Tackling the TX Season Opener Motions: Citizen Journalism, Vouchers, Judiciaries, and Palau

Topic Analyses
Written By World of Words Institute

The Texas season openers are starting with Grapevine & Greenhill over the next two weeks. We’re sure some tournaments will use these motions as well, so we have compiled the thoughts of some excellent coaches to give you a kick start. This TA will cover the following:

  • This House regrets the rise of citizen journalism (by SunHee Simon)

  • This House opposes the use of public funds for school vouchers. (by Dawson Marold)

  • ​​This House opposes lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary (by Andy Stubbs)

  • This House, as the United States, would build a military base in Palau. (by SunHee Simon)

Happy reading!

This House regrets the rise of citizen journalism.

Info Slide: Citizen journalism is citizen-based journalism where citizens play an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. The underlying principle of citizen journalism is that ordinary people, not professional journalists, can be the lead authors and distributors or messages. In recent times, citizen journalism has become more possible thanks to the development of various online platforms.

Context

There are two things I’ll focus on in this section: 1) the wording of the motion with an emphasis on “regrets” and, 2) context surrounding a debate on citizen journalism.

First, let’s discuss the important nuances of regrets motions. For those unfamiliar, a regret motion imposes unique burdens onto the competitors. It’s not about getting rid of citizen journalism. It isn’t about replacing traditional journalism with citizen journalism either. Regrets motions are a debate about what has happened thus far and whether it has been on balance good or bad. For the proposition, you want to focus on the historical and contemporary rise of citizen journalism and its implications on the present. For the opposition, you want to focus on how the recent rise has not only been great for our present and maybe even sets up great potential for our future. 

Next onto the motion itself. While the info slide does a really good job contextualizing what citizen journalism is, we can still talk about examples of what this can be. First of all, understand that while citizen journalism existed before online platforms, the rise of spaces like Instagram, X, Meta, and TikTok have allowed for citizens to communicate much more frequently with the masses. One of the most popular questions I’ve heard regarding this topic is “does sharing a post count as being a citizen journalist” to which I would say no. That’s because while this does involve sharing information, it doesn’t include the other parts of journalism: collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating information. The original poster, if they are claiming to be sharing facts and opinions, can claim to be a journalist though! Overall, I’d probably say that discretion can be left to the author themselves. The motion is most likely talking about citizens who take pride in their ability to be this more open definition of a journalist. Thinking of tiny what-ifs and the minute details here seems unnecessary and feels like a cop out when it comes to the heart of the motion.

Furthermore, we should also discuss the natural opposite of citizen journalism in order to better understand what it is. That opposite is traditional journalism [1]. Traditional journalism refers to all the processes of journalism outlined in the info slide but those things are done by trained journalists under a news agency. These journalists most likely went to college, underwent internships, worked their way up in companies, and/or worked in teams to gain the experience needed to call themselves journalists. They are bound by the responsibility and rules of their agency and/or government, depending on the country when it comes to gaining and spreading information.

Proposition

There are so many interesting arguments you can go with for the proposition but I will focus on two main ones: the purpose of journalism and the accessibility of misinformation.

First, on the purpose of journalism. Many could argue that journalism’s primary responsibility is to provide the public with a reliable, accurate description of the world around them. Throughout history, journalists have done their best to collect the facts, compile them in accessible ways, and share this information with the public in a timely manner. A sense of integrity and responsibility has been associated with the free press as they cover the mundane to the controversial. If this is true, a proposition could make arguments that citizen journalism violates the fundamental purpose of journalism. By nature of it being able to come from anyone, it is hard to guarantee reliable, authentic information. In fact, it puts those principles on the backburner in favor of things like free speech and the reach of the information. 

There are many avenues this argument can take. For example, if it is more of principle approach [2], a proposition can double down on the idea that journalism is an exclusive, well-trained profession and its basic principles require it to be. Citizen journalism, by definition, is not that. On the practical level [3], this can look like analyzing the systems of accountability journalists use in the status quo. They must have fact checkers, they must use editors, they must pitch their stories, the list can go on and on. This is all to ensure the authenticity and the reliability of their work. What’s the comparative? People seeing what they see and writing what they want to write and posting or sharing what they want to post or share. There is no true, reliable system when it comes to the work put out by citizen journalists. This lack of consistency is why it is antithetical and even harmful to the purpose of journalism

The second argument I’ll discuss is about misinformation. Understand that while citizen journalism has had the potential to drastically increase the amount of untold stories within journalism, this doesn’t mean all stories and opinions are necessarily good. Citizen journalism has been associated with major misinformation campaigns, especially once the rise of social media began. For example, during the height of the COVID19 pandemic, an abundance of blogs, Facebook pages, and self-proclaimed journalists pushed against the use of vaccines or the uselessness of mask mandates. Ironically, there were also stories going around that people were drinking bleach because former President Trump hinted it could cure COVID (this story turned out to also be an instance of misinformation and questionable survey efforts) [4]. There are influencers with large followings who spread stories about undocumented immigrants committing crimes or particular ethnic groups and harmful stereotypes. For every motivating story that sheds light on the “truth” there is also a questionable story contributing to societal strife. 

The effects of misinformation are vast. Most intuitively, perhaps, you could make arguments for how misinformation can undermine efficient actions. As mentioned in the context of the pandemic, misinformation undermined the efficacy of mask mandates, vaccination rates, and social distancing efforts. More broadly, however, misinformation breeds distrust. There are two routes one can go here. First, as people buy into “alternative” perspectives they can become increasingly skeptical of what is conventional. This can hurt established institutions as people assume they are the ones not telling the public the real truth. Second, if misinformers are caught in their lies, it can generate a communal sense of distrust. People won’t know what to believe and will retreat into their own comforting circles of information or just doubt it all. Either way, it undermines the spread of information as the channels for information get oversaturated with content.

Opposition

On the other hand, the opposition has some great quality arguments too! I’ll focus on the following two: free speech and representation.

First, let’s discuss free speech or, if you’d like to call it something else, the importance of self expression. In most liberal democracies, it is a constitutional right to let people have a say on, well, anything really. Whether it is the First Amendment in the United States, Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Senegalese Constitution’s guarantees on free speech, many countries around the world have documents that point directly to this right. While traditional journalism certainly has its validity, saying that citizen journalism is truly regrettable because it is not as credible as its predecessor ignores an even older right. In fact, it ignores the principle that even allows journalists to speak their mind and fight against censorship in the first place. Citizen journalism is just one of the many and one of the most empowering forms of expression. It allows for people to use platforms effectively and spread their voice much farther than they could imagine. Just because some may abuse that power does not mean that it is bad in and of itself. To borrow a cliche example, just because someone kills someone with a knife does not mean it can no longer be in the kitchen. Coming from this ideological backing, oppositions can try to one up the proposition with this more principle argument. Essentially, the consequences are secondary to the strong ethical foundations of citizen journalism.

Second, let’s discuss representation. Understand that with any established institution, access to those spaces can come with privilege. Whether it is the ability to attend a four year academic institution or the connections your colleagues or family members can provide to you, the traditional journalism space can create barriers to entry that can limit its diversity. This can look like entire agencies being made up of a religious and/or ethnic majority, for example. This actually undermines the ability to find all sides of the truth because it is difficult to know what you don’t know. If you grow up in a middle class neighborhood in London or as the child of expats in Singapore, your lens of the world will be shaded by those experiences. You won’t as easily think of the lives of the immigrants from Somalia who did everything they could to get to the shores of Italy or the Muslims in China who find themselves fighting for the survival of their people and their culture. 

This is where citizen journalism can be incredibly important. It gives the opportunity for the unconventional and bracketed out voice to have a stage. There are several reasons why this matters. First, it allows for groups that have felt ignored to finally have a platform. Second, it educates the broader population on issues they might have ignored. Third, and finally, it adds a new perspective to the search for truth that makes journalism even more credible and exciting. You can take many pathways from here in your argumentation, but this is just a starting point. 

[2] Principle: focusing on the ethical and more theoretical aspects of the action

[3] Practical: focusing on the real-life consequences of the action

Further Reading

SunHee Simon is the founder of the World of Words Institute and assistant coach at Coppell High School.

This House opposes the use of public funds for school vouchers.

A coupon to go to school? Since when were we discounting education? 

School vouchers  have existed in many different ways in the past and the current status quo. Its implementation around the world is rather diverse. Ranging from state governance in the United States to school choice being a guaranteed constitutional right in certain European countries (i.e. Ireland and Belgium), it comes in many forms.

School vouchers are essentially the government giving families vouchers or coupons to help cover the cost of attending private school. Funding and accessibility vary. In some states there will be a fixed amount of money that is uniform for all private schools and sometimes states will use the average cost per student in public school as the determining cost for the voucher. For accessibility some countries have it available to everyone (mainly countries where it is a constitutional right) and other times vouchers will be targeted and designed for those with lower incomes. For example, Chile concentrates more funds to those in lower classes. Implementation is a little different all around the world. School voucher programs are popular in Europe and South America and are more of the norm to where public school enrollment is closer to half of the student population. It is then inferred that the US is more of an exception rather than a rule meaning arguments grounded in US implementation are not going to be a common picture of what education systems look like and you guessed it, not as strong of arguments. SO MAKE SURE DEFINITIONS AND CHARACTERIZATION ARE GROUNDED IN INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES :) 

On framing it is important to note that the debate is specifically talking about the use of public funds and therefore there is a direct tradeoff of the amount of vouchers offered and public funds diverted into voucher programs. Basically the more vouchers the state is able to give out, the more money they must take from public schools. Because of this, opposition can end up being in a bind if they 1. Try to not use as much funding (meaning less vouchers/limiting their impacts) or 2. Go for more accessibility and equality type arguments which probably require extensive use of school vouchers therefore taking away massive amounts of funds from public school districts. ALSO regardless of whether or not public funds are used for voucher programs, private schools will ALWAYS exist. Rather, the debate is specifically about the government or public involvement.

With stakeholders, remember to try and generate different arguments or pro/con lists for each stakeholder to help generate diverse arguments.Vouchers is motion about education so there are a few intuitive ones such as teachers, students, or governments. Under these categories you can analyze their incentives and motivations as well as their role in the education system. For governments, maybe it's about the responsibility and obligation to provide choices between schools and help families exercise autonomy. Or, on the flip side, why the government ought to separate public and private education and only be responsible for the public sector. With students you can think more about the pragmatic implications of voucher systems and how they might influence their ability to learn, and with teachers you could talk about how vouchers impact their ability to teach and shift their priorities. Other unique or more specific stakeholders that could be discussed are disabled students, students needing learning accommodations, school districts/school boards, and parents of students.

On proposition, your main push and overarching narrative should be about why it is bad to mix public and private education. The central stakeholder for prop is definitely public schools so make sure that arguments are leading back to impacting public schools as well as why public schools are so important. A lot of the opposition’s critiques are going to be about the lack of efficacy of public schools which creates the need for vouchers; in the opp world, families can have the choice between schools. However, this just ends up creating a cycle that further hurts public education because the reason they are not effective is typically due to lack of funding. For example, they can’t access as many textbooks, learning softwares, technology, and other educational resources. If governments take even more money, the schools only suffer further. It is important to push that having the maximum amount of funds in public education is the solution. Furthermore, strategy should go for impacting on scope or utilitarianism, that is to say a lot of oppositions best benefits can only benefit small groups of people (those on the voucher system). However, it is always at the cost of education for the majority or those in public school or those who do not have the choice to pick if they want to go to private or public school and are forced to stay in public school systems.

For opposition strategy your biggest friend is worldly examples and good framing. Remember the bind pointed out previously to develop a clear stance on the use of school vouchers. Some things to consider are how accessible you want the vouchers to be, the cost of how much vouchers cover, and the government level that executes vouchers (local vs. national). These things will all help give judges a clear vision of what your wor;d looks like, which  is important given how diverse school vouchers exist across the world. Some things pretty important to opp are school choice and proving how vouchers increase the quality of education. On choice, something to consider is the increase in parents unsatisfied by public schools, specifically for curriculum reasons. Some governments have censored many topics such as the civil war, lgbtq+ history, and the civil rights movement. This could either strengthen the school choice argument or also benefit public schools and lead to less curriculum censoring. For example, many opponents of curriculum would be likely to participate in voucher programs because they are against public schools. On efficacy there are some arguments to go for in terms of competition in how having public “vs.” private education leads to a better system overall, many universities or college systems would probably be a good analogy or historical precedent to use.

Helpful links

Dawson is a second year student at the University of Texas at Austin studying sustainability and government. Outside of studies he explores Austin and coaches for Coppell Debate.

​​This House opposes lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary

“Life tenure is a unique aspect to our federal judiciary: No other country affords that protection to its judges.”

Xiao Wang, Clinical Assistant Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

“My starting point is straightforward: were we writing the United States Constitution anew, there is no way we would adopt the particular institutional structure that we have for judicial tenure. No other country has true lifetime tenure for its justices, and for good reason.”

Tom Ginsburg, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, in his testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court

“[I]t is not a case of aristocracy or monarchy or theocracy—it may just be self-skepticism—if the people assign a share of lawmaking authority to officials who can be replaced only slowly.”

Ward Farnsworth, Professor of Law at Boston University

The motion “This House opposes lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary” positions the debate around what appears to be a distinctly American plan for ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist #78, made the argument that “[The standard of good behavior] is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws”. Reacting against the former government’s judiciary that served at the will and pleasure of the Crown, the architects of the US Constitution wrote forcefully about how the judiciary’s independence and insulation from public and political pressures was paramount. The question of the motion centers the debate around this plan’s effects, good and bad.

First, a quirk in the literature on the topic– what does “lifetime appointments” mean? Broadly, there are two different interpretations of the phrase. The first interpretation, often called “true life appointments”, understands the phrase to mean that, once appointed, a person remains a federal judge until they retire, die in office, or are impeached. For federal judges, this model is used in the United States for Article III judges (federal judges) and in Aruba for Joint Court judges. The second interpretation more loosely interprets “lifetime appointments” to be judges who hold office indefinitely until a mandatory retirement age.  For example, Ethiopia sets their mandatory retirement age for judges at 60, Japan and Ghana at 70, and Chile and Brazil at 75. In terms of the scope of the debate, the arguments shouldn’t change much regardless of the interpretation debate over “lifetime appointments” beyond the Proposition/Opposition links getting marginally stronger the more “true” or longer the lifetime appointment is while the Prop’s links into the problems of an aging judiciary (a “superannuated bench” in the literature) get weaker the less strict the interpretation gets.

The Comparative

What are alternatives to lifetime appointments? Many countries appoint judges to set terms that expire. Mexico has 15 year terms for federal judges. Bolivia has 6 year terms. South Africa has 12 year terms. And Albania has 9 year terms. All of these examples pair the set term limit with a mandatory retirement age as well.

The comparative matters a lot on this motion because the two sides are most likely going to be fighting over a set number of links in the debate– legitimacy, effectiveness, polarization, etc. For example, if the Proposition is making an argument about how lifetime appointments increase political polarization, they would be in a difficult position if the Opposition responded with an argument about how the comparative is set terms for federal judges, which drastically increases the number of confirmations that happen and then characterize confirmation battles as a primary driver of polarization. That doesn’t mean the polarization link isn’t winnable by the Proposition, just that they need to be prepared to weigh why lifetime appointments are a comparatively bigger contributor to polarization than an increase in confirmations. A prepared team has to factor in the comparative.

Proposition

Most of the literature on the topic of lifetime appointments is squarely on the side of the Proposition. This makes sense as systems of lifetime appointment are the outlier and most of the people writing about it are academics living in countries with this appointment system and are upset about it. They make several different arguments that are useful to the Proposition under this motion.

First, there is a very intuitive argument made that lifetime appointments for federal judges lock in judges with outdated political positions and understandings indefinitely. An extreme example of how long the tenure of a federal judge can be is Jack Weinstein, who retired in 2020 after being appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. He served as a federal judge for nearly 53 years. Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota Law School found that the average age of a federal judge in the United States is 69 years old. The fact that lifetime tenure locks in these judges for life can be terminalized in a number of ways.

There is a strong argument that, as the judiciary has increased in political importance and power, it should be responsive to the democratic majority of the country, not the democratic majority of the country 30 years ago. Quicker turnover by mechanisms like term limits would ensure the judiciary stays closer to the will of the people while still insulating them sufficiently. The lack of responsiveness of lifetime tenured judges to the democratic will of the people has a number of negative effects.

First, a widespread feeling that the judiciary isn’t representative of the democratic majority of a country can delegitimize the judiciary. This is especially dangerous, as the judiciary in many countries relies on other actors to enforce their decisions. This can be a broad civil servant apparatus, the Parliament (through its executive powers), the Executive branch in presidential systems, and also just compliance from society as a whole. The courts’ legitimacy is a precondition of its effectiveness, which can be leveraged against many of the Opposition arguments’ impact level.

Second, the lack of representation of the current political majority in the federal judiciary can lead to bad policy. There are a couple of layers here. A difference in understandings of how social and political norms have evolved, different political contexts (e.g. an American judge growing up in the Great Depression, Cold War, post-9/11), a different relationship to technology (especially given how rapidly it changes), and detachment from issues prioritized by the younger generations all fuel decisions that create subpar outcomes for our current political environment.

A separate area of Proposition arguments has to do with the lifetime tenure allowing for judges to choose when they resign or take “senior status”, a special form of semi-retirement for federal judges whereby it opens up their seat on the bench for a replacement, but they can continue to hear cases. Xiao Wang, a professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, did a study of the timing of every senior status decision of a federal judge since 1919. Interestingly, “[His] dataset offers a startling rebuttal to the existing literature, showing that today—more than ever before—the decision to go senior is politically strategic, giving open seats to Presidents from the same political party.” Allowing federal judges to choose when they take senior status or resign ensures they will be able to time it strategically to keep their seat in the political party of their choosing. This allows for the already least-representative branch of the federal government to consolidate a party’s control of that branch further, given the opportunity. In his article “The Old Hand Problem” in the Minnesota Law Review, Wang details three specific ways this damages the court:

When a circuit judge goes senior, they create an opportunity to fill a vacant seat with an ideologically compatible replacement, all while staying on to participate in panel decisions. That is court-packing. When a district judge goes senior, they get to choose their cases and pick their magistrate judge colleagues—instances of court-picking. And when chief judges invite senior judges to visit their courts to advance political goals, that allows for court-stacking. Together, court-packing, court-picking, and court-stacking are already eroding judicial legitimacy.

Another area of Proposition offense argues that lifetime tenures lead some federal judges to stay on the bench past when they are capable of doing the job effectively. There is a lot of literature out there on this topic especially after a 96 year old federal judge recently sued her colleagues on the US Circuit Court of Appeals after they opened an investigation into whether she was equipped to continue her role as a judge. There is a serious problem in that there are very few mechanisms to raise concerns, as the people who would normally do so are either colleagues or attorneys who, if they failed, would have to continue to practice in front of these judges (meaning there is a major disincentive for them to do so). However, it’s important to approach this argument in a specific way. It’s neither true nor responsible to characterize all older judges as incapable of doing their jobs because of their age. Francis Shen, a professor at the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and a researcher on the intersection of age and the federal judiciary, argues  “aging is very individualized. It's not the case that every older judge, even a judge over 90, is no longer capable of being a judge. Many probably are. But it's also the case that risk factors for cognitive decline increase and increase significantly, at the outer ends of human aging." His article “Aging Judges” can be found in the Further Reading section and is a thoughtful approach to speaking about the problems of an aging federal judiciary in a responsible way.

Opposition

The most straightforward and intuitive argument on the Opposition is that lifetime appointments help insulate the judiciary as an institution and individual judges from political pressure. Strong characterization of the role of the judiciary will help add depth to this argument. Frustrations about federal judges’ role in striking down legislation or issuing injunctions misunderstands one of the purposes of the judiciary– as a veto point in the political process. If high turnover on the federal benches leads to the political majority of the moment controlling the legislature and the court, then the court cannot serve as a check on the political majority (as party loyalty is generally a stronger political incentive than institutional checks and balances). In this context, the court’s primary function– providing an additional point in the process to stop potentially dangerous or harmful policy– degrades. It’s easy for the Proposition to narrow the characterization to the current moment in the US, where a conservative Supreme Court is rolling back progressive policy, but the Opposition should push back and take a more holistic look at federal judiciaries across the world and also at a longer history within the US.

Something to note on the link level of the arguments here– a Proposition leaning hard into the argument that a more responsive judiciary makes more progressive constitutional rulings will probably miss that the majority of what federal judiciaries do is interpret laws themselves, not the Constitution. So even if the Prop is winning some marginal offense on lifetime appointees striking down some laws as unconstitutional, if you win offense that lifetime appointees are much better at interpreting statutes (because they have more experience, prioritize stability and continuity with existing law because newer appointees are inevitably more polarized, etc.) then you have a much broader scope of link on your argument.

A common understanding used to justify lifetime appointments in the judiciary is the idea of fast law (legislation) versus slow law (court rulings). The idea is that societies need a balance of both– fast law that is responsive to the needs of the people and slow law to deliberate and ensure stability. The Opposition is on better ground if they add some nuance to this characterization. It’s more appropriate to think of law coming from the judiciary as happening at an independent speed from the law coming from the legislatures. Federal judges don’t always lag behind society in terms of their law. Just looking at the US Supreme Court alone, there are plenty of examples in which they were far ahead of the rest of society (and Congress) in terms of speed. Landmark decisions in criminal justice in the 1950s and 1960s dramatically expanded the rights of people accused of a crime and incarcerated people. These were deeply politically unpopular at the time and showed that the Court could move much quicker than the other branches on the issue.

However, there are advantages to the Court producing law comparatively slower than the legislative branch. A constitution doesn’t provide an effective guardrail in the political process if the judiciary is responsive to the majority just as much as the legislature making the policy. Furthermore, the slower pace of making law means their decisions are more likely to stick. Flip the Proposition characterization on them– if the legislature’s quick and responsive pace of making law is true, their law can be reversed just as quickly.

A core part of the Opposition strategy on this motion should also be devoted to link turning the Proposition arguments. For example, the Prop has a strong argument that more responsiveness to the people from the judiciary by increasing the institution’s democratic accountability (by allowing more frequent appointments) will increase the courts’ legitimacy. The Opposition can push back here through the polarization argument– more frequent and contentious confirmation battles as well as an increased view that the courts aren’t independent but rather an extension of the governing legislative majority would be comparatively much more damaging to the legitimacy of the judiciary. A well prepared Opp strategy will predict the Prop links and generate arguments that interact with those links directly.

Closing Thoughts

Strong characterizations of democratic governments and the role of the judiciary within those governments will help you weigh/resolve the impact level of the debate. If the goal of a democratic government is to pass policy that reflects the will of the majority of the people at a given time, impacts that involve better/more representative policy are prioritized. However, if the goal of a democratic government is to safeguard the rights of political minorities against the tyranny of the majority, impacts about the judiciary’s power to check the legislative/executive branch of government when it overreaches are important. Be prepared to contest and win your top-level characterizations just as much as the analysis in the case substantives. Closely tying your top-level characterizations to the impact level of your case is a good move here.

This motion is about tradeoffs in the context of structural changes to an institution (the federal judiciary). It’s going to be difficult for either side to make a reasonable claim to changing the content of the rulings. A more responsive US Supreme Court might be more progressive right now, but that might change after an election changes the composition of the Senate right as the term limits expire). Moreover, there are global examples of legislative branches expanding their power over the judiciary to make it more responsive to their wants that have moved the courts significantly to the political right (e.g. Poland and Israel). 

To avoid falling into the trap of making arguments without a strong, provable link on this motion, match the motion. Pair the structural change the motion is demanding with structural analysis. Some starting questions that may be helpful are–

  • How much less accountable are we willing to let the judiciary be in exchange for more judicial independence?

  • How much are we willing to decrease the judiciary’s ability to check the political majority in order to increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the people?

  • Are the factors driving political polarization/the judiciary’s legitimacy crisis more upstream or downstream of the federal judiciary’s appointment system?

  • Why is the legitimacy of the judiciary a prior question to issues like effectiveness?

Further Reading

Andy Stubbs is the Curriculum Coordinator and content specialist for the Houston Urban Debate League and the CASE Debates Initiative, focusing on Worlds and Policy Debate.

This House, as the United States, would build a military base in Palau.

Context

While at first glance, this topic might seem a bit niche, it’s actually incredibly fascinating. It is one of the great WSD motions where your understanding of current events and the historical context of a region can make for a very nuanced debate.

First, let’s briefly discuss the wording of the motion. Note two important key terms in the motion - “The United States'' and “would”. On the choice of “would,” this indicates it is a policy motion. What does that mean? It means we are debating about the implementation of a policy and the resulting consequences. This debate will not really be about whether or not it is possible to implement a military base in Palau but rather what would happen as a result of it and why should we consider it in the first place. Furthermore, the explicit use of the United States in the motion means this is one of the times where you can wholeheartedly put the interests and the focus of the United States at heart. It is the actor of the motion and, as a result, a central discussion point in the debate. However, don’t let this Ameri-centric wording fool you - you still want to pay attention to the worldly implications of the topic.

Now let’s discuss the actual context surrounding the motion. For those unfamiliar, Palau–also known as the Republic of Palau– is a nation that “consists of more than 300 islands, many of them entirely uninhabited” [5]. It has a population of less than 20,000 people and strongly relies on its allies–mainly the United States and Taiwan–for its economic survival. [6] 

This brings us to an important piece of context you must know about Palau: the Compact of Free Association (COFA). The COFA is between the United States, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia where these nations “have ceded security to Washington in exchange for economic assistance and the right for their citizens to live and work in the United States”. While this agreement has existed for decades, it is up for renewal in 2024. Aid from the United States–both financial and security wise–has been the cornerstone of Palauan preservation. Without it, the country has little leg to stand on by nature of its small size and desperate island locations. While Palau’s current administration wants to renew this agreement–and have called for increased military protection–it has not been agreed to by the United States congress as of yet.

This then begs the question: why military bases in particular? Couldn’t the United States continue to offer economic aid? While this may be true, there are two additional factors to keep in mind. First: the United States already has a military presence there due to the promise they made to protect Palau. For example, the island has hosted military training in the past and the U.S. “plans to install over-the-horizon radar in the country by 2026.” [7] Recall also that the COFA allows for citizens to live and work in the United States, this also includes being members of the U.S. military. [8] The relationship and the precedence is there but a base itself is not. Second: the current president of Palau has expressed concern about China's presence in the area. Since 2020, Chinese boats have been seen surveying the country in its waters. [9] Palau is also a huge supporter of Taiwan, a fact China does not find positive in the slightest. They have encouraged Palau to abandon Taiwan on numerous occasions using the threat of their presence and their ability to hurt their economy with reduced tourism (more on this when we get to the substantives). [10] Given that it is such a small nation but its loyalties to the United States and ideals of democracy run deep, the current administration believes it is in the best interests of the United States to offer stronger military presence as a form of preemptive protection and increased influence in the Pacific. 

Proposition

Given the information in the context, I’ll cover two routes you can look into on the proposition: pacific geopolitical stability and US hegemony  

Stability

What does geopolitical stability refer to? Typically, this involves paying attention to the physical locations of countries and how that might affect the actions they take, the allies they have, and the enemies they might make. Palau has a very interesting location in the Pacific that situates it at the crosshairs of China–the nearest global superpower–and American allies. While I will discuss Chinese and American conflicting interests at length in the next section, understand that the presence of the United States and its allies has helped keep the region in a political stalemate. 

One could argue that this ensures peace and a decrease of escalation in the region. Palau is friends with many key actors in this area–all of whom are not particularly keen on China expanding its influence in the Pacific. This includes Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Australia. In the words of President Whipps Jr., “[they] all share in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific, and most important – preserving our freedom and democracy”. These are directly at odds with China’s push towards a more authoritarian form of governance.

Hegemony

On that note, let's discuss hegemony. For those unfamiliar with the term, hegemony is defined as “the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore able to control others,” especially in regard to countries.[11] Typically when discussing hegemony in the 21st century, it has been a battle between the United States, Russia, and China, with the United States, as of late, being in an extremely fragile territory regarding its current first place status. China, in particular, has heavily invested in economic and political influence around the globe in the past several decades. This can be documented in three ways: 1) removing US influence within its nation, 2) exerting control over others, and 3) pushing towards global expansion.[12] It is arguably the second largest economy in the world [13] and it continues to push its rivalry with the US in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. [14]

Palau has become the latest battle ground between these two nations as China seeks to, at the very least, secure its hegemonic dominance in the Pacific. As mentioned earlier, they have been dangling economic and political influence over Palau in the past few years. Additionally, there appears to be a sense of urgency and a crack in Palau’s willingness to be unyieldingly loyal to the United States. As articulated by President Whipps Jr. in NPR’s article titled “Australia vies with China for Pacific influence, signs new security deal”[15], it appears that:

“There's a lot of Chinese investment in Palau. I think they're the No. 1 foreign investor now. This changes the political dynamic," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "There's been pressure on us to switch to China, and Palau has been strong and saying that we are enemies to none and friends to all and no one should tell us who our friends should be.”

So while the administration might be keen on maintaining their relationship with the United States, as a democracy, if the people call for a switch they might not be able to say no.

However, isn’t Palau just a tiny mix of islands? Why is this such a big deal? Turns out there’s a lot of strategic value to the location of Palau and what it signals to China in the region. Its centrality in the Pacific–and the fact that it already has military precedence there–gives the United States the “right of strategic denial: access that is an imperative part of the U.S. defense architecture in the Pacific”. Close proximity to China, given that the U.S. still currently out performs them militarily, means that it cannot and will not do whatever it wants in the area. If they give this up, not only does the US lose a military opportunity but it will also give China another opportunity to expand its economic stronghold in the region.

This brings me to the final argument we can discuss here: economic aspects. Based on what we’ve learned so far, it is clear that there is no Palauan economy without the buy-in of a major super power. It heavily relies on financial aid from the United States to sustain itself and present job opportunities to their people. They also rely on tourism as well to bring in extra revenue and promote inland jobs to the people. This way of life is directly being threatened in a world where they do not feel strongly protected by the United States. Military tests and the promise of protection is not enough. If it is true that in order to “get peace, you have to project strength,” understand that any turmoil or strong arming that happens to Palau from China directly puts them in harm's way. [16] 

Opposition

On the opposition there are few arguments you can look into, namely: U.S. interests and escalating tensions.  

U.S. Interests

Let’s be frank here. While it is certainly a valiant effort for the United States to continue to provide support to Palau, building a military base could arguably be incredibly unnecessary at best and excessively costly at worst. Let’s discuss the first leg of this argument: unnecessary. As articulated several times in this section, the United States has already conducted military training and uses their relationship with Palau to have strategic deniability in regards to China. They already have the influence they need in Palau. In fact, building a military base in Palau would actually take away the strategic deniability the United States has. 

Switching over the worst case, it is excessively costly. In 2019, the U.S. provided $29 million dollars, which maid up one-fourth of Palau’s government spending. [17] Biden is planning on asking Congress to agree to $7 billion over the next 20 years. [18] A military base would only add more to the existing price tag. Furthermore, it can cost billions of dollars to construct and maintain a military base. This would go towards military operations but also the sending of troops, living quarters, and much more. Even if the United States could afford to do this–which it arguably cannot–why should it? The maximum benefit has already been met and, even if Palau decides to accept help from elsewhere, there are major US allies in the region already (namely South Korea, Australia, and Japan).

Tensions

However, even more sobering than costs are the risks a military base in Palau could create. Recall the mentioning of the United States’ strategic deniability. They are just an ally and IF something were to happen the U.S. would offer protection. While China might want to erode this relationship, they won’t pretend it doesn’t exist. It is simply an extension of the U.S.’s diplomacy in the region and, given that they are not physically there constantly, it is not like the United States is expanding considerably and aggressively into the Pacific. Building a military base drastically changes this. The U.S. will know longer appear to be a potential response but rather an active threat within the Pacific as far as China’s concerned.

Pay attention to the location of Palau, current U.S. allies and China on this map below.

The United States already has military bases in South Korea and Japan. Just this past week (as of this writing) China “sent dozens of aircraft and vessels toward the island, just days after the United States approved a $500-million arms sale to Taiwan”. [19] This indicates that as the United States increases military involvement in the region, China has become more willing to push the boundaries in response. Palau is not far off from China and its location makes it perfect for the stationing of troops and military weapons that can reach China in no time. Given Palau’s support of Taiwan, building a military base would most likely be perceived as the United States gearing up to support Taiwan with boots on the ground in the case of legitimate conflict.

Understand that there is historical precedent here when it comes to physical proximity and escalating tensions. Many of you, if you’ve taken World or U.S. History are probably familiar with some of the more popular events of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was a prime example of what we’re talking about here. The U.S.S.R. set up missiles in Cuba, which is incredibly close to the coast of the United States. This was done in response to the United States placing missiles in Turkey. Once word got to Washington that missiles were in Cuba, the United States went on the offensive (disguised as defensive), resulting in the most tense week and a half this world has known. [20] Imagine this today. The United States builds a military base close to China amid tensions in the region and China retaliates by creating a military base closer to the United States. Even if nothing happens–which is optimistic–the damage done on peaceful negotiations and the escalation in tension alone would result in a less cooperative world at best and a more anxious, mistake riddled standoff at worst. You can fan out the scenarios and impacts to various degrees depending on what your team determines is the best strategy here.

Concluding Thoughts

As with any TA, these are only starting points. As you discuss these things with your team, hopefully you find other and even more innovative arguments. This is a great chance to think of the effects of political and military choices. Have fun and good luck!

SunHee Simon is the founder of the World of Words Institute and assistant coach at Coppell High School.

World of Words Institute
Previous

TFA Announces 2023-2024’s Team Texas Lineup
Next

Breaking the Mold: Reevaluating the Need for a Third Substantive Argument