides as to what reviewing race/class would look like without affirmative action.
Basic Framing would mean the proposition would remove the ban and supports affirmative action policies in higher education. The opposition would not remove the ban and does not support affirmative action policies in higher ed.
An idea to explore on the opposition is that North Carolina and Texas both employ programs that guarantee university admission to top high school graduates, which has been effective in increasing minority representation without explicitly using race as a criterion – it isn’t necessary to include an alternate system, but it can clarify what the Opp world looks like.
Crucially, this is motion from the perspective of the U.S. government. Remember this througout the debate, as this opens up questions of government obligation and politician/government incentives. This is an area to explore for principle substantives and unique practical third substantives.
Characterization
I recommend Prop frame higher ed admissions as flawed in prioritizing wealthier, white candidates, as that is the cleanest line of reasoning to clarify why a system absent of affirmative action would be discriminatory and ignorant of systemic inequalities. This characterization is strategic because it creates an intrinsic need for some sort of equity measure to make higher ed accessible to applicants from marginalized racial groups.
In the event that Prop goes forward with the above characterization, Opp has two choices:
The first choice is to bite the bullet and say that admissions should be purely meritocratic, not considering equity measures like affirmative action at all. This means Opp will have to defend a system that must factor an applicant’s context differently. Opp can characterize this as univeristies noting an applicants race, just as they acknowledge their socioeconomic status in the current system, factoring both just as heavily or factoring socioeconomic status more, without clear affirmative action policy regarding it. However, the line gets blurry here– to what degree does a university have to consider class for it to be considered affirmative action? Both sides shoudl make this line clear in their framing, as to avoid a messy debate revolving around definitions.
The second choice is to claim that, in addition to banning race-based affirmative action, but admissions should utilize class-based affirmative action to create a more fair system for marginalized candidates. Technically, the motion refers to the ban on affirmative action policies that already exists, which are race-based. Conversations about critiquing class-based affirmative action exist, but there is no ban in this realm yet. HOWEVER, as Opp, I would be extremely careful to run with the idea that class should be a considered factor over race. This line of argumentation would concede that affirmative action, in of itself, would be beneficial, which gives Prop a lot of (principle) ground. To have the clearest stance in the round, I would recommend Opp to bite the bullet and simply defend maintaining their stance of not supporting affirmative action policies in higher Ed. (In the Opp arguments below, one argument will follow each route)
Choosing one of the two options ultimately comes down to how you want to frame the higher ed admissions world. Is it: a) too interventionistic and not meritocratic enough, with restrictions just making it harder for certain groups over others or b) unjust, favoring the wealthy, even after banning race-based affirmative action? It also comes down to if you are willing and able to clarify definitions and distinct worlds well if you pursue option 2.
Note that a mix of both options could muddle your stance because advocating for class-based affirmative action inherently cuts into principled meritocracy arguments.
Proposition
Government Obligation to Counteract Systemic Inequities
This brings in the government’s obligation to the vulnerable and marginalized. Since democracies’ governments are made by the people, for the people, the U.S. government exists to serve the people. When historically marginalized groups are subject to systemic inequities that play huge roles in their future success and socioeconomic mobility, the government has a moral obligation to address them. Affirmative action policies in admissions actively address this specific obligation by working to level the playing field by offering opportunities to those who have been systematically excluded.
A second layer to this involves the nature of this issue. Prop can argue that systemic inequities were first initiated and then prolonged because of discriminatory government policy and lack of redress. If the government created this issue, it has an even stronger obligation to ameliorate it.
Harms of Color Blindness
Banning race-based affirmative action assumes that race should not be factored as heavily into an applicant’s context– it promotes color blindness for favor of meritocracy.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s strongly dissents the ban: she says, “the majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.” Basically, promoting color blindness creates a false sense of security on the state of racial ineuity in the U.S., making it seem like it is not much of an issue. This divests social capital away from this matter, which will make matters worse as inequity persists and no one does anything about it.
These impacts are all magnified by the fact that the U.S. government is a powerful actor with high visibility. If the government preaches color blindness, this idea will gain more traction, meaning that more individuals will buy into color blindness– this means more individuals will believe systemic inequity does not exist, creating more harms for marginalized individuals.
Opposition
Principle of Meritocracy
Affirmative action prioritzes race over academic achievemnts or other qualifications. This creates an uneven playing field, disadvantaging students who are not from underrepresented groups even if they face other challenges.
A practical impact of this principled argument is that it also inherently creates or adds fuel to the fire on stereotyping and generalizations about racial groups, and can create resentment and perceptions of reverse discrimination, especially among groups like Asian Americans who may face disadvantages despite strong academic records.
On the pure principle side, the world should always strive to be better in accordance to promoting meritocracy, because that is the ideal state of fairness (where people that work hard get rewarded accordingly). Even if this meritocracy does not exist in reality, fully ignoring this principle just because it feels idealistic means being complacent and never investing into better solutions becuase of a pessimistic worldview. Complacency and lack of investment into beter solutions is harmful because higher ed is gateway to socioeconomic mobility and creating generational wealth – important to counteract the very real class barriers in the U.S.
Social Capital
Social capital refers to the idea that, in order to develop in new solutions or ideas, society has a finite amount of ‘social capital,’ or interest, collective investment, and willingness to buy into something.
Maintaining the ban on race-based affirmative action means that they can move the focus away from race to class, which is the actual determinant of higher ed admissions outcomes. This is true because it is largely access to opportunities and resources that help students perform better. While race can inform class, class itself can be race-agnostic– i.e. people can be in any class regardless of what race they are a part of.
By redefining the issue as a class one, rather than a race one, universities can determine more precise solutions to ensure that they are evaluating candidates fairly based on the opportunities they had and circumstances they were born into. In a world that continues to prioritize race-based affirmative action (or even discourse on it),
Further Readings
History of Affirmative Action - American Association for Access Equity and Diversity - AAAED
Affirmative Action Was Banned. What Happened Next Was Confusing.
This House believes that state capitalism is a more effective economic model than liberal capitalism for promoting long-term national development and economic stability.
Context
What is the difference between state capitalism and liberal capitalism? The motion implies these two economic models are mutually exclusive and sets them against each other in a competition to see which is better for long-term national development and economic stability. Like most things, this is a bit more complicated in the real world. Rather than two discrete categories that you can sort capitalist economies into, most economies will fall along a spectrum from liberal to state capitalist, with many containing elements of both models. Having sharp top-level characterizations of the two models and avoiding running to the middle should help prevent the debate from becoming muddy or difficult to resolve. Rather than trying to parse out which specific government policies are liberal and which are state capitalist, drawing broad contrasts along axes like the overall vision of how the economy should be structured, the role of the government in the economy, and the values that the models prioritize to the exclusion of other values will create meaningful differences between the two models that will help keep the debate productive and clear.
But first, we need to zoom out. Both of these economic models are capitalist. But this potentially will cause some confusion because one of the best examples of state capitalism is China, which is governed by the Chinese Communist Party. Add in the political rhetoric (especially popular in the United States) that nearly any action the government takes in the economic realm is “socialist” and the phrase “state capitalism” might sound like an oxymoron. Let’s clear this up here. At the risk of oversimplifying, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production (the way goods are produced– the land to grow crops on, the factories where workers make goods, the machines that assemble goods, the labor that people provide) are privately owned and when they are used, the owner receives the surplus value produced.
A quick example to illustrate– a line cook at a restaurant sells their labor to the restaurant (they prepare the food in exchange for being paid a wage). The cook uses their labor to turn the ingredients into food that the restaurant sells. If the cook is paid $20 for that hour of labor but the restaurant made $100 off the food the cook prepared in that hour (after the cost of the ingredients is deducted), there is $80 in surplus value– the difference between the cost of creating the good (the cook preparing the meal) and the price of the good at the end of the process. Under a capitalist system, the restaurant, its equipment, and the ingredients (the means of production) are privately owned by the restaurant owner and the surplus value (the 80 extra dollars) goes to the owner as profit which they can pocket, reinvest in the restaurant, etc.
Both of the economic models outlined in the motion operate under this understanding. The owner may change (an individual, a company, the government) but the fact that the means of production are privately owned and used to extract surplus value from the workers as profit remains the same and makes the system characteristically capitalist. But within this broad definition of capitalism, different models have emerged. Let’s look at the two the motion identifies.
State Capitalism
State capitalism is an economic model in which the government is an active participant in the economy, directly owning the means of production and/or operating companies that the government either owns or controls a majority stake in (state-owned enterprises) for profit. Its advocates argue that state capitalism is a compromise between capitalism and leftist critiques of capitalism that seeks to tame what they view as the excesses and harms of unrestrained liberal capitalism.
The state capitalist model has a very different vision of the role of the government in the economy, centering the state as a crucial actor. Cristina Elena Paguba, in her article “Liberal Capitalism versus State Capitalism” for Revista Economicǎ, summarizes 19th century state economist Adolf Wagner’s conception of the role the government–
According to Wagner’s opinion, the state is the central element in the effort of bringing together individual interests with social ones, present interests with future ones, private initiative with public ones and of integrating citizens into the nation. The influence of the state in the economy is not absolute but relative; it is not static but dynamic, adjusting according to the level of development and the problems that appear in time and space.1
In this economic model, the state isn’t merely the enforcer of the rules of the free market, it is the nexus point within the economy, balancing competing interests and introducing its own priorities.
This is one of the sharpest contrasts between the two models. Rather than viewing the economy as independent from the political sphere and an aggregate of private individuals and companies voluntarily exchanging goods and services within a free market, a state capitalist model tends to view the economic and political spheres as inseparably fused together, and necessarily so.
The question of which values state capitalist models prioritize over other models is a tricky one because, given the government control inherent in the model, those priorities can change depending on the government. However, one consistent priority is stability. Again, this looks different depending on the country, ranging from Saudi Arabia using its profit to attempt to diversify its economy to Norway using its sovereign wealth fund to invest a massive amount of wealth for the future of the country. China has reinvested profits from its state-owned enterprises to create the world’s most robust supply chains for emerging technologies like electric cars and lithium-ion batteries, guaranteeing control and profits into the future for the government.
Liberal Capitalism
Liberal capitalism’s elements should be familiar to us because the United States has a fairly liberal economic model. Cristina Elena Paguba, in her article “Liberal Capitalism versus State Capitalism” for Revista Economicǎ, identifies the core components of the liberal model, writing, “The basic pylons, on which the concept of liberal capitalism relies on, are: private property, liberalism and democracy.”2 This is a vision of an economy largely mediated through a free market where private companies compete against one another to provide goods and services while private companies and citizens choose between the companies by purchasing from the supplier that best meets their wants or needs.
The primary mechanism is the market itself for both effectiveness (if there is a demand for something that isn’t being provided or does not meet the quality desired in the marketplace, private companies are incentivized to move into that space and meet that need, as there is profit to gain) and accountability (the behavior of companies can be rewarded with consumer purchasing their goods/services or punished by consumers buying from a competitor or boycotting).
The liberal capitalist model’s vision of the role of government is one of non-intervention in the economy. A recent example of this is from a press release in September, when Iowa Senator and Ranking Member on the US Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Joni Ernst argued “The levers of government should never be used to pick winners and losers based on political priorities.”3 Under this model, the economy is viewed as the domain of private actors, independent of and shielded from government action and interests within the market. However, that doesn’t mean liberal capitalists advocate for a weak government that takes no action. They want a strong government that structures the rules of the free market and zealously enforces those rules on issues like property rights (e.g. copyright violations and trade secrets, protection from illegal seizing of property) and contract law (mandating a contract is binding or ensuring that if a contract between two private parties is violated, there is punishment).
Finally, the liberal capitalist model prioritizes individual liberty above other values. Milton Friedman, one of the most widely influential liberal capitalist economists and a frequent critic of other models centers individual liberty as a core concept–
If the transaction is voluntary and informed, both sides benefit; the buyer gets something he values more than whatever he gives up, and so does the seller. In consequence, voluntary exchange is a way to get cooperation among individuals without coercion. The reliance on voluntary exchange, which means on a free market mechanism, is thus central to the liberal creed.4
Liberal capitalists view political freedom and economic freedom as mutually reinforcing, so they are exceedingly cautious of the government, viewing it as capable of immense coercion, and jealously guarding the free market from government intervention.
In summary– the liberal capitalist model is a free market where individuals freely buy and sell goods without interference from the government in order to maximize individual choice and liberty.
Proposition Arguments
Start with some top-level characterization of what state-owned enterprises (SoEs) under state capitalism look like. Cristina Elena Paguba, in her article “Liberal Capitalism versus State Capitalism” for Revista Economicǎ, outlines how SoEs have evolved in recent years–
[T]he present state capitalism is a system in which the governments realized that profitable enterprises owned by the state make the state stronger. This way, even if the big state-owned companies have two objectives: social and political, their profitability became a key target. The large state-owned companies don’t have the state as the only shareholder; they are listed at the stock exchange and have big institutional investors that monitor their activity.
This means that the problems associated with state property (lack of commercial orientation, lack of initiative and political influence in the corporations’ management) were partly eliminated. Big state enterprises compete at an international level, follow international standards and have a professional management. By this model of participation, worldwide governments have the right to benefit from funds in key industries without having to worry about running the companies. These are led by professional managers who are paid for the results they bring, and generally are not named by politicians.5
This is strategic characterization for the Proposition because it allows you to get ahead of predictable Opposition arguments about efficiency and competition. There are still accountability mechanisms and competition under state capitalism– the government expecting profitability, shareholders and investors, and global competition against other companies, to name a few. This allows you to get the benefits of the government controlling or directing development broadly while washing out the Opposition’s arguments about how generic competition and accountability are good.
If there are roughly equivalent levels of accountability and competition on both sides of the house, an easy distinction between the two to draw is what is driving development in each world. For the state capitalist model, the government is driving development, synthesizing a large group of interests and using long-term planning to determine the best investments. For the liberal capitalist model, what is driving investment is simply what would be the most profitable for tons of private companies looking to maximize their short-term profits. That comparative is a strategic one for the Proposition.
Now for the Proposition links into long-term national development and economic stability. Lant Pritchett writes for Harvard University’s Center for International Development that national development is “a transformation of countries towards: (i) a more productive economy, (ii) a more responsive state, (iii) more capable administration, and (iv) a shared identity and equal treatment of citizens.”6 Think of economic stability in both directions— proactively building stability and also increasing resilience to and solving back for economic instability.
First, some recent empirics. In terms of solving instability, state capitalist economies better navigated the post-2008 economic recession. Cristina Elena Paguba writes
Countries that had state capitalist economic models rebounded significantly quicker after the 2008 financial crisis. The large emerging economies, where state capitalism is present, such as China, India, and Brazil were capable of avoiding severe recession, partly thanks to the government’s ability to assure resources through the banks and holding companies owned by the state. The other cause resides in the state’s preference for stability and risk aversion defined during the years before the crisis.7
There are two important warrants here. The state ownership of or stake in banks and holding companies reassured investors and consumers in those countries. The analysis here is that government-controlled companies have the backing of the state, which has access to large amounts of money and a willingness to save them. That’s comparatively less true in liberal capitalism where the free market is supposed to determine winners and losers and companies that took too much risk are punished with bankruptcy while the more risk-averse companies remain solvent and live to fight another day. We’re on especially strong ground here because even the most liberal capitalist countries have behaved like state capitalists when economic disaster strikes. For example, in the aftermath of the 2008 economic recession, the United States took federal control over AIG, the world’s largest insurance company, to prevent the economic crisis from spreading.
The second warrant is that state capitalist governments tended to act in ways that prioritized stability and risk aversion before the crisis. Develop this link out further with analysis about how state-owned enterprises (SoEs) don’t experience the same pressures as private companies or experience less of it. For example, SoE’s have the ability to take a longer view because they’re not as dependent on having to post high levels of profit each quarter to satisfy shareholders. They’re less constrained by the immediate drive to take risks and overextend to post profits in the short term. This goes a long way to explain how over the last 30 years, China has seemed to be able to avoid most of the economic catastrophes that have harmed the rest of the world.8
In terms of promoting national development, state capitalist models have significantly more direct control over which industries develop within a country. Instead of simply allowing the free market to dictate which industries are most profitable and competitive for their economy, state capitalist governments can subsidize private companies and/or create SoEs, giving them the ability to build up and control strategic industries. Furthermore, it allows state capitalist governments to strengthen certain industries, shielding them from competition and providing the country with a highly competitive and profitable company. Cristina Elena Paguba writes–
A last argument regarding the role played by state capitalism in economy is the development of the so called “national champions” which reached top positions on an international level. National champions are private companies which receive privileges from the government, more often loans with favorable terms and taxing protection. National champions reached this dominant position due of their ability to compete with the private multinational companies, and in some cases because of their capacity to innovate. (The Economist, 2012)9
This allows for specialization and a solid base of demand for certain labor skills, which continues the national development of the economy. It also creates economic stability by creating consistent revenue streams for the government and jobs for the citizens.
In fact, the state capitalist model of guiding investment into specific industries has scrambled assumptions about the development trajectory of emerging economies. Ilias Alami and Adam D. Dixon write in Geopolitics and the ‘New’ State Capitalism:
This complicates our understanding of state capitalism in developing and emerging economies, which has mostly been interpreted as an attempt at ‘catch-up’ development. Lee explicitly challenges this argument. For him, a number of state capitalist practices and strategies in East Asian post-developmental states are less about catching-up than actually leading and dominating in strategic sectors associated with the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’.10
This shows that state capitalist models can bypass some of the intermediary steps taken by the more liberal capitalist countries historically and steer investment into sectors to become leaders in some of the most advanced economic areas.
A final interesting line of analysis for the Proposition has to do with government-owned enterprises theoretically being comparatively better at taking externalities into account. An externality is a side effect from the production of a good that impacts other people, companies, or society that isn’t reflected in the price of the good nor is the producing actor responsible for the effects of it. A good example of this is pollution from a metal refining plant. It can run into the river and devastate the fishing industry downriver. In a liberal capitalist model, the metal refining company is maximizing its ability to generate profit and doesn’t have an obligation to take that externality into effect. However, a state capitalist model might lead to SoE’s having to factor in the externality and reducing pollution because the controlling agent– the government– doesn’t want to see a different part of its economy harmed. While this may not always happen in state capitalist models (some state capitalist countries have high levels of pollution), it is possible to win that there is much higher likelihood that it happens on the Proposition side given that the government interests are factored in, while on the Opposition side, the private companies are only obligated to care about maximizing profits.
Opposition Arguments
On the Opposition, we have some arguments that should be familiar. Given that the central mechanism for liberal capitalism is the free market, it will have the most competition comparatively. Developing out the warrants why competition is good for long-term national development and economic stability will provide some strong arguments.
Higher levels of competition in the market builds efficiency into companies. Diversify the warranting of the argument by adding layers of different types of efficiency. Competition against other companies drives down the cost to consumers across a wide variety of goods, making them more affordable and allowing consumers to save more money and make other investments, growing the middle class– a key driver of development and stability. Competition against other firms also drives higher levels of research and development within companies as they fight for access to new markets or to increase their current market share. That innovation is central to increasing national development and raising living standards. Highly competitive markets also streamline companies, forcing them to maximize their returns, prevent bloated spending plans, and specialize in particular goods or services. This makes them more resilient in the face of economic problems.
The comparative, then, is clear. In the Cato Institute’s study of Chinese state firms and their capital allocation, they found–
[S]tate capitalism does a poor job of allocating capital, at least in China’s state business groups. This likely reflects the fact that the objective of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not just maximizing profits or shareholder value but also maintaining a “harmonious society.” Consistent with this, we document that the chairmen of state groups are rewarded with promotions to higher office not only for raising productivity but also for avoiding large-scale job losses. These aims can be in conflict and over time may be incompatible. State group chairmen appear to let their career incentives influence their internal capital allocation decisions. Not only do we find that internal capital allocations are used to prop up large and struggling employers with poor prospects, consistent with the policy aims of the CCP. We also find that capital allocations are particularly distorted when group chairmen are up for promotion and cease to be distorted once a group chairman becomes ineligible for promotion under the CCP’s rules on mandatory retirement.11
The warrant here is straightforward– adding variables to how companies invest their profits beyond more profit, especially if those variables include political incentives, leads to worse outcomes for the company. These suboptimal investments leave an economy with struggling companies that are vulnerable to economic shocks and trade off directly with companies that could use that capital to increase growth or deliver better quality goods and services to consumers.
Zooming out to the bigger picture, layer in other stakeholders. With a comparatively higher level of competition in the marketplace between many private companies, investors can make rapid decisions about where to invest capital. This leads to a more flexible investment environment that can adapt quickly in the face of a crisis. Additionally, the free market and private investors can allocate capital more efficiently to meet market demands than a government plan. Finally, a highly competitive and innovative free market can attract foreign investment, which for the average country is probably a significantly higher amount of capital than the government is willing to invest in that sector.
Another approach to the inefficiency or mismanagement argument that is common when debating against state capitalist models is the argument about reinvestment. Private companies do deliver a large share of their profits to shareholders. However, they also reinvest enough of that profit to continue their operations, continue research and development, etc. This is a necessity given the strong competition they face from other companies that are doing the same. SoEs deliver a huge amount of their profit back to the government, which the government can then use for other priorities (some are detailed in the State Capitalism characterization at the beginning here). This can lead to underinvestment in SoEs which makes them less innovative and deliver lower quality goods and services even with talent and other forms of competition being symmetrical on both sides of the house.
Finally, there is a strategic way to get ahead of some of the Proposition warrants about how competition still exists within state capitalist models courtesy of Cristina Elena Paguba’s Liberal Capitalism versus State Capitalism. She writes–
[S]tate owned companies are less efficient than their private competitors, but because they use cheap capital and benefit of political favoritism, they manage to throw aside the private Chinese entrepreneurs. And so, incapable of competing with the giants backed by the state, they take their talent and abilities in other countries, costing China a vital source of innovation and energy.12
The brain drain argument made here is that the very analysis the Proposition gives about how the government can prioritize certain SoEs creates an uneven playing field that drives talented entrepreneurs out of the domestic economy. Adding characterization about how these entrepreneurs and innovators are going to be key to exactly the kind of dynamism and innovation that drives economic growth and development is a strategic way to leverage the “long-term” part of the motion. As the state capitalist model drives these groups out of the country, the long-term prospects of the country decline.
Closing Thoughts
The motion dictates the terminal impacts of the debate here– long-term national development and economic stability. That means the weighing shifts up a level in the argument. Instead of thinking in terms of which impact affects the most people, is the most durable, or happens quicker, the weighing debate is more about which link into development and stability is stronger and for which reason.
Weigh within the impacts. If the impacts stay flat as just “development” and “economic stability”, it’s going to be difficult to link weigh and resolve the debate. The types of development and economic stability that the two models create aren’t necessarily the same and you should be ready to characterize what your side’s versions look like and do comparative analysis as to why they’re better than the other side’s versions. For example, state capitalism might be more effective at building domestic supply chains which increase economic stability by preventing disruptions (like in the aftermath the pandemic or from being outcompeted by other countries’ companies) but liberal capitalism might be better at having more capital overall and the flexibility to invest it to lessen the impact of a recession, promoting more economic stability. Which form of economic stability is more useful to the average country?
Think about how the two impacts interact. There is a chance that in the debate, one side wins a better link into national development and the other side wins a better link into economic stability. Determining which impact controls the other is a strategic way to resolve the debate. If there isn’t economic stability, national development is very difficult. National development could be a prerequisite to long-term economic stability. Think through the weighing here.
Endnotes
1. PAGUBA Cristina Elena, 2012. "Liberal Capitalism Versus State Capitalism," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 589-595.
2. Ibid.
4. https://www.hoover.org/research/milton-friedman-old-school-liberalism
5. PAGUBA Cristina Elena, 2012. "Liberal Capitalism Versus State Capitalism," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 589-595.
6. https://bsc.hks.harvard.edu/publications/national-development-delivers-and-how-and-how/
7. PAGUBA Cristina Elena, 2012. "Liberal Capitalism Versus State Capitalism," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 589-595.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Alami, I., Dixon, A. D., Gonzalez-Vicente, R., Babic, M., Seung-Ook Lee, Medby, I. A., & Graaff, N. de. (2021). Geopolitics and the ‘New’ State Capitalism. Geopolitics, 27(3), 995–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2021.1924943
11. https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/state-capitalism-vs-private-enterprise
12. PAGUBA Cristina Elena, 2012. "Liberal Capitalism Versus State Capitalism," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(1), pages 589-595.
Further Reading
Liberal Capitalism versus State Capitalism by Cristina Elena Paguba– http://economice.ulbsibiu.ro/revista.economica/archive/suplimente/Volume1-2012.pdf
National Development Delivers: And How! And How? by Lant Pritchett
State Capitalism versus Private Enterprise by the Cato Institute
https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/state-capitalism-vs-private-enterprise
Geopolitics and the “New” State Capitalism by Ilias Alami and Adam D. Dixon et al.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2021.1924943#abstract
This House supports the Home Guarantee movement.
Info Slide: A federal Homes Guarantee means that every household in the United States — whether they rent or own — has a dignified and affordable home.
Context
A political campaign that ran in the 1920’s tied President Hoover to the common phrase of promising “a chicken for every pot.” Soon after, Hoover was ridiculed for his mishandling of the US economy as the face of the federal government during his presidency…Too many people, not enough chickens. So, a few key questions to note evaluating this motion: Is it even possible to guarantee that “every household in the US-renting or owning-has a dignified and affordable home?” Is the federal government or state/local government more effective at executing the Home Guarantee movement? What are the implications that exist if this was existent?
Principally, this focuses on previous other resolutions and motions on the right to housing. We all know that in a post-Covid economy, many factors pushed us into a housing crisis with the USFG giving out PPP loans and subsidies that enabled many private investors (small and large scale), to purchase distressed properties to either flip (renovate) and rent out for profit and/or sale. Proof that enablement by the USFG even in altruistic means in the direst situations can have long term damaging effects.
Proposition
So, what does this PROP world look like when we can and do “support a Homes Guarantee movement?” Whether one rents and/or is purchasing, affordability is key to economic stability for individuals, families, and communities of color. Please do note that there is a difference in displacement and gentrification although they can parallel each other. Both of those can happen for a multitude of reasons whether that is investors forcing the neighborhood out or future government infrastructure induces eminent domain.
Focus that this is a supports motion thus you can have an advocacy only or an advocacy that includes a model. For this motion, I think a model would be more conducive and easier for judges to evaluate the motion. In certain cities and regions, pricing caps are enforced within neighborhoods (aka “rent controlled”) by limiting how much investors and/or landlords can increase either by percentage or a flat rate. Secondly, understand that temporary housing such as AirBnBs also saturate the housing market and make it unaffordable, thus limiting such practices, would then provide a larger market for affordable housing to exist. A model of limiting foreign direct investment, whether private or public firms from other countries, would then create an increase in the number of housing opportunities for local families. But overall, a ban, a limit, or harsh regulation on investment firms or private equity companies from purchasing available properties would yield more homes to be guaranteed.
The only other offense for SIDE PROP would then be using government to revitalize commercial property such as empty office buildings, dilapidated shopping centers, closed schools, and other infrastructure to create more affordable housing.
Opposition
Conversely, SIDE OPP, does not support a Home Guarantee movement and undoubtedly, this is the dirty side of the motion because of the pathos. One of the major reasons we cannot have a successful movement is because of how the system is built. Government is always interested in lobbying, business, and investment and it would never allow for deregulation of the mortgage industry. A Home Guarantee movement would threaten the housing market by guaranteeing homes and having a scenario of government subsidies offsetting the loan costs. This then places people into homes, they cannot afford and has led to partial collapses in the housing market like back in 2008. Banks then cannot recuperate what they loaned and once properties go into default, they must sell it at a loss based upon the property damage and market value. The government then also loses money itself and thus, there is a lose, lose scenario for all. Another housing market crash similar to 2008 would be even more detrimental in a post-Covid 19 economy that is still dealing with inflation and recession.
Next, if there were countermodels to be run, SIDE OPP would not support a Home Guarantee for all, but only for the most vulnerable, or support a Home Guarantee that is only for either home purchasers or renters but not both. On the comparative, rental properties need to be more affordable versus home purchasing. Even though it doesn’t offer exponential long-term stability like purchasing, it can be regulated, better controlled with oversight, and thus, a short-term solution is better than a full revamp. Renters need market alleviation now. This means renters are often comprised of immigrant families with limited credit to purchase. There are also single parent families and/or older seniors on a fixed income that cannot afford property upkeep. Why is this not permeable by SIDE PROP? Because SIDE PROP is locked in the motion that states they must “guarantee all” and not a portion.
Housing is often a difficult topic because you must understand the mortgage industry and how wholesale lenders and investors work. It often is too difficult to regulate back to the days before deregulation in the early 1990s. Other factors such as AirBnBs offset the market as well. Some countries have banned or limited AirBnBs to allow for more available housing to be on the market as supply chain issues continue which impact new buildouts. But with overpopulation and immigration issues around the world, housing continues to be a massive problem for all governments. It is a precarious balance between government, investors, and lending institutions.
Further Reading
Homes Guarantee Campaign Demands Housing for All - Progressive.org
This House believes that social media activism has done more harm than good to the feminist movement.
Context
Social media activism has grown more popular in recent years, especially in progressive social movements. As feminism continues to remain central to social movements, particularly considering rapidly changing political climates around the world, considering the mechanisms by which such movements operate is central to ensuring their success. This debate comes down to the comparative weighing between quantity and quality in the feminist movement.
Framing
With performative activism motions, the heart of the debate generally centers around a quantity versus quality debate– specifically, whether it is better to have more people aware of an activist movement or to have a smaller number of people involved who are more educated on the issue.
The burden should likely center around which side of the house is able to create more progress for women, but to identify a metric for that progress, you need to characterize what feminist activist progress actually looks like. Specifically, the proposition would likely benefit from arguing that the purpose of activism is to create meaningful change through small steps, whereas the opposition could argue that it simultaneously bears an important role in forming communities for dialogue. There is a lot of literature about the importance of safe spaces for dialogue in feminism, and I would suggest turning to experts such as Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, and Patricia Hill Collins for guidance.
Furthermore, when describing the goals of activism, focus on the mechanisms social media activism specifically relies on: immediacy and reach. If you include these mechanisms in your framing, it will give you a foundational idea to base arguments on that you can later use to weigh or do prerequisite analysis.
Next, identify the purpose of the motion. The obvious exigence deals with the prevalence of social media activism across social movements, but considering the current political climate, this has evolved further. In a world where misinformation is rampant, how can we prevent social media activist movements from being delegitimized, and is it even possible to do so?
What does feminism include? Feminism is a multifaceted topic, and drawing examples from diverse ways in which feminism impacts society has the potential to strengthen your analysis and magnify its implications. For instance, much of the relevant literature suggests the embedding of feminism in topics like queer issues and labor struggles, and this could give you unique mechanisms to access your arguments. The basis of the topic and the goal of the debate should be to empower the feminist movement, so understanding both feminism and the purpose of activism should be a central focus of framework and prep.
Even though this is a harms versus benefits motion, in order to understand whether something is harmful or not, it is important to understand what the alternative is. Essentially, to consider whether social media activism in feminist has harmed society, consider whether a world without that activism would be worse. Providing some sort of characterization of what this world would look like gives you some more offense in the debate, and it is much easier for a judge to vote for you when they have a clear understanding of your world.
Proposition
On the proposition, you are incredibly unlikely to win the scope arguments in the debate– inherently, social media gives you access to reach a larger population. Thus, your arguments need to tackle why the reach is not as important as the quality of activism being done. Because of this, you want to set up your arguments so that the metaweighing is incredibly apparent by the end of the round– the idea of magnitude being more important than scope should start off in the very first speech.
Similar to most performative activism motions, the main proposition arguments focus on social media activism detracting from the initial movement and promoting a disappointing lack of legitimate education.
Especially in the current political climate, social media activism enables detractors to trivialize important campaigns as being trends rather than legitimate social causes. For instance, in the advent of initiatives like posting black squares for the Black Lives Matter movement or posting an AI-generated image of All Eyes on Rafah, a considerable amount of conservative dialogue posits that younger people only care about these issues because they are “trendy”, not because they are of legitimate concern. The impacts of this type of initiative can be extended to feminist movements as well, including #MeToo and #SayHerName. Because such actions lack any meaningful messaging or dialogue, it becomes easy for those on the other side of the political spectrum to generalize social causes and oversimplify them. If we as a society choose to oversimplify issues that are inherently deeply complex, it is impossible to blame those that oppose us for doing the same, and social media activism exacerbates this problem. An example of this in modern politics is the conflation of teaching essentially any race-related issue in schools with Critical Race Theory. While the opposition may argue that detractors of progressivism will always find a way to discredit movements, it is unstrategic to enable them in that goal. The impact of this is simple– social movements that have the potential to create meaningful change lose their traction, dampening societal progress.
Next, social media activism diverts attention from movements towards actual change and dilutes the voices of the oppressed. As sheltered individuals make the decision to post their black square, they feel as though they have contributed something, and thus, their work is done. Regardless of the fact that their actions were entirely ineffectual, this makes them feel as though they have contributed something meaningful, diluting the movement. More concerning, however, is that the voices most prominent on social media are those whose voices are most palatable– those who have high followings or those who are socioeconomically advantaged. As a result, the voices of those who are often the most impacted by social movements are fundamentally lost. The way you develop this argument depends on how you frame the purpose of activism. If the purpose of activism is to uplift the voices and goals of the oppressed, then social media activism is a catastrophic failure. Beyond this, a large opposition argument will likely be that social media activism creates interest in social issues so that change can eventually be made. Consider developing your case to explain that people involved in social media activism are unlikely to take future steps or that the type of interest social media activism creates is generally far too surface level to inspire legitimate action. When the voices of people who are actually harmed are diluted, any impact that happens from this activism is less impactful than it potentially could have been because the initial goals of the movement have shifted. If you define the purpose of activism as uplifting the marginalized, this means that social media activism does not fulfill its purpose. This also leads to a broader normalization of involvement in social movements to avoid being problematic rather than to create change, a social shift that creates a long-term dampening of progress.
Opposition
I think the strongest arguments on the opposition deal with prerequisites. Specifically, if arguments on the proposition are primarily discussing the importance of having quality movements, we are still left with a question: absent social media activism, especially for people who are particularly marginalized in their communities, how do marginalized people mobilize and connect with one another? Societal cultural shifts are a prerequisite to broader mobilization, and social media activism creates the initial cultural shift. The process of forcing people to recognize an issue and become interested in it suddenly takes much longer. The benefits of social media activism in this way are apparent through initiatives that have already happened. For instance, while some social media aspects of the Black Lives Movement were ineffective, the movement as a whole brought substantial national media attention towards the issue, so while information was not embedded in the actual social media activism, people becoming informed was an effect of the awareness spread from that activism. Thus, it does not necessarily matter that the social media activism itself was devoid of actual information because that information still ultimately reached far more people than it otherwise would have. Absent social media activism, the cultural shift in values that precedes more organized movements never happens, preventing progress and the identification of these issues in the first place. More so, if you choose in framing to discuss the importance of safe spaces for dialogue, when this large-scale awareness does not happen, crafting such spaces and connecting with others who share your identity is much more difficult. This leads to feelings of isolation, a lack of solidarity, and thus decreased efficacy of activism.
The most intuitive argument deals with scope. The reason awareness of social issues is important beyond organized activism is in daily interactions– for instance, when people become more aware of feminist ideologies and movements, they are more likely to recognize their internal biases. Regardless of how much grassroots campaigning happens, no form of activism can spread awareness as quickly as social media activism. An interesting manifestation of this is the recent popularization of the 4B movement in the United States, which has drawn increased international attention towards how strongly women feel about Nick Fuentes’ inflammatory comment “your body my choice”.
The examples in favor of the opposition are substantial, particularly in regards to feminism. For those of you who debated the NDAs topic last year, you may recall the exposure of Harvey Weinstein resulting in increased momentum for the #MeToo movement, which encouraged women to speak out about sexual violence. The #TimesUp movement organized by Hollywood celebrities to raise money against sexual violence. Internationally, the #NiUnaMenos in Argentina tackled the brutal murders of young Argentinian women.
Despite the criticism surrounding social media activism, it is plausible to argue that absent those movements in a world governed by short-form media, people lack sufficient interest to create large-scale mobilization.
