New Year, New Motions! Jan/Feb TFA Topic Analyses Include Sports, Service, NATO, and Infrastructure

Topic Analyses

Jan 2

Happy New Year, everyone! You’ve probably already picked your New Year’s resolutions but we have four more to add to your plate. We hope they can continue to be useful and we cannot wait to hear the amazing cases you all come up with. This TA will include:

“This House prefers investment in public transportation infrastructure over investment in automobile infrastructure” by Dawson Marold
“This House believes that NATO has done more harm than good” by SunHee Simon
“This House would implement a compulsory national service system” by Hanh Do
“This House supports a salary cap for professional sports teams” by Anthony Brown

Happy reading!

This House prefers investment in public transportation infrastructure over investment in automobile infrastructure.

Hi there, and Happy New Year! I hope the break has been treating you well, but of course, it is a new year and new motions. This topic over transportation infrastructure is one that we see less but sets up for an interesting, engaging debate.

Context

The increased carbon emissions and inefficiency of cars start to beg the question of whether or not we've outgrown these systems and if we should begin to rely on public systems. However, with new systems come new problems dealing with accessibility, equity, and efficiency. This debate answers this question by analyzing various types of government investment.

With that in mind, public transportation infrastructure (PTI) typically occurs in urban areas across the world, at least to some extent. Automobile infrastructure (AI) is the biggest in the US as well as in many developing countries due to the lack of urbanization.

Some countries with good PTI systems are Korea, China, and Switzerland. On the flip side, some countries with developed road systems are the US, India, and Mexico.

For some recent developments, the US earlier in December announced a new initiative worth $8.1 billion directed at building 10 different passenger railways across the country, including a new high-speed rail system between California and Nevada. In the past couple of weeks, the EU also announced a new agreement aimed at increasing the sustainability and multimodality of public transportation systems.

Framing

The first thing that likely comes to mind is the word prefers. Now before you copy-paste your bit about how you "still have access to both" thinking you did something, hear me out. Given that this motion is about investment, both sides have a direct tradeoff. This means that you have to prove not only why the method of infrastructure you support is good but also why it is preferable and thus should come at the expense of the other side. While you still can input your framing bit, I'd lean away from using it as an actual response in mid/late speeches, given that both sides have access to both mechanisms. These responses also start to run away from the crux of the motion, evaluating which type of infrastructure is better.

On prop, the stance is rather intuitive. You should support more investment in PTI (public transportation infrastructure) than AI (automobile infrastructure).

On opp, the stance can be twofold. First, just straight up supporting increased investment in AI. The second one is a little weird: you don't prefer one over the other and support both forms of investment to the same extent.

I am going to recommend going with the first stance because it gives you better access to direct offensive arguments (offensive arguments help build direct reasons why your side is good, so in this instance, arguments talking about the direct benefits of increased AI and why PTI leads to harms that worsen the status quo). Furthermore, the second stance requires a much harder burden of proof, which is why both forms of infrastructure are truly equal/require equal investment. Typically, this translates to you having less access to your impacts about why AI investment is good (because you have less funding than if you were actually to prefer it). Still, also, you don't access the same extent of benefits of PTI because prop has more investment in it. Your ground is then limited and sets you up to lose on either side of the bind. Also, it makes the debate way less enjoyable.

Now, let's move to characterizing both types of infrastructure. While I think explicitly defining what PTI and AI are is beneficial, it won't help build your world and let the judge know what you're defending unless you use characterization (characterization is when you take a stakeholder or mechanism and define what it looks like, so for this motion what does PTI look like? Do you want just train systems? Buses?).

Properly characterizing PTI is really crucial for prop strategy because so many of us (students, coaches, judges) aren't as familiar with it. Characterizing what PTI looks like is the easiest way to paint your world properly and let your judge have a clear understanding of what life could look like with increased PTI.

Some methods of PT are Trains, Metro, Trams, High-Speed Rails, Buses, and Ferries. I think you can also be creative and look for other mechanisms that aren't as relevant or could be implemented. For example, in Austin, the Metro system also has a program where they have bicycles you can check out. You could also think about the relationship of private vs. public entities when it comes to transportation when it comes to things like subsidies vs. total public control.

For automobile infrastructure, I think the most significant mechanism is likely to be road development. While this includes building new roads, it's also essential to consider other things like maintenance, lane expansions, etc.. You could include something about parking if your heart desires such, but I don't think this generates much unique offense.

Proposition

The first level of argumentation we can analyze is the principle. On principle, the biggest prop argument highlights the government as a stakeholder and how it makes decisions. This principle will serve to prove why PTI is more in line with the government's obligation and incentives. For this argument, you must first identify the government's incentives and obligations to its people (the easiest justification is the social contract in which citizens indirectly consent to give up certain rights and freedoms to access the government's resources and protection).

The next and most critical part of this argument is establishing why investing in PTI aligns with the government's obligation.

It can vary in which types of warranting and mechanisms you use. Still, the important thing to remember is to try as much as possible to only use warrants that are structural to PTI rather than any extra claim or assertion that requires you to win a practical argument. So, for example, if you make a principle about access and that governments have an obligation to provide transportation for their people, you must then have to prove the argument that PTI guarantees access, a practical argument.

There are some different types of warranting you can use to deal with current transportation allocation and future development. Essentially, most countries already have at least some development of road systems, but there is a greater lack of PTI. Thus, to help bridge that gap, governments ought to prioritize investment in PTI. You can also maybe cross-apply similar logic to the climate crisis.

The next warrant could be something about collectivism vs. individualism. In this, you would argue that the burden to provide transportation is on constituents rather than governments in a world of prioritized AI and that governments should actually bear the front of costs to provide means of transportation rather than constituents.

The next argument I want to talk about is sustainability. This argument is intuitive and likely to be run by most teams, so the way to stand out is to include various layers of warranting and developed impacts.

The argument states that more PTI decreases carbon emissions and is better for the environment. This argument has the most room for prop to include research and statistics about how bad cars are for the environment, how bad the environment is currently doing, etc.

First, you will have to establish why we care about the environment, what is happening to the environment, and then why PTI is the best way to help the environment.

The most intuitive warrant is mass transport, where you can fit many people into one transport rather than a bunch of different transports per person/unit. Some other warrants that can help build this argument deal with green technology and how it is easier/more effective to focus on green railways or buses rather than cars mainly because governments are the ones who pick it (would have to justify why they would and use examples like the new US initiative) compared to each person having to buy an EV which has a higher entry barrier with things like cost, proximity to chargers, etc.

For prop closing, I think teams should either dedicate arguments or have serious Blocks and A2s for access, as it is a pretty big argument for opp. For this, I'd consider the barrier of entry/maintenance of both mechanisms. So, for instance, with cars, you have to buy a car, insurance, gas, oil change, maintenance, and even tolls. Meanwhile, PTI usually costs much less, especially considering governments are also making it free in certain places to incentivize use. The only issue is typically proximity to PTI from your destination or your location.

Opposition

On opp, I recommend highlighting and primarily focusing on the developing world and communities left behind. This sets up a nice contrast to a lot of prop arguments by being more realistic rather than utopic and better fulfills more basic needs. It is also a good way to help weigh off against environmental claims when done correctly.

On principle, you can have a similar setup of the prop principle but change the warranting to prove why investment in AI is better suited for the government's obligation. These warrants can be about how roads are more diverse and set up for more personalized transportation or, further, about how everyone can utilize roads. In contrast, many times, PTI is set up in exclusive urban areas. Finally, we need to focus on roads first because they primarily benefit developing countries and allow them to better develop to be in a place where they can potentially think about increased PTI. Overall, the aim of the principle should lead back to autonomy and allow constituents to make the best decisions for themselves, which increased PTI can limit.

One thing that can help with coming up with practical arguments is to think about implementation and how governments can potentially use PTI to oppress or limit certain groups. Stronger teams will be able to show why, no matter where stations are placed, it always hurts, such as lack of access, potentially being exposed to increased pollution, gentrification, etc. This is also where you can talk about rural areas, as they have the most to lose, given that they almost exclusively rely on roads simply because that is all they have access to. This also makes sense, and any prop team claiming that they will have pristine PTI in rural areas is being very unrealistic (likely they are unable to guarantee with lack of fiat), or they are being very inefficient as those systems are less likely to be used due to lower population.

Overall, on opposition, the primary push should be towards autonomy and access on all levels and in all places. A big opportunity for these arguments relies on funding and implementation. Many times, PTI is much more expensive with an upfront cost, and it takes a lot of time to complete any projects and renovations (really important for answering climate change urgency). This is where teams can use research to poke holes in a prop case by providing cost numbers and project timelines, which also can help bolster narratives about any benefits the prop tries to provide

Concluding Thoughts

This topic sets up for a lot of direct impact comparison, even though the motion is a very comparative mechanistic debate. Thus, while in the round, try to spend a good amount of time on extending impacts and then directly comparing said impacts to show your judge/panel why your arguments are more important.

I hope this TA helped, and happy debating!

This House believes that NATO has done more harm than good.

Context

Before going any further, we need to quickly discuss the terms in the motion and then touch on the rich history surrounding NATO’s existence in the 20th and 21st centuries.

First, note that this is a believes motion. The proposition does not have to propose a counterfactual necessarily. The motion is worded clearly as this being about drawing a conclusion using cost-benefit analysis. That being said, the proposition should be comparative when it comes to discussing a world pre-NATO or without NATO. While it is, again, not necessary, it is a good strategy, especially on a motion that forces us to look at the consequences and reality of its existence.

Now that that has been established, let’s learn a little more about NATO. NATO is the acronym used for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As per their official website, it is a political and military alliance between North American and European countries. [1] There are currently 31 member nations: 29 in Europe and 2 in North America. Politically, it prioritizes the spread and protection of democratic values. Militarily, it is a collective security system. This means that if one nation is attacked by a third party, NATO members will rush to their defense.

Now, why would something like this get created? Get ready for a little World History lesson where I choppily summarize things from World War I, World War II, and the Cold War to put you in the minds of the leaders. If you’ve sat through history classes, you probably know about the many factors surrounding the First World War. In my classes, we like to use the acronym “M.A.N.I.A”. This stands for militarism, alliances, nationalism, imperialism, and assassination. As countries began to compete with one another for dominance in the European continent, they focused on building strong militaries, crafting strategic alliances, taking over new parts of the world, and stoking the idea that their nations were the best thing since sliced bread. Once Archduke Ferdinand was murdered (IYKYK), it set off a domino effect that plunged Europe into the deadliest crisis it had ever faced. While there were many reasons the war happened, please note that alliances were the reason it became so convoluted. Had the war just been between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, it would have been bad (because war is something most want to avoid) but it would not have been as catastrophic. Alliances with different countries forced France, Russia, Germany, and more to get involved in a conflict that otherwise didn’t directly concern them. Once the war was over and damage was done, the Treaty of Versailles was signed and the League of Nations was proposed. However, ironically, the United States refused to be a part of the League of Nations because it would require the United States to fight if any of the member nations were attacked (sound familiar). This sounded like a waste of money and political capital at the time and then President Woodrow Wilson refused to back it.

World War II had its own causes as well, namely the horrible treatment of Germany via the Treaty of Versailles that made it impossible to avoid extensive poverty and humiliation for years. However, another key problem emerges: alliances. Countries are forced into warfare in the name of protecting the values and the alliances they hold dear. However, in this war, we start to see the defining tensions that will define the Cold War: the protection of “democracy”. While the Soviet Union was already communist during World War II, the Allied powers (the United States, France, and the United Kingdom) took on the global mantle of fighting against fascism as represented by the Axis powers. They were willing to sacrifice money, troops, land, and more to hold the line on this. These strong commitments resulted in the deadliest war the world had ever seen (and hopefully will never see again). The United States’ dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a swift end to the world but also started a new war: a battle between hegemons otherwise known as the Cold War.

The Cold War is the main setting for the existence of NATO. The Soviet Union witnessed an immense display of power from the United States and refused to fall behind in military power or political influence. The new conflict became between democracy (read: capitalism) and communism. NATO was created to curtail the threat that the Soviet Union posed. It was created to maintain democratic power within the European continent and it was willing to put boots on the ground to do so. This resulted in the creation of the Warsaw Pact (an alliance between the Soviet Union and its allies). This was because the USSR saw NATO as a threat to ITS sovereignty and influence. While the Warsaw Pact did not stand the test of time, the desire to protect itself was something the USSR held onto even as it came to an end. In the ‘90s, it was claimed that the Bush administration promised Soviet leader Gorbachev that “NATO would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.” [2] Unfortunately, in the eyes of Vladimir Putin (and his predecessors), this promise has been broken–which leads us to some of the tensions we see today.

If you’ve been paying attention to Russia and Ukraine, Russia used Ukraine's wanting to join NATO as an excuse to invade. Ironically, Russia's invasion led to Finland and Sweden seeking to become a part of NATO to protect themselves. Finland has been admitted and Sweden is currently in the process. The process of entering NATO is a political one and has many requirements and steps that I won’t get into hear. However, adding states is certainly possible as we’ve seen recently and historically.

Prop

Now that we’ve established the context, let’s get into two potential arguments you might want to explore: rising tensions and colonialism.

Let’s start with rising tensions. When NATO first began, it was only 12 nations. However, despite its “small” size, it was still a huge threat to the USSR (and eventually Russia). As mentioned in the context section, this directly led to the same alliance structure being created by the USSR with its allies. The existence of this alone, regardless of whether or not anything happened, already shows what NATO truly promotes: aggressive responses made in the name of self-preservation. Had the Cold War gone “hot”, the world would have fully been launched into World War III–all of these allies had promised to fight to protect their political friends. When two countries are fighting, it is already fairly tense–they refuse to see eye-to-eye on diplomatic issues, their economic relationships are little to non-existent, and they will often bring their disputes with them when collaborating with other nations. Now, what happens when this number doubles? Triples? Quadruples? Those are more complicated relationships adding to a powder keg of resentment.

There are several routes you can take in this argument. First, is purely regarding soft power. Remember, NATO is a political alliance as well. If there are countries within NATO who do not like countries outside of the treaty, they can use their alliances within NATO to heighten problems between these nations. They can even prevent other nations from joining the treaty even if others might be interested in welcoming them–fostering even more resentment. For a long time, Sweden and Finland could not join NATO because Turkey and Hungary refused to let them, leading to increased tensions and much-needed political pressure from those within NATO to facilitate entrance. While Sweden and Finland have lucked out, other nations have not been so lucky. Second, you could also argue that NATO’s existence alone leads to more aggression. It is an open military alliance. NATO’s expansion is directly correlated with more aggressive Russian actions. Keep in mind that this alliance is also exclusive the the North Atlantic. Countries like China, or other developing countries (namely BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) appear to be more than willing to create strong relationships amongst themselves and with people outside of this “club” created by the United States. NATO incentivizes these alternative alliances, especially if these countries grow wary of the superiority of the West. Alongside these political threats, rising tensions also have tangible military threats as well. We are no longer the world that existed during or before World War II. There are numerous nuclear powers. NATO’s existence has not only led to the creation of more nuclear weapons within its alliances but it has emboldened other nations to develop their own nuclear capabilities if they ever need to protect themselves. These weapons are weapons of mass destruction that have eaten up countless resources, resulted in destructive testing, and, if used in a conflict, would destroy an unprecedented amount of lives. NATO is the fuel that pushes the world toward militarism. That fact alone comes with incredible harms.

The second argument you can explore is the idea of colonialism. Looking at the member nations of NATO (especially the original members) you’ll notice your fair share of imperial powers. While these countries may not have formal colonies now, NATO was created at a time when many of them did and NATO is very much a haven for the internationally wealthy (read: countries that shot to the top of the totem poll by colonizing other countries). NATO was actively used to quell resistance movements post World War II if decolonization movements did not express explicit support for NATO members. This puts these countries in incredibly vulnerable positions.
Furthermore, NATO is only accepting European members moving forward. Essentially, it has created a “West is Best” club that only they will ever have access to. If it is true that military preservation and alliances are crucial for keeping peace, what about Africa? What about South America? What about Asia? The extent to which NATO will protect these countries is when it is in its interest and it will never incorporate them into deliberations and negotiations. This wreaks of exclusivity and elitism that do nothing but reaffirm colonial power dynamics of the past and present.

Opposition

Despite the many criticisms of the proposition, there are very legitimate arguments for the opposition to go for. I’ll focus on two: peacekeeping and multilateralism.

Let’s start of by discussing peacekeeping. A very popular term used to describe our current state of affairs is the “Long Peace”. The long peace refers to the fact that we have not seen major world powers fight each other since World War II. Furthermore, we have also seen a drastic reduction in the amount of wars happening. There are a couple of reasons for this, however, I will focus on the United States and NATO’s existence being the main causes. First, the United States’ demonstration of power against Japan dramatically altered the global world order, making the United States the undisputed international hegemon. This had major implications. First, this made something like NATO possible–countries rally around the strong and NATO is an extension of the U.S. influence in this regard. As the opposition, I would recommend against running away from this characterization. Lean into it and show that it has created a very well-organized global order that has made countries reluctant to step out of line and incredibly happy to be a part of whatever collective the United States is a part of.

This brings us to the second explanation for the long peace: NATO. As more countries become a part of NATO, the incentive to go to war drastically reduces. If you know that attacking a country will result in 30 of their buddies (including the United States, one of the greatest military powers in the world) coming to jump you, you’re NOT going to do it. Russia’s dramatic response in Ukraine is indicative of this. It knew that if Ukraine joined NATO, it would be UNTOUCHABLE so they jumped the gun to make sure that didn’t happen. They are fighting a battle they are not winning and they are doing it on the global stage, arguably decking their claims of hegemony each day they drag out this war. Ukraine, as unfortunate as it is, has become the exception, and with the incorporation of Finland and (soon) Sweden, less of Europe is “open” to attack. This means that there will be at worse a stalemate between NATO and non-NATO affiliates or a clear winner. Either way, mass casualties and excessive wars are not happening. NATO is the backbone of the long peace and it continues to secure its existence as countries get incorporated.

The second argument I think is worth mentioning is multilateralism. For those unfamiliar, multilateralism is defined as “a form of cooperation between at least three States” [3]. While there has been a shortage of full-on wars in the decades following World War II, a country’s desire to protect itself doesn’t go away. Countries invest in militaries “just in case” all the time. The United States is a very extreme example of this–it spends more than double what China (the second-ranked country) does on military spending[4]–but other nations also pour in billions of dollars annually in the name of defense. The existence of NATO can make military prioritization a lot more realistic and less detrimental to the average citizen. NATO can provide troops, defense training, and anything in between to countries who would need it. This takes off the burden of military spending countries would need to deal with larger, more credible threats if NATO did not exist. If you know that you have the alliances of dozens of countries, many of whom have some of the most powerful armies in the world, you can become more flexible with your budgeting moving forward. This spreads the burden of protection across nations rather than forcing them to handle it internally. Once again, the best strategy for the opposition is to not run away from the biggest criticisms the proposition might throw at you. Proving that militarism and the need for defense is inevitable allows for the opposition to be incredibly comparative and highlight the benefits of NATO given this reality. If you remember this as you do your casework, you’ll not only have a better time righting the opposition case but you’ll also have much better analysis as you set up your arguments.

Hopefully, this helps you start your journey with this topic or it can add some ideas to cases you’ve already started to construct. Best of luck!

This house would implement a compulsory national service system.

Context

Investing in your framing is always critical to benching properly down the line and that means being selective of the terms of art to contextualize your advocacy. Collins Dictionary defines “compulsory” as 1. Required by regulations or laws; obligatory. This is a rather neutral definition as it is flexible in stating a fact that compulsory is required by regulations or laws. The obligatory context allows for teams to then define what obligation: moral and/or legal. The second interpretation states, “involving or employing compulsion, compelling, necessary, essential.” This one is more suited for SIDE OPP grounding as it denotes coercion while setting up burdens on SIDE PROP they must meet, namely, why is it compelling (interped to the morality level of argumentation) and necessary and/or essential such as the legal means.

National service has two interpretations a team may use. The first from the Cambridge Dictionary denotates, “the system in some countries by which young people, especially men, are ordered by law to spend a period of time in the armed forces.” This leans heavily on the most reasonable interpretation of military conscription but does leave it flexible to where it specifies “a period of time” which allows further clarification by SIDE PROP that it is only temporal and a sacrifice for the greater good. Now, the danger is this does contextualize a gendered interpretation, however, the easy pushback is that it states, “some countries,” therefore, SIDE PROP can still further clarify that it can include others into service regardless. The second interpretation from Law Insider clarifies, “means civilian employment in Federal or State Government in a field in which the Nation and the public have critical needs.” This is far more flexible under the context that it just indicates the civilian status of employment (employment can be temporal as well) on a nationalized level in an undisclosed field and sets up the inherency that there are critical public needs to be met without the confines of just a militarization interpretation.

Proposition

On a principal analysis, two words come to mind on implementing a compulsory national service system: Sustainability and Liability. On SIDE PROP, sustainability connotes longevity that extends out to multiple facets in governmental operations whether it be fiscal, social, and/or political. Fundamentally, the basis of most government was formulated out of the social contract theory in two ways: morally and legally. Government is expected to protect its citizens and people give up certain liberties to come under a systemic form of that protectionism. In the world of the PROP, sustainability is for the benefit of the whole system including all the stakeholders on a microscale of the individual to the larger fabric of the USFG. Compulsory national service allows for citizenship in a variance of methods of service in the areas of military, education, infrastructure, humanitarian assistance, healthcare, conservation, business, intelligence, research, and innovation. What does this look like for the PROP? It means normal military service in various branches in both combat and non-combat positions such as cyberoperations and linguists. In education, serving in socio-economic schools in a security capacity and classroom capacity of educational and support aides. Building public housing and cleaning of impoverished areas, trash collection on roadways, federal public lands and waters, and obliterating food deserts, would be infrastructure. When national disasters strike due to climate change, humanitarian assistance is key to getting things back to normal as much for citizens. Whether it be food service, laundry service, rebuilding, waste removal, tree removal, or assisting victims with applying for relief programs, no issue is too small to serve the community. In the realms of a public health crisis such as a pandemic, compulsory service could be assistance of intake, logistics, supply chain, linguists, support staffing, and information dissemination into rural and/or urban populations that have decreased access. National, state, and local parks and waters as well as roadsides, need conservation to prevent natural disasters and clean up. Expanding green practices or technology to fight climate change can also be included. Victory gardens or community gardens can be proliferated and upkept for underserved communities. This unifies those areas as well as teaching healthy habits and nutritional information to the younger generation. Small business growth is key to a stable economy and livelihood for many different types of people, especially minority communities. People can serve in assisting to get small business and new business owners to understand the laws and regulations as well as networking them to the appropriate channels for capital and/or business education to sustain and increase business growth. For intelligence, this can be data entry, cyber operations, tech support, linguistic specialists, and coding as well as intelligence gathering should they have the background. Research can be very flexible for all the fields listed above in various capacities that the federal government needs whether it be for medical, military, infrastructure, and logistics. When you have a collective effort from many, all reap the benefits through innovation through compulsory national service. This is a long-term impact for a short-term sacrifice that everyone is proportionately obligated to. Specification of service time and requirements is critical to the framing of SIDE PROP.

When looking at the micro to macro impact, individuals benefit through compulsory national service in many ways. One of the discoveries is the state opening their introduction to altruism. Even if the mechanization is through a system of rewards, incentives, and/or tradeoffs, self-discovery is made by the individual only through a governmental catalyst such as the PROP world. The exchange is a win-win scenario for both stakeholders as other incentivized systems are already in place such as the GI Bill. Many are afforded educational opportunities that allow upward mobility from military leadership development that translates into the workplace. Through the bonding of compulsory national service, many different demographics meet to unify for a greater purpose. Networking allows for social cohesion between diverse classes to break down harmful stereotypes, work as modulations against extremist behaviors, and set national policy paradigms. We see this in practice in Singapore with their national conscription program that also parallels their housing program. Singapore has used the theme of “One People, One Nation, One Singapore” in multiple National Day celebrations over the course of its history. Through the first step of the compulsory system, all learn to sacrifice for the greater good of the whole system and set precedence to model other national policies in terms of equity and equality. People can work within what suits their capacities best, which is beneficial for themselves, but also serves the state.

Prop mechanizations for implementation would include but not be limited to exchange for educational benefits such as tuition waivers, tax credits, internships, work-study programs, mentoring, career opportunities, and housing and healthcare benefits. There is quite a bit of creative leverage when it comes to how a team mechanizes the PROP world of compulsory national service.

Opposition

Conversely, SIDE OPP would dissent to the compulsory national service system based upon the principal of “liability.” When we evaluate the contextualization of liability, it is viewed through the lens of risks. When a state creates a compulsory or mandate for national service which requires people to serve, does that then create a world of “good service” or “bad service?” For instance, if someone chose not to be a doctor, however, their family forced them against their will, would a patient’s need best be served by that person that disliked what they were doing? Of course, SIDE PROP will say that people can then choose the type of service they would like through this mandate. But given the amount of people showing up for compulsory national service at one time and certain positions are limited in the area and/or requirements, the probability of getting the position one desires may likely NOT happen, thus, people are then held captive into a form of modernized indentured servitude for the time required. And here is where the liability lies. Is this legal in certain countries to enact such a compulsory national service without violating an individual’s right? And in what allowable context? In the United States, the framing of SIDE PROP may endanger their offense. If under a military lens, the United States is under full right of mandating national service (draft) but within the Constitution, a full policy implementation may cross over certain legal interpretations and rights violations. So, in essence, does government reserve a legal right to mandate compulsory service from its people? SIDE OPPOSITION would vehemently oppose on the grounds that the actual act of mandating is coercive and produces the exact opposite of altruism but rather egoism of the state itself. A state using its power to create laws to coerce work out of its people without proper valuation of the tradeoff is inherently an act of injustice. Mechanizing by coercion is not a justifiable act even with tradeoffs or a manipulative golden carrot. This sets up a system of abuse by the government upon a slippery slope of how they control what is “satisfactory work or requirements” done to get the net benefit and they can arbitrarily change that or at least the party in power, can opt to change it as so they please according to their needs and not the will of the people. Then, the act of gaining individual consent is another layer. What if the state asks for something that is perceived as unreasonable? What if leadership has political differences against the people serving and then adds on additional responsibilities to assert power? We can see this easily with the nation of Eritrea where an authoritarian government has usurped power and used the guise of mandated and/or compulsory national service to bind people, especially the younger generation to serve at the behest of their unwarranted State narrative and needs. This type of governmental abuse has now created a mass exodus of Eritreans leaving the country.

In more Westernized democracies, these liabilities of executing such a vast program leave much room for bureaucratic abuse amongst the ranks and nepotism. Much like legacy admissions at university, there would be legacy exclusions. Which privileged members would be able to get out of their mandated service whether by economic, social, or political connections and means. So then, equity and equality as an advantage claimed by SIDE PROP, become a problem because nationalized programs are so large, that it is difficult to control in addition to managing the intersectionality of applied exclusions. The main issue that SIDE PROP will have to answer is that executing something compulsory means there must be a punishment for those that usurp the system. For people who do violate, is the punishment punitive? And if so, what does this look like? Is it jail time? Is it confinement with a fine? Does it go on one’s records? If so, how long? Notice that in 1967, the United States Congress created a federal law against burning a draft card, however, burning a flag falls under the 1st Amendment protection. That means that the government can enact what it wants, when it wants, by the party it wants, to deem what it wants, against the people it doesn’t want. And does this disproportionately impact any demographics or populations that receive said punishments? Who is the agent of action to ensure the punishment is fair and equitable? All very fair questions that SIDE PROP must answer to ensure the integrity of the compulsory national service system.

Additionally, depending upon the framing of SIDE PROP, CNSS often are one-sided based on gender and physical ability.

This means we must then look to an alternative world of SIDE OPP. SIDE OPP can then offer that volunteerism is fundamentally better than a compulsory world. The key here is to prevent SIDE PROP from running a permutation (even though they must meet the definition of “compulsory).” SIDE PROP can claim that compulsory would also mean “mandated volunteerism.” Uniqueness is the only thing that can prevent SIDE PROP from a permutation of SIDE OPP. What can SIDE OPP do as a better alternative? The key contextualization would mean SIDE OPP defines that volunteerism is ONLY predicated on free will. This contrast then still engages a win-win scenario for individual and State and not the individual vs. state mentality. On SIDE OPP, the individual still derives altruism through their own free will as they seek to serve. When free will is a pre-requisite, this creates a more fulfilled individual and the State also gets someone best suited for those positions they need to be fulfilled, thus, Utilitarianism is achieved through SIDE OPP. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is then a bottom-up process rather than a top-down from SIDE PROP. Often, government-derived programs are met with skepticism from the populace versus grassroots movements. Grassroots movements can gain momentum through the means of social media without the stigma or propaganda of the government, thus producing more notable microlevel changes that have longevity and sustainability in rural and/or more urbanized areas that have more structural barriers and challenges.

On a moral basis, compulsory already violates all notions of morality by coercion. On a bilayer analysis, SIDE PROP fails from a legal and moral perspective. SIDE PROP is the dirty side of the motion as they have the bulk of the burden to prove feasibility (workability) as well as a moral and legal grounding of why this is 1. Necessary and 2. Beneficial.

This House supports a salary cap for professional sports teams.

Context

For anyone who saw a motion about professional sports and worried about their lack of sports knowledge, fear not. While the motion does include the term "professional sports," this is really just a debate about the pros and cons of allowing a free market in which companies are allowed to pay their workers whatever they choose. To simplify, a salary cap is just a limit that teams can spend on the salaries of their roster. If we were to take this out of a sports context, it would be like telling every university in the state of Texas that they could only spend X amount on professor salaries rather than let them pay as much as they could afford.

However, as much as this motion could be easily understood outside of a sports realm, it still does include the word sports in it. To better understand which sports use a salary cap and why, let's look at three of the largest leagues in the world.

National Football League (NFL)

The NFL first adopted a salary cap in 1993 after the league struggled financially throughout the 1980s. It's important to note that at that time, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) approved the move allowing the league to limit the amount that a player could make in lieu of greater competitive parity. The idea was that if no team in the league could grossly outspend another, the competition should be fair, and everyone should have a realistic chance at success.

The initial model set the cap at $34.6 million with the only real stipulation that everyone stays below that number. Of course, this model evolved over time, and in 2006, a salary floor was implemented, mandating teams to spend a minimum percentage of the cap. This move sought to prevent excessive frugality, reinforcing the notion that investment in player salaries was integral to maintaining a vibrant and competitive league.

The NFL is probably the easiest league to look into when thinking about how you'd like to model a salary cap. You can't spend over a certain amount, and you can't spend under a certain amount. Of course, teams attempt to find ways around this, but the NFL model has proven successful for 20 years now.

National Basketball Association (NBA)

In 1983, the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) instituted the first-ever salary cap. This would not only change professional basketball but essentially be the catalyst for why you're reading this topic analysis today. Teams were no longer able to spend recklessly, and the era of financial restraint began. The initial cap, set at $3.6 million per team for the 1984-85 season, aimed to prevent large-market teams from stockpiling talent and ensure that every team had a fair chance at success.

The NBA model is very similar to the NFL model, which we'll talk about next. However, there are a few differences that are important to note. The first is the creation of a "soft cap" along with a luxury tax, allowing teams to exceed the cap under certain conditions. This was intended to strike a balance between financial constraints and the flexibility needed for teams to retain their key players. Essentially, teams can break the salary cap if needed, but they have to pay a tax on how much they go over. That tax is then distributed to small-market teams to give them a better chance to compete.

The luxury tax system is important to note because it's a very large part of how Major League Baseball operates. Although we won't go into the MLB in the same depth that we will the NBA, NFL, and EPL, debaters should know that the MLB does not have a salary cap and uses the NBA's luxury tax system to ensure competitive balance.

English Premier League (EPL)

I always like to make sure the W in WSD is represented. Seeing as most major sports leagues in the world exist only in North America, let's dive into the largest league in Europe. In stark contrast to leagues like the NFL and NBA, the EPL has operated without a salary cap, allowing clubs to spend freely on player wages and transfer fees. This lack of financial restraint has contributed to the league's reputation as one of the most competitive and commercially successful football competitions globally.

The absence of a salary cap in the EPL has led to significant financial stratification among clubs. The league is known to have a "Big Six" of clubs that consistently exist at the top of the standings due to their financial advantage. Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur have often dominated in terms of financial resources, creating a divide between them and the rest of the league. This financial split has intensified as the league's global appeal and broadcasting rights revenues have skyrocketed.

While the EPL doesn't have a salary cap, the concept of Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced by UEFA, the governing body for European football, to promote financial sustainability among clubs participating in European competitions. In simple terms, FFP says that teams should not spend more than the income that they generate from the team. If teams are operating at a loss to compete, they would be in violation of FFP. The major issue with FFP is that there is no mechanism to enforce the rules before they are broken. For example, if Arsenal decides to spend way more than they make, UEFA could take several months to investigate the spending and then issue a punishment that can be as simple as a warning or as harsh as exclusion from competition.

Proposition

One of the reasons that I really like this motion is the equal balance of principle and practical arguments on both sides. With that said, let's look at one of each.

Principally, side proposition should be fairly simple. In any sort of competition or game, there should be a core level of fairness. The principle of fair competition is really the center of why the NBA launched its salary cap in the first place. If twenty teams compete for one award, then all twenty teams should have a fair shot at achieving that award. However, that no longer becomes the case if a handful of those twenty teams get more or better resources.

I like analogies, so let's make one here. You and I are having a competition to see who can jump the highest. You show up at the agreed-upon jump location to see that, while you have brought only your body, I have brought a trampoline. All logic would tell us that I'm going to win this competition. Sure, I could jump poorly, or the trampoline could break, but if I have a trampoline and you don't, then I'm probably jumping higher than you. At that point, the spirit of the competition was ruined. You don't have a fair shot, and the game is inherently tainted before it even begins. The implementation of a salary cap stops the metaphorical purchase of trampolines.

But practically, we're not talking about a friendly game of "how high can you jump." We're talking about a multi-billion-dollar industry with massive financial stakes at hand. The need for fairness and equality goes far past just having friendly competition and moves into the economic well-being of regions. To best see these impacts, let's look at the EPL again.

English soccer has a promotion/relegation system, which means the worst teams in any given season are relegated to a worse league where they receive fewer financial benefits. This past season, Leicester City were relegated after finishing as one of the three worst teams in the league. Financial estimates say that the loss of TV revenue, ticket revenue, and league support will result in over £200 million. This impact trickles throughout not only the team but also the community.

If big clubs aren't coming to Leicester, local tourism revenue drops. If the club itself doesn't have as much money, jobs such as groundskeepers and food workers get cut. The trickle-down effect of the unfair spending from the league's largest teams leaves entire communities in financial hardship.

Opposition

We're going to go the same principle/practical route here that we did during the proposition breakdown.

Principally, companies should be able to spend whatever they want to compete in the sector that they're in. While the idea of a salary cap makes a lot of sense in the sports world, this is basically the only area where we see something similar to this form of wage control. Most other areas of business are fighting to increase wages to ensure that employees have a more livable wage. Telling a company to pay their employees less to make sure that their competitors can compete is not a conversation I can see anyone having with large American companies anytime soon.

This imposition on the idea of a free market can be a slippery slope for just how much regulation and oversight these teams should be subject to as opposed to being allowed to manage their practices. The tougher part of this conversation will be deciding whether or not a free market is being impeded in the first place when the regulation is coming from a governing body such as the NFL or NBA rather than the US Federal Government.

One of the stakeholders we have yet to discuss in detail is the players themselves. When keeping the players in mind, the practical argument of fair market value becomes strongest. For example, if the Los Angeles Lakers make $100 million off of the ticket revenue, TV revenue, and overall star power that LeBron James provides, he should be allowed to make $100 million. Limiting how much a player can make does not stop the owners from profiting from the work that these athletes put in.

Last Thoughts

This should be a fun motion to test out some creative case strategies. With hundreds of sports leagues in dozens of countries, the opportunity to show unique benefits or harms from around the world allows this debate to truly become world-centric and not just US-centric.

If you happen to be worried about the idea of debating sports, just know that you're not really debating sports. This isn't a motion about touchdowns, home runs, and hat tricks. This motion is about the rights of companies, workers, and the market that regulates them. If you have any research from past economic topics, feel free to look at your backfiles, and you'll likely find a lot of crossovers between previous arguments on workers' rights and potential arguments here.

Finally, this last part might be specific to me, but there is so much potential for fun rhetoric here. Feel free to dig your cleats in and get to work on writing some rhetoric out ahead of time. It shouldn't take much work to knock it out of the park or kick it right through the uprights. If your opponent won't engage with the heart of the motion, throw a flag on the play. If they refuse to take your POIs, send them to the penalty box. But with the endless amount of sports-based rhetoric, please, please, please challenge yourself to start your speech differently than "It was not enough for side proposition to…"

New Year, New Motions! Jan/Feb TFA Topic Analyses Include Sports, Service, NATO, and Infrastructure

This House prefers investment in public transportation infrastructure over investment in automobile infrastructure.

Context

Framing

Proposition

Opposition

Concluding Thoughts

Further Reading

This House believes that NATO has done more harm than good.

Context

Prop

Opposition

Further Reading

This house would implement a compulsory national service system.

Context

Proposition

Opposition

Further Reading

This House supports a salary cap for professional sports teams.

Context

Proposition

Opposition

Last Thoughts

Further Reading

Info

2024 Summer Session

New Year, New Motions! Jan/Feb TFA Topic Analyses Include Sports, Service, NATO, and Infrastructure

This House prefers investment in public transportation infrastructure over investment in automobile infrastructure.

Context

Framing

Proposition

Opposition

Concluding Thoughts

Further Reading

This House believes that NATO has done more harm than good.

Context

Prop

Opposition

Further Reading

This house would implement a compulsory national service system.

Context

Proposition

Opposition

Further Reading

This House supports a salary cap for professional sports teams.

Context

Proposition

Opposition

Last Thoughts

Further Reading

1/6 Tournament Results: Harvard Westlake, Hendrickson, and Northland Christian Are The Champs!

Harvard Westlake Wins The John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted By The Blake School

Info

2024 Summer Session