TFA Topic Analyses: Religious Institutions, BRICS, US Dollar, and Essential Medicines
This topic analysis packet contains the following resources:
This House would remove tax-exempt status from religious institutions and organizations by Jessica John
This House regrets the increasing geopolitical influence of BRICS by Emily Hu
This House regrets the use of the US dollar as the international currency standard by Kaden Alibhai
This House supports government control of the manufacturing and sale of essential medicines by Suchit Ineni
Bonus Content on religious institutions, BRICs, and essential medicines by Sophia Li
Enjoy + best of luck to all competing!
This House would remove tax-exempt status from religious institutions and organizations.
Context/Framing
Before jumping into the arguments for both sides, it’s important to understand what the motion is asking. First, what is a tax-exempt status? This status exists for Organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational, or other specified purposes and that meet certain other requirements are tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). When talking about religious institutions and organizations, these are places of worship, such as churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues. The Tariff Act of 1894 officially instated the tax-exempt status, but was later declared unconstitutional. However, the tax exemption was reinstated by the Revenue Act of 1913, and now all 50 states & the District of Columbia exempt religious institutions from paying income/property taxes. This means these organizations don’t pay taxes on income such as donations, property, and other sources of revenue.
In terms of framing the debate, there are a few things you should consider.
Definitions: define what tax-exempt status is and what specific taxes religious orgs are exempt from, and what religious institutions are.
Contextualize: why we’re debating this motion, what stakeholders are affected, what the current situation is (current lawsuits), etc.
Model: Considering that this is a “this house would” motion, it is the proposition’s job to implement a model. I would suggest making this model pretty simple, and just stating that your side would remove the tax-exempt status and instead tax them for property/donations/other sources of income. Opposition can make a counter-model, but it’s probably best to keep their side as the status quo.
Burden: I think most debates will probably come down to money allocation, so centering the burden around which side can produce the most effective use of money should win the debate.
Prop
When you and your teams are coming up with an argument, you should consider whether it is a principle or practical argument. Principled arguments are rooted in moral implications. For this topic, I think the best argument prop can make is accountability.
You can explain how unlike other non-profits, religious institutions aren’t required to file financial disclosure forms such as IRS Form 990, meaning there’s little to no accountability. And in a lot of situations, religious orgs have been found engaging in political lobbying and endorsements. Under current U.S. law, the Johnson Amendment states that 501(c)(3) organizations are not allowed to endorse political candidates. However, many religious leaders violate this amendment by influencing elections and advocating for certain policies (abortion restrictions, LGBTQ+ rights, school curriculum); removing tax-exempt status would get rid of this loophole.)
If they choose to engage in political activism, they should be taxed like any other lobbying group. For example, In Ohio in 2023, Catholic bishops contributed $1.7 million to a political action committee set up to fight an abortion rights ballot measure.
The second argument prop can make explains how governments are more efficient than churches. This is true for a couple of reasons:
If opposition makes an argument that governments would misallocate the tax money, proposition can explain that governments have an incentive to put the money to good use because a) they’re powered by voters and b) they have more accountability
Public backlash ensures accountability: You can explain how government spending is subject to public laws, media oversight, etc, they simply have more accountability because the people can vote someone out if they feel like they’re misusing the money. Moreover, it’s probably easier to hold a government accountable compared to hundreds of churches. Religious institutions, on the other hand, don’t have to disclose their financial activity in the same way, making misusing funds harder to detect.
Finally, explain how governments have more resources than churches. While religious orgs provide charity, their reach is often limited to local communities or the same areas. On the other hand, religious orgs can provide large-scale programs ensuring that aid reaches people regardless of religious affiliation or location. Governments also have more specialized professionals to handle disaster relief programs and economic planning. In terms of being able to connect to more rural areas and funding, it’s simply the more efficient option.
Opp
I think the best principled argument opposition can argue for is autonomy (separation of church and state).
Your principle should be outlined something like this:
Explain what the principle is. Give an intuition pump or a simple example of what it is.
Why is the principle important to society? For example, if the principle was human dignity, you can explain how human dignity is important because it underlies the “human experience” as we know it. If someone can’t retain the value of one’s life, the value of living substantially decreases. For this motion specifically, when discussing autonomy it’s important to explain how without it, your ability to experience life decreases. Moreover, for this topic specifically opposition could explain the importance of the separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that strengthens democracies, ensuring that the government remains neutral in religious matters.
How does proposition violate this principle?
Here you should give 2-3 different reasons how proposition’s side doesn’t uphold the principle.
For autonomy, you could explain a pretty clear link chain- when the government grants tax-exempt status, it imposes restrictions on religious institutions they shouldn’t have because they’re a non-profit org.
You could also argue that because religious orgs have less autonomy, they have less money to provide social programs or community services like food pantries, disaster relief, counseling services, etc. because now they have to pay taxes.
Another reason could be something along the lines of
Finally, you should explain how your side upholds the principle:
This shouldn’t be too long, but generally you want to make it clear that only on your side is the principle upheld, and this should be an independent reason to vote for your side even if you lose other practical arguments.
Another argument opposition could make involves social programs.
You could argue that since a lot of social programs are run by religious orgs such as disaster relief, humanitarian aid, food pantries, etc, removing the tax-exempt status would be bad for the communities who rely on them. Absent these programs, the state would have to make it up- and here is where you should explain why religious orgs are the preferred option to run these programs compared to the state.
You can explain how government programs often involve layers of bureaucracy, which oftentimes slows down aid distribution. Religious orgs can deliver aid more efficiently and ensure that more resources go directly to those in need.
In other words, religious institutions uniquely contribute to the betterment of society, and religious tax exemption is one means of limiting the influence of government on important areas of society.
Moreover, in communities that heavily rely on these programs, removing the tax exemption status means they have no other option to receive aid. And in poorer religious communities, taxing religious institutions would affect certain communities more than others. For example, taxing smaller churches would probably place a higher burden on the members. Unlike more wealthy churches who already have a substantial amount of wealthy donors, smaller institutions simply don’t have those resources and taxing them would only make things worse.
Finally, I think another argument opposition could make that could turn a lot of proposition’s material involves money misallocation.
Simply put, even if religious institutions are taxed, we still can’t be sure that the tax money will be put towards the same things as the religious orgs’ donation money was going towards (disaster relief, humanitarian aid, etc.). Tax revenue goes into a general fund, and could be allocated to unrelated expenditures such as administrative costs. Moreover, a large portion of current religious donors specifically donate because they know their money is going to causes they care about. If their institutions are now taxed, they no longer know where specifically their money is going and might even be inclined to donate less or not at all.
Further Reading
Supreme Court Considers Whether Catholic Group is Exempt from Religious Taxes
Should Churches Remain Tax-Exempt
Should Churches Get Tax Breaks?
End the Religious Tax Exemption
Jessica John is a freshman studying finance at the University of Texas at Dallas. She competed in World Schools Debate for 3 years at Flower Mound High School. Outside of debate, she loves playing volleyball, trying new foods, and hanging out with her friends.
This House regrets the increasing geopolitical influence of BRICS.
Info Slide: BRICS is an intergovernmental organization consisting of ten countries–Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.
Context
In recent years, BRICS has expanded its geopolitical and economic influence, challenging Western-dominated institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and NATO. Initially established by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in 2009, BRICS has since grown to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE, signaling its ambition to reshape global power dynamics. This debate asks you to evaluate whether BRICS is a necessary counterbalance to Western influence or if its rise creates more harm than good.
Framing
This is a regrets motion, which makes these framing components important:
First, both sides need to recognize and contextualize the historical narrative in the debate. A regrets motion is purely retrospective, which means that both sides must clarify key aspects of the narrative’s evolution, ensuring the discussion remains grounded in historical analysis rather than hypothetical scenarios. Here are some things to consider:
The primary goals of BRICS are to reduce global dependence on the U.S. dollar and create new financial institutions to challenge the influence of institutions like the IMF and World Bank. They’re currently developing the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). In regards to currency, it is unclear whether they plan to create their own collectively currency or bolster the influence of existing ones like China’s Renminbi.
BRICS employs consensus-based decision-making and is largely informal. They meet annually, and don’t have a lot of formal structures.
BRICS has grown extremely fast and has considerable economic influence right now. Between 2003 and 2007, the growth of the four countries accounted for 65% of the expansion of world GDP. Furthermore, BRICS’ GDP today already exceeds that of the U.S. or the European Union.
Historically, the West has largely undermined the threat of BRICS, but there have been recent acknowledgments of its influence – especially by Trump.
Additionally, this debate is about the increasing influence of BRICS, meaning that you cannot just engage with the general concept of the organization – you need to consider its broader influence in relation to the rest of the world. While BRICS was originally formed for economic reasons, its influence has affected military and diplomatic spheres.
Secondly, proposition’s goal in a regrets motion is to prove that a historical trend was faulty. Given that, prop must provide an alternative to BRICS, illustrating what would’ve happened if its influence had not expanded. This could be reverting to Western institutions like the IMF and pushing for reforms or expanding regional blocs to support development with more similar groups of nations.
Whatever you decide to do, it’s important that you explain why your alternative is likely – minimize time spent arguing about the feasibility of your counterfactual.
Proposition
One of the biggest flaws of BRICS as an economic alliance is its internal instability, which undermines its ability to function effectively. I see two aspects of this instability.
First, nations within BRICS have extremely diverse political and economic systems – ranging from democracies like India and Brazil to nations like China, Russia, and Iran. This has resulted in countless internal rivalries, challenging economic integration. China and India have border and resource disputes, Russia’s aggressive foreign policy isolates it from global markets, and Brazil’s unstable leadership has led to inconsistent economic priorities. These conflicts prevent BRICS from effectively advancing a shared economic agenda for almost half of the world’s population that they span, making it more of a symbolic alliance than a functional one.
Secondly, unlike institutions such as the European Union or NATO, which have formal governance structures and clear enforcement policies, BRICS is an informal coalition with no binding agreements and no structured conflict resolution mechanisms across its member states. Their main financial tool, the New Development Bank (NDB), is a weak alternative to the World Bank, lending five times less and failing to enforce strong governance, repayment oversight, or environmental protections. BRICS’ de-dollarization efforts have also been ineffective, as member nations lack a unified currency policy and remain economically reliant on the US and EU. You might argue that this instability is significant because without BRICS, its member states could have pursued reforms within the IMF and World Bank rather than creating a parallel system that lacks institutional strength. Instead, BRICS has weakened economic ties with the West without offering a viable long-term replacement if anything goes wrong.
BRICS also has damning effects on global cooperation. The bloc is a deliberate effort to counterbalance Western influence, but in doing so, it has emboldened authoritarianism. Unlike Western institutions that tie economic aid to democratic governance and anti-corruption measures, BRICS provides funding and diplomatic backing with no conditions, giving China, Russia, and Iran unchecked authority to suppress dissent and ignore human rights violations. Beyond this, BRICS exacerbates geopolitical divides, making global cooperation harder. Instead of fostering multilateral solutions, expansion of BRICS has made the world increasingly locked in an East vs. West rivalry. This means less cooperation on climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and global health crises, as countries feel pressured to align with one bloc or the other rather than pursue collective solutions.
Finally, I think there is a compelling argument about the environmental impacts of BRICS’ fast-paced growth. Unlike the IMF and World Bank, which increasingly tie financing to climate commitments, BRICS funds infrastructure and energy projects with no environmental oversight. Its largest members – China, India, and Brazil – are among the world’s biggest polluters, and BRICS financing has actively enabled coal expansion and high-emission industrialization. For instance, China continues to fund coal plants across Asia and Africa, while Brazil’s Amazon deforestation has worsened under economic pressures tied to BRICS trade deals. The NDB does not require sustainability benchmarks, allowing nations to prioritize short-term industrial growth over long-term environmental responsibility. Without BRICS, these nations would have been more accountable to global climate agreements like the Paris Accords, facing greater pressure to adopt cleaner energy policies and invest in sustainable development. Instead, BRICS’ influence has stalled international climate progress by offering an unchecked alternative.
Opposition
Crucially, decreasing global reliance on the US minimizes American coercion of developing nations, which allows them to act more autonomously.
BRICS provides an essential alternative to Western financial institutions, allowing developing nations to access funding without the restrictive conditions imposed by the IMF and World Bank. Historically, these Western institutions have required borrowing countries to implement austerity measures, privatize public resources, and adopt economic policies that benefit creditors rather than local economies. In contrast, the BRICS’ NBD has approved over $32 billion in infrastructure projects, offering low-interest loans without requiring economic restructuring or governance reforms. This approach gives emerging economies greater flexibility in pursuing long-term growth without being forced into economic policies dictated by Western powers. One of the clearest examples of BRICS' economic impact is China’s investment in Africa, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China has financed over $60 billion in African infrastructure, significantly boosting regional trade and development. The Mombasa-Nairobi Railway in Kenya has cut transportation costs by 40%, improving trade efficiency, while the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway has reduced export transit time from three days to 12 hours, strengthening Ethiopia’s trade capacity. While some may argue that China’s lending practices create debt traps and dependency, BRICS funding is a viable alternative to IMF loans, which have historically forced borrowing nations to cut public sector spending, including healthcare and education. Beyond direct investments, BRICS has also strengthened “South-South trade”, reducing reliance on Western-dominated markets. Over the past decade, intra-BRICS trade has grown by 56%, with countries increasingly settling transactions in local currencies instead of the US dollar. For example, India and Russia increased bilateral trade by 205% in 2023, largely due to energy cooperation that bypasses US and EU sanctions. Additionally, China and Brazil now settle trade in yuan and reais, insulating their economies from fluctuations in US monetary policy. By creating alternative trade and financial networks, BRICS helps developing nations avoid economic dependence on the US and EU, giving them more control over their financial futures. In comparison, Western financial institutions have historically weakened developing economies through aggressive loan conditions. In 2021, IMF-imposed austerity measures led to an average 20% cut in public healthcare spending across 16 African nations, worsening social inequality. In Argentina, repeated IMF loans have caused economic stagnation, currency devaluation, and severe budget cuts, making economic recovery nearly impossible. Without BRICS, many countries would remain locked into a financial system that prioritizes creditor nations over the long-term stability of developing economies.
There’s also an interesting argument to be made about challenging Western monopolization of technology innovation. BRICS ensures that technological progress is not controlled solely by Western corporations and governments, allowing emerging economies to lead in sectors like AI, biotechnology, and space research. Western institutions often restrict access to patents and research opportunities, forcing developing nations to license technology from US and EU firms at high costs. This creates significant economic dependence, where developing countries must follow Western regulations and rely on foreign supply chains, preventing them from building self-sufficient tech industries. Through BRICS cooperation, countries like China and India have expanded their own AI development programs, while Russia has advanced in hypersonic missile technology and space research. For example, India’s Chandrayaan-3 Moon landing and China’s AI breakthroughs demonstrate how BRICS nations are achieving technological progress independently, reducing reliance on Western-controlled innovation.
Finally, this motion addresses increasing geopolitical influence – not just economic impacts of BRICS. Western media, especially Hollywood, dominates global narratives, often erasing non-Western perspectives from cultural and political discourse. This leads to cultural homogenization, where Western values, storytelling, and ideologies shape global perceptions, sidelining local traditions and historical contexts. BRICS’ international influence promotes alternative storytelling and entertainment industries. For instance, China’s film industry, India’s Bollywood, and Russia’s RT News have become influential and challenge Western media hegemony.
Final Thoughts
TLDR: The core clash of this debate is about whether BRICS provides a meaningful alternative to Western-centric institutions or if it creates instability. I hope my thoughts give you some ideas to research more about & feel free to check out these articles to read more!
What Is the BRICS Group and Why Is It Expanding?
BRICS: Here’s what to know about the international bloc | World Economic Forum
The BRICS countries: where next and what impact on the global economy? - Economics Observatory
A relevant BRICS: Reimagining global economic reform
Brics: growth of China-led bloc raises questions about a rapidly shifting world order
Emily Hu is a freshman studying Finance, Accounting, and Data Science at Indiana University. Aside from exploring new restaurants and rating them on Beli, she enjoys watching romantic comedies, making playlists, and thrifting.
This House regrets the use of the US dollar as the international currency standard.
Context
First, I think it’s important to understand what motion means in the context of the status quo. In the early 1900s, global currency was very volatile and based on individual banks handing out notes, quickly becoming unsustainable. Also, international transactions were still occurring in Great British Pounds (GBP). The developed nations then decided to tie their money to gold, creating what became known as the “Gold Standard.” When World War I started, most countries stopped the gold standard to fund their militaries. Britain decided to stick to gold, so the dollar took over as the number one reserve currency, as it was the most valuable note available.
Thirty years later, World War II was gearing up to begin, and the U.S. was once again turned to but for military equipment and supplies this time. Since the countries paid for the goods in gold, the gold standard was no longer feasible, so change was needed. The Bretton Woods Agreement was the ultimate solution, which is still the situation today. The USD is the international reserve currency for the past 80+ years. Although the U.S. strayed from the gold standard during the Vietnam War, countries have kept the USD the standard due to the size of the U.S. economy and the trust in our domestic markets. However, when one country’s currency is the standard for the entire world, equity concerns arise.
Framework
Now that we understand the history behind the motion let’s look at the framework for this round.
Proposition
On prop, you’re regretting US hegemony over the international currency market. In a regret motion, I was always taught that you need a counterfactual, so that’s how I will operate here. It’s not enough to just say we think the US is bad; we have to give something we believe would have been preferable. Also, since this motion is regretting something, it’s inherently retrospective. On prop, we are running a critique against the dominance the US historically has held — not the future harms we think will happen because of Trump, a decline in the US, or something else. I used the line “You can’t regret something that hasn’t happened yet” if a team gave pushback on that framing. A good counterfactual for this motion would look like preferring a blend of international currencies as the standard from diverse geographic locations. This way, you get access to stability impacts, and it’s more fair because more countries have representation. The best burden for prop is arguing that stability and fairness should be valued over anything else because that is the easiest path to the ballot.
Opposition
On opp, you have much less work to do in terms of framing. You’re defending the status quo and the course of history that occurred. You need to make two main pushes in the framing of this debate. First, pushing the proposition to give you some counterfactual is essential. Ensure the discussion is not the status quo v. a vacuum on the proposition. However, with that being said, you don’t want to make the entire debate about their counterfactual because there are judges who will buy that they don’t need one. Second, regarding your burdens, you should also push for stability, but your framing should be very comparative, and that rhetoric should be evident throughout the round. It is not enough for the proposition to just come up here and poke holes in the U.S. monetary policy – that isn’t enough to win them the round. They have to prove that their world is better uniquely – make sure it is very clear to the judge.
Arguments: I’ll give a few thoughts about arguments that can be strategic and shape them a little.
Proposition
Principle: There is an interesting principle here that could work depending on how you run it. I have always liked to run principles because it gives you a unique backdoor path to the ballot, even if you lose on practical grounds. The most straightforward principle here is sovereignty, which states that no nation should ultimately control the international currency standard. Developing nations don’t have a say, and just one country having control can be reason enough to regret. You can take opp at their highest ground and say that even if the US was the best actor, we still regret it because, principally, it was unjust.
Instability: This is an intuition pump. You can cite the 2008 financial crisis or one of the many times the Fed has increased its rates, but it comes down to the fact that any one nation is subject to volatility. No matter how big and strong a nation is, it is bound to have hardships, which has a cascading effect worldwide if all the eggs are in one basket. By diversifying the global economic portfolio, it makes it more stable.
Representation: When developing nations have to tie their currency to the USD, it gives them less control and autonomy over their monetary policy. It also gets into a situation where something they have no say in (US monetary policy) affects their economies so much. Many developing economies already have instability, and making them.
Opposition
Stability: This will be a big clash point in the round, so having a competing offense here will be good. Remember, everything is operating in the comparative on opposition. The US has a strong but diverse economy, so it is usually very stable. The other options that are proposed are almost certainly more volatile. I would look at a couple of the top currencies and have A2s for all of them that you can read to prepare for anything. Also, since the US has the strongest currency, the international community rallies behind it in times of crisis.
Strengthening the Global Economy: Many world’s largest corporations are US-based or deal in USD. Having one currency makes everything much more efficient and streamlines the processes of facilitating transactions. No exchange rates lead to deadweight losses, making trading across borders and regions more straightforward. When there are fewer barriers to trade, corporations and countries are more likely to do business with each other, which stimulates the global economy.
Global South: This might just be an extension of the economic argument, but if you take the same incentive analysis I used, the US has an incentive to prop up struggling countries. Instability in one area affects the US markets since everyone is so closely linked. This means that they are more likely to conduct bailouts, give financial aid, and use diplomacy to solve global economic crises. This helps nations that would have previously been stranded because they weren’t relevant enough to the global hegemons.
Concluding thoughts
This is a balanced motion with lots of sound clashes and rhetoric on both sides. I recommend doing ample research before writing your substantives so you know exactly where you want to go. Best of luck!
Kaden is a freshman at Rice University studying Political Science and Social Policy Analysis. When he's not in the classroom, you can find him watching sports, reading a book, or hanging out with friends.
This House supports government control of the manufacturing and sale of essential medicines.
Info Slide: Essential medicines are those that effectively and safely treat the priority healthcare needs of the population. They include those that are needed for patients in acute care medical facilities, which specialize in short-term treatment for severe injuries or illnesses, and urgent medical conditions.
Context
The healthcare industry has never been very popular in the United States. Insulin, a life saving drug that costs as much as an energy drink to manufacture, is sold at several hundreds of dollars for the uninsured. Daraprim, which used to be sold at $13.50, was marked up 5,000% in 2015. Out of pocket medical costs are growing much faster than salaries. This motion was likely chosen in the context of the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thompson was killed in November, and there is significant evidence suggesting the motive was related to the absurd prices and other practices that health insurance companies, and especially United Healthcare, have been using.
In contrast to the United States’ healthcare system, many other developed countries have much more significant government involvement. In England for instance, the vast majority of healthcare is administered by the government and free to the consumer (obviously taxes do go towards it), and only 8% of citizens use private healthcare. Canada has a similar model, though many people have supplemental health insurance which covers beyond what the public healthcare system does. Though it is common for governments to control the sale of essential medicines, the manufacturing side is far more privatized. Governments that subsidize healthcare for its citizens buy from private companies such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, or AstraZeneca. Those companies are responsible for the R&D and mass production of the medicines, though they do receive government funding at times (e.g. COVID or general research grants).
Framing
For definitions, there are two terms we need to worry about: “essential medicines” and “government control”. Essential medicines are defined in the info slide, so there shouldn’t be any debate as to what they are. It is important in framing however, to establish the importance of them. Since we are talking about life saving medication, impacts such as access are very crucial in the round. It would be useful to give some examples as well. Government control can have a couple of meanings. The first one would be nationalizing, or the government itself producing/selling medicines. This is the more hardline stance (it definitely fits the wording of the motion), so there shouldn’t be any pushback if this is allowed by the motion. The second one is significant regulation of private corporations. The government would control the manufacturing and selling process indirectly. As prop, I would recommend taking the first stance about nationalization for a few reasons. The first is that it gets you a lot more offense. In the status quo, there already is significant regulation over the private sector. If you argue that the status quo is failing, then it’s very hard to get any offense, because you are not significantly different, so all of your arguments push back against you. The second reason is that opp could likely have a countermodel regarding regulations, and then both sides would be arguing for basically the same thing, the round would become a definition debate, and everyone watching would be really sad. The third reason is that judges might not buy the definition being regulation, so you would be setting yourself up for failure regardless of how well you argue.
This then takes me into the model. If you were to define government control as nationalizing, then you would have to define the way this happens. It could be similar to other nationalization motions we’ve had recently, such as the energy company motion in October/December. You would probably have some sort of a phase in which the government buys out large pharmaceutical companies and runs them. There should also be regulation that prevents private companies from staying in the field. It is fair ground in my opinion to say that startups or other small companies can exist, but considering the high cost of entry into the pharmaceutical industry, it’s not likely you gain significant offense here, and if somehow you do, then there’s a good chance this actually cuts back against your other arguments.
Opp has a few options with how they want to go. First, they can advocate for the status quo. Second, they can advocate for regulations. Third, they can control one of the aspects (either manufacturing or selling). I wouldn’t recommend directly advocating for the status quo. Even if a lot of the arguments are independent of the model, it’s very useful to have something as a model, otherwise prop has really easy ground for try-or-die framing, where they argue that the status quo is already terrible, so even if the model makes life worse, it would be marginal, so we should try something at least to give us a chance. A countermodel saying the government should control only one part can be effective, it’s just important to recognize that playing both sides can make your stance seem contradictory as well as a bit weak. I think regulations are the most effective way to go. It’s important to have some specifics, such as price caps, profit caps, removing/limiting patents, or expanding anti-trust legislation.
Finally, the burden should be pretty simple. Considering the motion is referring to essential medicines, it should be regarding saving lives. Maybe you want to emphasize long term, or access, or specifically for disadvantaged groups in the burden, but that can also come up in later speeches as weighing.
Prop
The first argument for prop should be access. This can have a practical and principle layer, though the principle layer is hung on proving the practical. Private corporations are obsessed with profits. It’s their whole reason for existing. CEOs have an obligation to produce the most amount of money for the shareholders. While this is great for making money, it is harmful for those who need life saving medication. Unlike clothing or luxury goods or even food, medicines have two unique characteristics that put the leverage in regards to pricing in the hands of the seller. Firstly, there aren’t many alternatives. There is a huge amount of money required to produce a drug in the first place, so there aren’t many corporations with the capability to make them, and patents limit this even more. Secondly, essential medicines are by definition essential. If I need an essential medicine, I can’t just choose not to get it. If I have the need and the capability to buy an essential medicine, then I will do so. I won’t be asking myself “is it worth it?” because my life would be on the line. Considering such, there’s an incentive to ignore access to the poor. If I can sell a product for $100 and get access to 5 people, that’s better than selling it for $40 to 10 people. Governments on the other hand don’t have the same motivation. Their unique mechanism for power is popular support. In democracies, this is required to win an election, and even in non democratic nations, having the support of the people puts less pressure on the regime, so they can focus on their goals. The impacting here is two fold. On a purely utilitarian level, there’s fewer people who can afford it, thus more people die due to a lack of access. On a principle level, the lack of access to healthcare is an example of structural violence against marginalized people. People die, not just disproportionately in regards to their income, but because they are poor. There are strong correlations between race, lack of access to employment, and educational failures with income. Allowing corporations to continue to contribute to the oppression of the already disadvantaged is beyond harmful.
The second argument could be increased efficacy. There’s a few ways this holds.The first is through an economy of scale. The concept of an economy of scale is that the larger an organization is, the more efficient it is with production. Take for example, education. If there were a school that had 10 students, in order to provide each one of them even the basic amount of services, such as teachers for all the core curriculum, a couple of electives, transportation, and supplies, it would be astronomically expensive (could be around $100k per student). However, if that number goes up to 500 students, then it takes significantly less per student. In relation to the pharmaceutical industry, there isn’t the need for competing research to get around a patent, more collaboration and sharing of information, marketing budgets could be slashed, and there obviously isn’t need to give millions of dollars to executives. Second method is through emergency responses. Even using one of the most effective responses by pharmaceutical companies to a public health emergency, the development of the COVID vaccine, a nationalized model could have done it better. The government had to promise J&J and Pfizer that they would buy hundreds of millions of doses and there were many repetitive processes that happened. Think of how many times that every company that developed a COVID vaccine had the exact same mistake or went down a very similar process. If instead it were a single entity, they would not have had to rediscover everything. Additionally, there could be better coordinated responses with local governments.
Opp
The opp arguments I’m going to talk about are going to be independent of the countermodel for a couple of reasons. First, so they can apply to a different countermodel as well, and second, it’s typically stronger to have arguments that aren’t contingent on countermodels, especially when the countermodel is typically arguing for more government involvement. The first opp argument is research and development. Private corporations have a strong incentive to create new medicines. Doing so can make them tons of money. Therefore, private corporations are willing to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to develop new medicines. This paired with competition from other pharmaceutical companies results in many new medicines being invented. The reason why there are high prices of essential medicines is to offset the upfront cost and to allow for future research and development. The only reason that countries can have universal healthcare that is effective in the status quo is because the private industry specifically in the United States. Impacting is important for this argument. First, the existence of competitors results in prices going down for drugs over time, and second, discovering new cures for diseases results in more lives being saved in the long run.
The second argument can be about governmental inefficiencies. When governments are as large as they are, they don’t have the same efficiency. There are layers of bureaucracy and very strong unions that sacrifice the output. A really good example of the bureaucracy being paralyzing is NASA. Sure during the space race, NASA was very effective, but it’s no longer the same. NASA takes about 20 times as much money to send a mission into outer space compared to SpaceX. There are also political pressures and differing agendas that can result in volatility. For example, we have an administration in the US right now that made it a huge point to cut government spending. In the context of the government owning the production of essential medicines, this means people dying. Corrupt governments also have absolute power over the people. They can limit shipments to certain areas to crack down on protestors or dissenters.
Conclusion
All in all, while this motion is about essential medicines, it’s a lot more similar to other motions about nationalization. The heart of this motion is about whether private companies are better for the people in comparison to the government. The motion just specifically applies it to a crucial sector. Make sure you all look back at your cases from the energy company motion as well as the state vs liberal capitalism motion and good luck!
Further Reading:
Suchit is a sophomore at the University of Texas at Dallas studying Mathematics and is an assistant coach at Coppell High School. In his free time, he enjoys watching sports and learning something new.
Bonus Content: Tax Exemption, BRICS, and Essential Medicine
Tax exemption
Framework
Removing tax-exempt status from religious institutions means they would be subject to the same tax obligations as other organizations and businesses. Currently, religious institutions are exempt from federal income taxes, property taxes, and certain state and local taxes. They also benefit from tax-deductible donations, reducing taxable income for donors.
Clarification:
Businesses, property owners, and even some small nonprofits contribute to public services through taxation, funding schools, infrastructure, and emergency services. Religious institutions use these same services but do not contribute financially.
While some religious organizations provide community support, tax exemption applies broadly, including to institutions that generate significant wealth w/o engaging in charitable activities.
Push opp to defend high burden of what makes religious institutions specifically deserving of this status
Examples –
A whistleblower revealed that the LDS Church had amassed a $100 billion
Faith-based organizations own more than 92 million square feet of land across the five boroughs of NY
Prop Arguments
1. Tax Exemption Violates the Principle of Separation of Church and State (probably a principle)
Top level characterization:
The government is meant to remain neutral toward religion, neither promoting nor inhibiting it. However, granting tax-exempt status to religious institutions provides them with a financial advantage that secular organizations do not receive.
How violate this principle?
Unlike secular nonprofits, which must meet specific criteria and report financials to maintain tax-exempt status, religious institutions receive automatic exemption regardless of financial transparency or community benefit
This is a form of favoritism from a government supposed to not favor certain religion
2. Religious Institutions Benefit from Public Services Without Contributing
Financial Burden on Taxpayers
Religious institutions utilize public infrastructure—roads, police, fire departments, sanitation—without paying into the system. The cost is absorbed by individuals and businesses, increasing their tax burden.
Tax-exempt religious institutions often own vast amounts of valuable property, further reducing municipal revenue and straining local budgets
3. Removing Tax Exemption Would Improve Public Welfare
Increased Revenue for Public Services
Taxing religious institutions would generate substantial revenue for essential services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Local governments facing budget shortfalls could use this revenue to reduce class sizes, improve hospitals and repair roads.
4. Creating a More Equitable Tax System
Burden Redistribution
Exempting religious institutions shifts the tax burden onto individuals and businesses, leading to higher property taxes and reduced public services.
Most these churches don’t lack money anyway and it’s placing the burden on more middle/lower income people probably
If religious institutions paid their fair share, tax rates for individuals could decrease, and public funding would be more equitably distributed.
5. Preventing Financial Abuse & Increasing Accountability
Lack of Transparency in Religious Finances
Tax-exempt status allows religious institutions to accumulate vast wealth with little oversight. Some organizations amass significant assets while claiming nonprofit status, despite engaging in commercial activities.
The absence of taxation enables financial mismanagement, as there is no requirement for religious institutions to disclose financial records like other nonprofits.
Characterization:
A wealthy televangelist encourages followers to donate substantial sums with promises of spiritual rewards. These donations fund personal luxuries—private jets, mansions, and high-end cars—without any financial accountability.
Mormon church has $100bn ‘clandestine hedge fund’, says whistleblower
Opp Arguments
Sub 1: Protecting Religious Freedom/potential church state separation principle
Taxation = government leverage
Once taxed, religious institutions become financially dependent on government policies. Pressure to comply with state regulations grows—on hiring, messaging, even doctrine.
Selective enforcement risk
Future administrations could impose higher taxes on some religious groups, favoring others. Opens the door to indirect discrimination.
Legal precedent
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970): Supreme Court ruled tax exemptions prevent “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Without them, the state wields more power over faith-based institutions.
Global warning signs
Germany’s church tax: Government collects it, but also dictates some church functions. Sweden sees declining religious engagement under state-influenced systems.
Sub 2: Strengthening Charitable and Social Services
Massive community support at risk
Churches, mosques, synagogues fund food banks, shelters, counseling. Taxing them cuts into resources.
Ie: Catholic Charities USA—millions served yearly. Taxation forces service cuts.
Public services can’t absorb the loss
Local governments stretched thin. If churches pull back, cities need to step in—but they lack funding and infrastructure.
Example: Rural church-run clinics—often the only healthcare available. If they shut down, no alternatives.
Donations drop, operations shrink
Religious institutions depend on donations, which decline if taxed. Less funding → fewer programs → less impact.
** potentially an argument on opp to be made about smaller churches and how those go underwater when taxed a lot? Then this reduces religious participation which is bad for people’s faith
BRICS
Framework/Background
Five major emerging economies—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) → expanded now!
Goal: more influence, less reliance on Western-led institutions
What they do –
Trade deals outside Western financial systems
Investment in infrastructure, energy, tech
Shift away from the U.S. dollar (BRICS currency talks, alternative payment systems)
Political goals –
Counterbalance to U.S.-led alliances (NATO, G7)
Push for a multipolar world—more regional power, less Western control
Shared positions on issues like Ukraine, sanctions, and global governance
Development efforts:
New Development Bank (NDB)—BRICS’ answer to the World Bank. Big one!!!!
Focus on infrastructure, poverty reduction, tech growth
Funding projects in member states + Global South
Alternative because regrets motion: Strengthening Existing Institutions
Instead of creating rival blocs, reform global institutions (UN, IMF, World Bank)
Fix flaws while keeping democratic norms, stability, accountability intact
IMF & World Bank:
Fairer lending policies—less Western bias in decision-making
More representation for emerging economies in leadership
Still ensures financial stability & economic cooperation
UN reform:
More say for developing nations in global decisions
Keep focus on human rights, governance standards
Avoid deepening geopolitical divides
Some general arg ideas for PROP:
Brics has a lot of internal fracturing that could impede on efficiency (china vs india)
West vs BRICS tension → aggression? Bad for global stability, proxy wars potentially, etc.
More authoritarian nations, potentially less checkback on human rights and democratic values
Obviously, preempt this in P1 on the idea that BRICS is a checkback against western hegemony
Further Reading
Can BRICS Finally Take On the West?
BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Reshaping global governance: the Global South, BRICS and the West
Essential medicine
Background/Framing
What Are Essential Medicines?
Defined by the WHO—“medicines that satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population.”
Includes treatments for infectious diseases (antibiotics, antivirals), chronic conditions (insulin, heart medications), pain management (morphine, anesthesia), and preventive care (vaccines).
Critical for acute care settings (hospitals, emergency rooms) and long-term disease management (diabetes, hypertension, cancer).
Why Government Control?
Ensures universal access
Market-based pricing leads to affordability issues—over 25% of the global population lacks access to essential medicines (WHO).
Even in wealthy nations, patients ration life-saving drugs due to costs (e.g., insulin crisis in the U.S.).
Low-income countries often rely on unstable donations and imports for critical medicines.
PROP Arguments;
1. Ensures Affordability & Universal Access – 2 notes
Market-driven pricing puts life-saving drugs out of reach
Insulin prices in the U.S. tripled in a decade—forcing patients to ration doses, leading to preventable deaths.
Cancer treatments like Novartis’ Kymriah cost $475,000 per patient, despite being developed with public funding.
Government intervention can cap prices & subsidize costs
Countries like Canada & the UK negotiate directly with manufacturers, securing lower prices.
India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) sets price ceilings on key medicines, making them accessible.
2. Prevents Shortages & Stabilizes Supply Chains
Private firms often halt production if drugs are not profitable
Pfizer & Teva discontinued key chemotherapy drugs, causing global shortages.
Low-margin but essential antibiotics are increasingly scarce, putting patients at risk.
Government-backed production ensures steady supply
U.S. Defense Production Act invoked during COVID-19 to accelerate vaccine manufacturing.
Sweden’s state-owned Apoteket prevents critical drug shortages by maintaining reserves.
Public sector can focus on long-term health security rather than short-term profits
Investing in domestic production avoids reliance on fragile global supply chains.
Strategic stockpiling of essential medicines prevents crisis-driven price spikes.
3. Redirects Innovation Toward Public Health Needs
Pharmaceutical companies prioritize blockbuster drugs over urgent health threats
More money is spent on developing hair loss & weight loss drugs than on new antibiotics, despite rising antibiotic resistance.
Research into rare but deadly diseases (e.g., Ebola, Lassa fever) is often ignored.
Public investment already funds much of medical R&D—governments should control the output
U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) contributed to every new drug approved from 2010–2019, yet companies hold exclusive patents.
Taxpayer-funded research should lead to affordable, widely available treatments, not corporate monopolies.
Compulsory licensing can break patents when public health is at stake
Brazil & Thailand bypassed patents to produce affordable HIV/AIDS drugs, saving millions of lives.
The WTO’s TRIPS waiver during COVID-19 allowed countries to manufacture vaccines without waiting for corporate approval.
OPP Arguments:
Stifles Innovation & Slows Drug Development
High risk, high cost of pharmaceutical R&D
Developing a new drug averages $2.6 billion, with 90% of trials failing.
Without the potential for high returns, companies may avoid investing in breakthrough treatments.
Private sector drives medical advancements
mRNA vaccines, targeted cancer therapies, CRISPR gene editing—all came from private innovation.
Governments lack the flexibility to allocate resources efficiently to high-risk, high-reward research.
Brain drain effect
Top scientists and biotech entrepreneurs may shift to other industries with better financial incentives.
2. Government Inefficiency Risks Supply Chain Failures
State-run industries struggle with responsiveness
Venezuela’s government-controlled pharma system collapsed, causing widespread shortages.
UK’s NHS procurement issues led to delays in getting critical medicines.
Bureaucratic bottlenecks
Price controls and government-led production could slow down manufacturing and distribution.
Limited adaptability means slower responses to health crises or sudden demand spikes.
Corruption & political influence
Drug availability could become politicized, favoring certain demographics or domestic producers over efficiency.
Risk of lobbying from powerful interest groups skewing decision-making.
3. Limits Patient Choice & Lowers Quality of Care
Restricted formularies limit access
Many price-controlled systems exclude newer, more effective drugs due to cost concerns.
Patients may be forced to use outdated or less effective treatments.
Delays in approval & adoption
FDA & EMA approval timelines are already long—more government control could make it worse.
Cutting-edge therapies like CAR-T cell treatments may be deprioritized due to cost concerns.
Private sector competition benefits patients
Market-driven pricing can incentivize affordability without full government takeover.
Countries with robust private competition often have faster access to innovative treatments.
Sophia is an Econ & Stats student at Stanford who is passionate about global private equity, U.S.-China diplomacy, and East Asian financial markets. She is the ‘24 Tournament of Champions (TOC) winner and 2023-2024 Team USA Debate co-captain.
