Before the NSDA announces each topic, they hold a panel for members, debaters, and coaches to vote for topics of their choice. Of the three options, one will be selected, and on August 8th, the selection will go live. This post will outline our thoughts on the three topics, hopefully giving you a better idea of which topics you may prefer to debate in the coming months.
1) Right to Housing
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Immediately, a few key ideas come in mind. First, a trend you will soon notice: each of this cycle's topics are centered around the United States, meaning global arguments have a far smaller playing field than they might have in other topics. However, this does not mean that using examples or philosophy from international areas is an illegitimate strategy - in fact, using something like China's current housing crisis (CNN) may prove an effective route for simple evidence gathering.
Another idea worth mentioning is the economics behind the right to housing. Chances are this argument will go both ways. For instance, Brookings argues that the right to housing is actually terrible for the economy, and provides four alternatives (which can be read on the opposing side as a counterplan!) to solve the housing crisis. At the same time, however, the National Low Income Housing Coalition argues quite the opposite: increasing access to housing is terrific for economic growth. The logic on both sides is simple, and these two articles out can serve as a phenomenal starting point for potential topic research down the road.
In terms of voting, this topic is a great suit for debaters who prefer a more economy-centered route to winning their rounds. Those who love reading statistics, delving into economic theory, and messing around with utilitarian and Keynesian ideologies will surely sail smoothly with this resolution.
2) Nuclear Power
Resolved: The United States ought to substantially increase the use of nuclear power to generate electricity.Â
Right off the bat, this resolution seems quite a bit worse than the first option for a few reasons. First and possibly most importantly, the topic wording falls prey to inevitable definition debates, which, admittedly, almost everyone hates. After all, what does "substantially" really mean? Do we have a status quo metric to use in order to measure what counts as a big enough shift? Questions like these are sure to be asked as soon as the first cross-examination, dooming this topic to an endless cycle of pointless debate. At worst, both sides will just argue past one another, like two trains passing on parallel roads.
In addition, this topic seems more PF-friendly, which can go either way in terms of your voting. Public Forum debaters are sure to have experience in debates on energy, nuclear power, and the electricity grid, and will certainly find success in reading statistics and empirics.
Finally, recall once again that this resolution is centered around the United States. Some debates may come down to whether the United States even has a moral obligation to address energy concerns in the first place, or if that obligation should instead belong to international organizations.
3) Public Banking
Resolved: The United States ought to establish a public option for banking.
At face value, this resolution seems very intriguing for a couple of reasons. First off, in a world where the United States actually has a public option for banking, there would certainly be drastic changes from our status quo. In fact, debaters who love reading more ancient philosophy may bring up that America was founded upon the principles of privatized banking and free-market economics, and thus may find success in such routes. However, a simple browsing of Wikipedia finds a massive list of countries that currently have public options for banking, and these countries can definitely be used as legitimate examples of public banking working well.
In addition, one common gripe with private banks is their tendency to engage in corruption due to a lack of government oversight. For instance, Marketplace finds that private banks often engage in risky, under-the-table behavior to evade public policies and procedures. The same article then goes on to cite that the only public banking option in the United States, at least for now, is the Bank of North Dakota. However, on the other side of the debate, the same article explains that a public option for banking could cause more harm than good given the exorbitant costs of maintenance and enforcement, totalling to millions, or even billions, of dollars. That, coupled with potential risks of state corruption, could amount to a hefty negative case.
Thus marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.