Last Batch of TX Motions: Covering Secession, Unions, and Political Advertising
We’re back with the last batch of TA motion topic analyses! This topic analysis will cover:
This House would ban targeted political advertising by Brandon Batham & Edna Yeghnanyan
This House supports the rise in unionization by Suchit Ineni
This House supports the right to secession by SunHee Simon
We hope that these excellent pieces of writing can continue to help your schools succeed. As always, this is a starting point and we can’t wait to see what you all come up with. Don’t forget to follow us on Instagram and/or Facebook to keep updated. Happy reading!
This House would ban targeted political advertising.
Context
Since the dawn of the political campaign, political organizations–candidates/campaigns, political parties, PACs, and interest groups–have worked to find ways to maximize their resources when conducting voter outreach. Each generation of political campaigns has ushered in new ways to connect with voters. In the mid-20th century, we saw the first use of television advertisements for a political candidate. At the turn of the 21st century, political organizations began to utilize new technology to more specifically identify and target the voters with whom they are trying to connect. In the past decade, the practice of targeting voters has ballooned to the point that nearly all political campaigns–from presidential races to school board contests–are targeting voters to inform them, identify their supporters, and turn them out to vote.
It’s important to note that there are two different ways that political organizations target voters. The first, which is essentially used universally, is the use of publicly available information to generate base-level data on each voter. After someone registers to vote, some or all of the information that they share on their voter registration form becomes publicly available data. This data typically includes the voter’s name, address, mailing address, date of birth, phone number, e-mail address, and voter registration information (party affiliation, date of registration, preference for absentee/vote by mail ballots, etc.). Even after someone has registered to vote, organizations are able to identify which elections the voter participated in to determine their likelihood to vote in any given future election.
In practice, this method is what typically produces the most widely used forms of voter outreach. Political organizations use the publicly available data (typically through what is known as a “voter file” database) to narrow down the individuals who should receive their targeted outreach efforts (phone calls, mailers, door-to-door canvassing). As an example, the Democratic Party is unlikely to spend money mailing a postcard for a statewide race to a voter who is a registered Republican, or prioritize sending a volunteer to knock on the door of a registered Democrat who has a history of voting in every single election to remind them to show up and vote for a Democrat running for Congress in a presidential year.
The second method, which is not as widespread but is growing substantially, is the use of supplemental data obtained by data brokers or other private means. This data is information that is not publicly available, and typically includes demographic and personal interest information gleaned through examining an individual's online footprint. Data brokers typically obtain an individual’s information by purchasing browsing data and history from websites and placing those individuals in “identifier” groups with each new piece of information they obtain, all in real time. Data brokers are the reason you see ads for a certain type of product or service after you have searched online for that product or service (or something similar or related to it).
In practice, political organizations use data that they’ve purchased from data brokers (or even other political organizations) to supplement the publicly available information they have, and then use all of the data to conduct microtargeting for their voter outreach efforts. Microtargeting is most prevalent in online and social media advertising, where political organizations will use the same tactics used by any given advertiser to present a specifically tailored message to a specific “identifier” group. As an example, a political organization may broadcast an ad about a candidate who supports significant efforts to tackle climate change for an individual with a history of reading a large number of news articles about the environment.
Framework
This debate is likely to center around that second method of political targeting. It would be difficult and unreasonable for side Proposition to advocate for the banning of all targeting methods, particularly when most (if not all) of the data used in that first method is publicly available.
Both sides of the house should operate with the understanding that “This House” is a democratic state that holds free and fair elections. It’s obviously unreasonable to have this debate centered in a world where voters are suppressed or coerced into voting a specific way or not voting at all. You cannot have a debate about democratic or societal principles within an inherently undemocratic context.
Targeted political advertising is potentially the space with the most gray area within framework. While side Proposition is likely to want to focus exclusively on online and social media advertising, side Opposition would be wise to point out that targeted advertising could also include everything from political mailers and postcards to robocalls. The simplest way to avoid a messy framework debate about what is and is not targeted political advertising is for both sides to address the issues inherent to those targeted online ads, as there is plenty of Prop and Opp ground to cover.
Finally, as a “would” motion, side Proposition is responsible for providing a model through which they uphold the motion. Because most political organizations tend to operate within a concentrated time frame (in the leadup to an election), we recommend setting models (and Opposition countermodels) focused on data brokers and sellers of online advertising. This allows the debate to focus on the principle and practical without getting too far into the weeds about the more specific details of what enforcing a ban would look like when actions would be taken against entities that only exist for short periods of time.
Proposition
There are a great number of principle arguments that side Proposition has going for them. The first, and most obvious, is that targeted political advertising has the effect of deepening political polarization within society. When consumers see the same political messages over and over again, we see the formation of echo chambers that create the type of tribalism that has become prevalent in modern politics. Recent history has shown us that the more an individual becomes inclined and contained within their side of the political spectrum, the more likely they are to begin to hold a level of contempt for the opposing side.
Targeted ads tend to be used both to bolster one candidate or side of an issue, and to demonize or attack an opposing candidate or side of an issue. This is why you’ll see those unflattering pictures of Joe Biden or Donald Trump, with a negative message associated with that picture. Political organizations use targeted ads because they want you to oppose “the other side” as much as you support their side. If a voter can be polarized to the point that they become essentially locked in to a particular camp, the resources no longer have to be spent to persuade or inform that voter–but rather, just to turn them out to vote because you know they’ll almost always vote in your favor. Banning targeted political ads does not eliminate political polarization, but it makes it significantly harder for political organizations to weaponize polarization in their favor.
Somewhat adjacent to polarization is the principle of combating misinformation. The most concrete example of targeted political advertising being used as a tool to spread misinformation was revealed in the Cambridge Analytica data breach, where it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica (a data firm) acquired and sold the private Facebook data of approximately 90 million people. This data was purchased and used by multiple presidential campaigns, as well as other foreign interests, and used to spread misinformation about political issues and candidates on social media and beyond. Political organizations can use targeted ads (on websites and social media) to spread misinformation or mischaracterizations, all in an effort to win their issue or election. Again, banning those ads does not solve the issue of misinformation, but it absolutely takes a big chunk out of the problem.
The final key principle argument has to do with the data that makes targeted political advertising possible. Side Proposition can argue that the very nature of this data violates the principle of privacy, and that data brokers and advertisers exploit personal information for their own gain. Note that this is a fairly stock principle argument that can be run when dealing with topics or motions about digital advertising or data privacy.
The first area in which to tackle this has to do with consent–when a consumer agrees to “accept all cookies” upon visiting a website, they are often unaware about the scope of what they are agreeing to allow. The consent that is being given through these agreements is often not informed consent, and therefore cannot be used to justify the exploitative nature of the exchange of data.
A second area within this principle argument is that sharing personal data is inherently immoral. The type of data sold by data brokers can be incredibly personal, like medical conditions and history, shopping habits, website browsing history, personal relationships and communications, and so much more. The act of capturing and selling this data is very easy to characterize as morally repugnant, and even more so when its impacts cross into democracy. Targeted political ads in particular can use data that paints a very specific profile of the target, which permits political organizations to prey on fear, bias, and anger within communities. Political organizations use this immoral practice to obtain their goals, and it is simple to claim that end does not justify the means in the case of political advertising and use of personal data.
Establishing a simple model–where data brokers and online advertisers are prohibited from selling data or ads to political organizations, and penalized if they do–should satisfy side Proposition’s burden to mechanize how they would ban targeted political advertising. Again, it is simpler to place the action on entities that exist beyond any given election year. In the case of political campaigns and candidates, it is often not revealed that an ad purchase has been made until after the fact when campaign finance disclosure reports are due for a period of time in the leadup to an election.
Opposition
There is plenty of ground to oppose this motion, too. The easiest path to the ballot for side Opposition is to characterize Proposition’s world as only viewing the worst of actors in targeted political advertising, and that such a worldview does not justify a blanket ban against all targeted political ads.
On principle, side Opposition can argue that a ban on targeted political advertising violates the principle of freedom of expression. Restricting a political organization’s ability to tailor their message to a specific audience makes it more difficult to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. In a digital age, where information is spread more quickly than ever before in human history, political organizations should be able to engage with voters on those voters’ terms. One of the key factors in modern digital political advertising is the ability to tailor a message unique to a specific region or neighborhood, which can be argued is good for democracy because it allows politicians to engage more directly with their constituents.
Furthermore, side Opposition can argue that targeted political ads are crucial to creating an engaged electorate. Simply put, democracy is better when more people participate in it. If a practice can be linked to driving up voter turnout or participation in civil discourse, then that practice is inherently good for democracy. To make this argument, it is crucial that side Opposition has laid the groundwork to argue that a ban should not be implemented because of the justification provided by only the worst actors. It’s important to argue that targeted political advertising largely does what it is meant to do, which is to inform and engage voters. There will always be bad actors within any given space, and throwing out targeted political advertising because of a handful of those actors can have the unintended consequence of making our society less informed and more politically stagnant.
Similar but distinct is the principle argument that targeted political advertising creates a path for otherwise underfunded or low-resource political organizations to operate competitively. A ban on these ads would significantly favor more well-established political organizations like major political parties, interest groups, and powerful incumbents who can raise the kind of money required to run television ads and blast mailers to a broader range of voters. Targeted political advertising can be used as a tool for smaller or less established political groups to make their voices heard. By allowing for these groups to tailor their message to a specific audience, they can optimize their advertising budget and compete more effectively against those larger, more well-funded political organizations. Side Opposition can even argue that, because of this, we are more likely to see change happen because empowering these smaller and less-established political entities is disruptive to the status quo, and so many people are so disenchanted with the political status quo that they withdraw from the democratic process entirely.
An Opposition countermodel likely looks like reforms instead of bans. It’s crucial, however, that side Opposition mechanize those reforms instead of just asserting that they will or should happen. For inspiration, look to reforms passed by the European Union that regulate the use of targeting in political advertisements, which essentially require greater transparency from ad sellers and data brokers when it comes to data points that are used to create a target audience. Additionally, a countermodel might require a more concrete opt-in method for consumers to permit seeing target political advertisements online. This can be mechanized by simply requiring a unique secondary “agree to political ads” on platforms who sell targeted political ad space. If a consumer does not opt-in, they are precluded from being subjected to those ads and would be limited to non-political ads on that platform.
Conclusion
The thing that is most shocking about political targeting is how much of it is done with publicly available information. Most people do not realize how much of their personal information becomes public knowledge when they register to vote or participate in democracy. When you supplement that public information with proprietary information sold by data brokers, you have a recipe for the type of political problems that our global society has seen in recent years. However, like with all targeted ads, there are benefits to honing a message to a specific audience, and there are more good actors than bad. This debate, like any good World Schools Debate round, has to be won on the comparative. Side Proposition needs to demonstrate the urgency that is required to address rampant polarization, misinformation, and a lack of online privacy, and explain how their world in which a ban occurs is better than the world we live in now. Side Opposition needs to demonstrate that, for all its faults and issues, a world with targeted political advertising is still significantly better than a world without it, and that side Propositions concerns can be addressed with reforms instead of an outright ban.
We hope this topic analysis has been helpful as you start to consider how to approach this motion!
Further Reading
Brandon Batham is the Coach at Burbank High School in California. He was the coach of the 2022 and 2023 NSDA Champions in World Schools Debate, West Los Angeles Violet.
Edna is a Junior at Burbank High School, where she competes in a variety of events--but loves Worlds most of all. She was an NSDA Quarterfinalist in Congressional Debate, and volunteers her time to help coach students from multiple schools.
This House supports the rise in unionization.
It feels like we’ve had over a dozen motions over the last couple of years regarding unions. Whether it be recognizing the right to strike or the validity of teacher unions, we’ve explored the effectiveness of collective bargaining many times. However, every motion has its own unique nuances, and this is no exception.
Context
The wording of this motion does seem a bit unintuitive when looking at unions in the status quo. In 1983, over 20% of American workers were union members, compared to just 10.1% in 2022. This trend holds true for most Western countries as well. In a similar timeframe, union membership dropped by 12% in the UK despite a 15% increase in population. Even countries such as Denmark and Sweden, two of the most highly unionized nations on the planet, are seeing reductions in union membership rates, albeit they are incredibly high.
However, there are other examples where unions are rising. In 2020, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that gig workers could unionize. While still not widespread, this sets a precedent that could impact millions. New York also passed a similar bill. This extends unionization to people who aren’t workers in the traditional sense, such as Uber and Doordash drivers.
The US House of Representatives has been trying to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act for the past several years. It’s been passed by the House twice but struck down by the Senate. The bill would make it more difficult for employers to counteract unions as well as make it easier for workers to organize. India has had a stretch of a couple of decades where unionization for the informal economy has increased tremendously. On top of this, the actual support for unions has been increasing. Union approval rates are close to 70%, having come up almost 20% since the 2009 recession.
Now for the specifics of this motion: This motion was selected in the context of the Hollywood Writers’ Strike. On May 2nd of this year, the Writers Guild of America went on strike. There were many causes of this, but the main ones were the threat of artificial intelligence, lack of residuals, imparity in payment, and reduced team sizes.
Threat of AI
With the rise of AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT and Google Bard, many writers were scared of losing their jobs. Writers wanted chatbots to be used as a tool to help enhance the ability of workers instead of being used to replace them.
Lack of residuals
This comes in a world of increased streaming services. Residuals are basically royalties in the entertainment business. When negotiated for, those who work on the film receive a percentage of the revenue of a film or series that has had its rights sold to another entity. In simpler terms, actors wanted a cut of the profits when studios sell the license of products to streaming services like Netflix.
Parity
Those at the top make a lot more than the people at the bottom. Writers wanted to increase the minimum wage that had been established in the industry and extend it for those who are writing for products that will be on streaming services rather than just for those writing for broadcast TV.
Reduced Team Sizes
Writers wanted to keep team sizes up in order to ensure that more writers would be getting jobs.
The writers’ strike ended at the end of September with a new deal that was ratified by 99% of the union. However, the Actors Union is still on strike.
Framing
Despite the fact that the motion refers to the rise of unionization, unions have been in a fall over the last 30-40 years. There has been a very recent shift in support for unions since 2020. Now, regardless of specificities and technicalities, the heart of the motion is about unions themselves, not recent developments.
On prop, the stance is really straightforward. The prop should support unions in their current iteration and prefer a world where unions become even more prevalent.
On the opp, it’s a bit more tricky. There are two ways that you can go with this motion. First, you can directly oppose the wording of the motion. That is to say, you are opposing the rise of unionization in recent times. To do so, you need to actually prove that there has been a rise in unionization. Then, you need to find unique detriments from the rise of unionization and prove that the previous, weaker iteration of unions was superior.
As a former Worlds debater, I always recommend taking a hard-line stance. From personal experience, I can attest that judges hate it when you try to paint your world as an incredibly similar one to the other side. In World Schools, it’s important to stick to the heart of the motion, and as a coach/judge, it makes the round far more enjoyable. This stance would be difficult first on a truth level. Especially in developed countries, unionization hasn’t been rising. On top of that, you’d be conceding to a lot of prop’s offense by agreeing that unions are beneficial for workers. Playing the game of margins is generally a much riskier strategy, and crossing the house by infringing on prop’s ground is usually frowned upon.
The second stance you can take is just opposing unions straight up. Obviously, you don’t need to prove that everything that unions have done has resulted in harming people, but you do need to prove that unions create a net harm.
Prop
In order to prove that the rise of unionization is good, the prop needs to talk about the structural advantages of unions and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is the process where multiple people come together in order to advocate for better working conditions and compensation as a group rather than as individuals. When doing so as a group, the primary benefit comes in the form of leverage.
As an individual, you won’t have much power. You are replaceable. If you ask for too much, you can get fired and replaced by someone else who wants the same job. In general, there are more people who want a job than there are jobs available. That’s why we have unemployment in the first place. I am going on a bit of a tangent, but the way the economy works is by cycling people around from job to job in order to limit the duration that people are unemployed and maximize the efficiency of the economy by placing workers in roles that they are best suited to. While companies don’t necessarily want to lose employees, they are willing to do so in order to get candidates who are better suited for a job. When an individual asks for too much from the employer, the employer has no reason to comply. Employers undervalue workers and consider them replaceable, so they are willing to take the risk of losing the worker by not complying. Collective bargaining destroys this unjust power dynamic. When a large group of employees come together to ask for something, it is in the best interest of the employer to make a good-faith effort to negotiate. The union has the ability to strike, which would be incredibly detrimental to the company. When times get rough enough, workers can collectively refuse to work. By doing so, the corporation cannot continue operations. Even if the company wants to hire more people, the process of training all the new employees, many of whom lack experience, is incredibly costly and inefficient.
On top of this, there is the legal aspect. It’s very difficult for individuals to fight against a corporation in a court of law. Lawyers and court proceedings are very expensive. Regular people can’t afford them. This provides employers the ability to be shady with their practices in a world without unions. It’s nearly impossible to challenge them. Unions have the ability to fight back against this. For starters, unions represent the entirety. This means that one court case can be used in the place of multiple. Secondly, unions have a lot more capital. They generate revenue through union fees and can hire lawyers. This acts as another checkback against corporations.
Finally, there’s the issue of political standing. The warrants for this argument are similar to legal power. In order to get favorable legislation passed, interest groups need to advocate to politicians. This is called lobbying. In fact, most bills that are actually read on the congressional floor are actually written entirely by lobbyists. In a world without unions, the only entities that can lobby are those with power, which would be corporations. In order to act as a checkback against corporate interests and for worker interests to be considered by legislation, unions are needed. With their money and political power, they can influence politicians in a way regular people simply cannot.
Opp
I think the most strategic way for an opposition team to debate is by opposing unions in their entirety. With that being said, I’m going to be giving y’all arguments as for why unions are harmful.
The first one is the economy. This is a purely practical argument. Union activities, such as strikes, are harmful to the economy. By shutting down a sector of the economy, many people are harmed. For example, when the Writers Union was striking, all of Hollywood was shut down. Even now with the Actors Union striking, the state of Hollywood is very precarious. The result of striking is economic hardships that affect everyone. Right now, actors aren’t getting paid. They aren’t getting new projects. Whenever athlete unions such as the NBPA hold out on contract negotiations, the result is a shortened season with less revenue and lower salaries. On top of decreased pay for those partaking in strikes, the employer loses out on money. This results in all workers, not just the ones striking to face budget cuts, layoffs, and reduced pay/bonuses. On a macro level, strikes reduce investment. Businesses invest when they have surplus money and confidence of profitability. This risk taking is crucial for the state of the economy. When businesses have more money, they can research new fields. This results in innovation, which results in increased quality of life for users as well as new job openings. This is especially crucial right now with the rise of AI threatening many jobs.
The second argument here is regarding efficiency. When unions are the ones dealing with all the negotiations regarding workers, all complaints have to go through the bureaucracy. This means that union members have to go to a meeting, explain their grievance, petition fellow members for it to be considered, let it go to a vote, and then the leaders decide how to pursue the issue. This results in a much longer time for issues to be dealt with, which is especially harmful in times when there are sudden shifts in the economy. The comparative is where individuals who have issues are able to immediately report them to their HR department or managers.
Beyond that, there’s the issue of homogeneity. Unions can only represent one viewpoint, which leaves everyone else in the dust. This is especially harmful because unions use up nearly all the political capital of the workers. Executives and directors tell those under them complaining to go through the union, except the union cannot adequately represent them. Even at the best case where a union does accurately represent the majority, which usually isn’t the case, this results in a minority that isn’t represented in bargaining. This can be weighed on a principled level to prove that sacrificing a minority for the sake of the ‘greater good’ is a horrible standard to abide by. This is especially true considering that it's usually the most vulnerable that we’re talking about in said minority group.
The last argument is going to be about tensions. Unions themselves are incredibly decisive. This comes in the form of workers being on one side of the rift and executives and managers on the other. When a union advocates for specific rights or agreements, it always comes at the expense of executives. If it were mutually beneficial, there wouldn’t be any discussion needed in the first place. Executives see a union as an entity trying to harm them and are thus victimized. Additionally, there is the stigma around unions as an entity that stops productivity and gets as little done as possible. The impact of this increased tension is a more hostile work environment. This can come in many different forms, some more trivial, such as increased micromanagement, to a lack of communication, stricter rules, fewer internal promotions, and even potentially harassment. But at its core, it takes the human element out of a workplace and turns it into nothing more than a cold, hard business.
Concluding Thoughts:
On its surface, this definitely feels like prop-skewed motion, but opp definitely has a lot of ground. Rounds are primarily going to be practical, and there isn’t an intuitive principle that isn’t hung on winning a practical component. The principled aspect is going to come into weighing different actors.
Both sides also are likely going to play huge into workers’ rights and conditions. It wouldn’t surprise me if the well-being of workers is the burden by both sides in every round that I watch. As the impacts are largely the same, this seems to be a mechanization motion. It’s going to be very important to focus on internal links and have a lot of warrants for every argument. For the back-bench of the round, it’d be very helpful to have a lot of prewritten extensions as the debate is likely to get really technical. While there should be plenty of clash, it might be difficult for the third speakers to differentiate into multiple clash points depending on how the round plays out. The biggest piece of advice that I can give is to be very explicitly comparative. In each of your subs, spend a little time focusing on how the other side cannot access your benefits.
Further Reading
Suchit Ineni is a student at The University of Texas at Dallas double majoring in Mathematics and Information Technology Systems. He competed in World Schools debate for three years and is currently an assistant coach at Coppell High School
This House supports the right to secession.
Context
There are a couple of things that need to be known about this motion before getting into potential arguments. First, let’s start with definitions and motion types.
This motion seems to be a value motion. This means that while we can certainly look at the consequences of our actions, ultimately it is about whether it is ethical to support secession. Even so, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are propositions that define what version of secession they are defending. A few countries have the right to secession in their constitutions and calling for secession looks different and different places.
This brings us wonderfully to the definition portion of the topic analysis. Secession is defined as “an area or group becoming independent from the country or larger group that it belongs to”[1]. Sure, this definition means that it might not only apply to countries but it is fair to assume the framers did intend for this discussion to be about groups within countries as opposed to organizations. I’ve seen a couple of articles mentioning school districts seceding but this isn’t LD or Policy (as much as I love them) so we don’t need to cherry pick a particular scenario. The topic literature also assumes countries and groups within them when discussing secession most of the time so for the sake of debating the heart of the motion we should assume this as well.
There are many popular historical examples that can come to mind when thinking of secession. For example, Confederate States seceding from the Union in the United States or Texas leaving Mexico during the Texas Revolution. These examples also bring up an interesting perspective on the idea of secessions and revolutions. Are secessions and revolutions the same? Are they distinct? I’m not sure there is a definite answer to this but after pondering it over myself I’m of the conclusion that all revolutions are secessions but not all secessions are revolutions. Why? This can be found in the fact that there are several countries that have the right to secede built into their constitutions - some more obviously than others. For example, in Canada, unilateral secession is not allowed but it can be established via a majority vote. In Ethiopia, its constitution explicitly “proclaims the ‘unrestricted’ right of ‘Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ to ‘self-determination up to secession’ (Article 39.1)” [2]. The United Kingdom even considers secession permissible since its constitution does not explicitly allow or forbid it. A lot of these exceptions apply to territories or countries that are plurinational because there are clear factions or territories that could secede (ie: Scotland with the U.K. or the Oromo in Ethiopia). For those unfamiliar, plurinational means “there are several peoples (mostly indigenous communities) living in a nation state” [3]. In all of these contexts, if secession were to happen, it would be done through a referendum or any other democratic procedure. This can be revolutionary but does not really check all the boxes we think of when we think of revolutions or rebellions. Essentially, a secession would prioritize the legal and proper means to sever. A revolution would prioritize severing by any means necessary.
Furthermore, it might be useful to know about current separatist movements so you can see what these movements have been preaching for. You can also use these movements to flesh out your arguments for or against the motion. From the Anglophones in Cameroon pushing for the creation of Ambazonia to the independence movements of French Guiana, there are so many reasons and so many examples of how and why groups push for separation. You can find a full list from Wikipedia organized by continent to guide your more in depth research on other sites.
Proposition
There are two major areas I’d start with when thinking about the proposition: sovereignty/social contract style arguments and democratic legitimacy.
First, on discussions of sovereignty and the social contract. I find this aspect of the debate fascinating because I truly find it debatable. On the idea of the social contract, despite there being many versions of it, a well-known aspect of the social contract is that if the government fails to do its job, the people have every right to rise up. How does this directly interact with secession? Well, in most cases, calls to secession are based on this failure. Whether it is that the government is ignoring an ethnic group, the government has failed to establish a clear claim to the land it occupies, or because of extreme political dissent, secession is rooted in a clear sense of dissatisfaction. One does not wake up one day deciding to divide a country on a whim. This right is necessary as a crucial check on governments to constantly meet the demands of its people, within reason. Note, additionally, that the motion says the right to secession. The proposition is not saying that everyone should secede right now, but that it is an important aspect of being a part of a political body. It is a crucial negotiation tactic and persuasive threat against the ruling class. Without this right, there is no way to steer a straying nation back on track.
However, let's say for whatever reasons, the social contract is not what a team wants to focus on regarding prep. This is fine because this right can still be principally justified by the right to sovereignty. For those unfamiliar, sovereignty is defined as “the right of a nation or group of people to be self-governing”[4]. As articulated above, secession often applies to plurinational states–areas where various groups reside under one umbrella nation or government. While it may have been politically advantageous to merge these areas at some point in history, this doesn’t mean it is right nor does it mean it should continue to be viewed as inherently ethical. If sovereignty allows for groups the ability to self-govern, why shouldn’t ethnic groups with little representation in the status quo secede to gain access to self-governance? If they don’t have a stake to claim this right, why does this apply to the mother nation they are trying to separate from? To put this more simply, we can look at places that are territories of larger nations or even historical stories of colonialism. Look at the United States before it gained its independence from Great Britain. They were taxed and treated as citizens when it came to extracting resources but when it came to representation and actual governance, this same decency did not apply. As a result, colonists in the U.S. actively pushed for self-governance and argued that at the very least they needed representation, otherwise, the British Empire had no right to infringe on their ability to take care of their own affairs. While Britain immediately rejected these assertions–and as such the Revolutionary War would soon be underway–this does not mean that the colonists did not have the RIGHT to secede from them. Empires, governments, and anything in between need sovereignty before they are seen as legitimate entities. If you cannot govern yourself, you cannot work with others, you cannot conquer others, you cannot protect your country and its inhabitants, you cannot be recognized by other legitimate nations, the list of problems goes on and on. As such, if we care about sovereignty we should care about the right to sovereignty for all, not just established nations. Keep in mind, sovereignty is not typically applied to individuals. As indicated in the definition, it applies to groups or nations at the very least. This means that the opposition cannot say it is infinitely regressive to recognize this right because any random person can call for secession. Oftentimes, the lines are clearly drawn across ethnic groups and the history is fairly clear concerning these plurinational groups.
On the flip side, if you don’t want to be too philosophical, there are other simple to understand and practical benefits to supporting the right to secession–especially in democracies. Now, why am I focusing on democracies? Well, looking at the motion, it seems to be that this is where our focus should be. If we entertained secession in authoritarian regimes, there would be no recognition of this right because there is no deliberation or voting or discussion to be had in the first place. A push away from an authoritarian regime will likely just be a revolution and there is really nothing the proposition or the opposition could do about this. In democracies, however, these issues can be brought up as referendums, they can be mentioned as a part of political platforms, they can even be brought to parliaments. Even in places that recognize secession as a constitutional right do not recognize it unilaterally. Rather it is something that is presented, discussed, and voted on. There are no examples of this being a legitimate option in authoritarian regimes so pretending there is seems a bit unnecessary.
As a result, secession can uphold democratic values in several ways. First, it can signal dissent and foster needed political discourse before it is too late. Second, it can peacefully legitimize or delegitimize secession movements.
Let’s start with political discourse and dissent. In a world where the right to secession is supported, it will always be a tool in the toolbox for groups within a nation. While some oppositions might claim that this makes it easy for people to run to a last resort (and that is their prerogative) what I think is more likely is that dissenters will feel more emboldened to share their discomfort before running to secede. Secession becomes a form of leverage to bring legitimate concerns to the table. When territories or ethnic groups are stuck within national control, there are little avenues for them to be able to properly complain about mistreatment or neglect. It is way too easy for even the best democracies to pretend that concerns are not legitimate and they can use traditional majority rule within democracies to do so. The great thing about secession is that it recognizes that even these smaller, distinct groups have a voice and are legitimate stakeholders and should be treated as such
Finally on the idea of legitimacy. Just because there is silence does not mean that there is peace. Separatist movements can exist and oftentimes these movements can grow in their aggressiveness based on a lack of recognition and constant shifting from their governments. When the right to secession is recognized, this allows for the demands of these movements to take center stage and let the people decide. Sometimes, secession is NOT wanted, even by people within a particular group. For example, the Falkland Islands voted on keeping their status as a British territory and the “yes” option won, with 99.8% votes for staying a British territory [5]. By winning by such an overwhelming margin, calls for separation died down significantly and the British control of the territory was further legitimized and seen as democratic. Likewise, if the vote is a majority but under the threshold for secession based on a constitution, or if a government refuses to comply with results, this can provide more legitimacy to separatist groups and can get them both domestic and international traction. The prop is of the mind that countries SHOULD prove their legitimacy and that being willing to do so often maintains their legitimacy.
Opposition
On the other hand, the opposition has some compelling arguments as well. I’ll focus on two: political paralysis and polarization.
Before getting into the actual arguments, however, I want to point out a necessary shift in perspective between the proposition and opposition. The proposition will largely focus on the principle and that the right to secession is important. This is fine, however, the opposition needs to find ways to bring arguments down to the practical. There are very few reasons that are purely principle (if any) and the ones that exist will likely look at the consequences of acknowledging this right in order to prove the point. I’d encourage that opposition teams take some time to flesh out the importance of either a) prioritizing the practical over the principle or b) looking at both the principle and practical in order to have the most offense in the round. Furthermore, the opposition should focus on what happens when the right is supported and/or recognized instead of just focusing on what happens when a secession takes place and fails. It is very easy to do the latter when coming up with arguments so beware. This topic analysis won’t focus on the latter because, frankly, I don’t think that’s really where the heart of the debate lies.
Now that that’s been established, let’s talk about the first area of focus: political paralysis. For those unfamiliar with the term, political paralysis refers to a government's inability to take action for a variety of reasons. Essentially, policymakers become so stuck in indecision that they come to little to no conclusions on what to do. Governments need policies in order to operate and need to make decisions in order to keep their countries together. As a result, a paralyzed state is often seen as a failing one. As articulated in the proposition section of this article, obviously, the prop is going to go hard for governments needing to prove their legitimacy. However, opposition needs to prove two things. First, that there are other better ways for governments to prove legitimacy. Second, that constantly being threatened and having to prove legitimacy is unnecessary at best and detrimental at worst. Let’s flesh out each respective part. On alternative ways to prove legitimacy, the system of democracy itself is able to create the best and most stable path for voicing dissent. Citizens can vote for or against particular candidates regarding their policies. They can run for office themselves if they meet the constitutional requirements within those countries. Reform is possible in a world where people buy into these traditional systems because their ballots are clear signals of change. On the other hand, the right to secession argues not only that reform is impossible but that it's time to throw out the baby with the bathwater. This kills discourse between governments and the people (especially those dissenting) because they can simply wash their hands of them by letting them go and/or letting them fail in their independent pursuits. On the second point of constantly needing to prove themselves, secession can be used as a threat to halt proper policy making. For example, if a policy does not go far enough, a recognized right to secede can be used to strong arm governments into more extreme actions or no actions at all. Not all separatist groups are legitimate and some can be more extreme than the population surrounding them are. These groups are given automatic legitimacy and a voice within political systems EVEN if they are an extreme minority. This detracts from the efficiency of democracy and arguably could lead to a tyranny of the minority.
The second area of focus is polarization. Since the beginning of democracies, the divides between different political ideologies have existed. Often informed by ethnicity, socioeconomic positions, and life experiences, these beliefs can foster personal investments from the people who hold them. In open, transparent democracies, this is not necessarily an issue. Different ideas and opinions often make these governments stronger. However, when the wrong conditions exist, these differences can get blown out of proportion and lead to political strife for all involved.
Polarization happens when those on differing ends on the political spectrum end up moving further and further away from each other, making compromise impossible. So how does the right to secession affect this? By signaling that it is a legitimate tool, it becomes more attractive. However, the problem doesn’t just come from it being an option. Recall, that secession requires being a part of a group. This would incentivize people to adopt more strict “us” vs “them” mentalities. The stricter the lines of difference, the easier it is to mobilize these groups. Understand that this does not only have to apply to politics. Polarization that grows in its influence can become a harmful, zealous form of nationalism that tears countries apart. These groups will actively disassociate from others in an attempt to maintain their own legitimacy as proof for a separatist movement. This is especially true in regions where long legacies of ethnic and tribal conflict are a part of their intertwined histories. The implications of this can be as small as uncooperative political efforts (the more they disagree, the more they can prove they don’t belong in the mother country) to larger, more violent issues like hate crimes and violent resistance to prove a point. Regardless, it adds fuel to a fire that did not need to grow in the first place. It could have easily been snuffed out by fostering more unity but the opportunity to use secession simply set it further ablaze.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, these are just starting points for an extremely interesting topic. There are so many things you all can do to really improve on the material I’ve provided. I hope I get to see some of these and even better arguments when judging some of you in the future. Best of luck!
