Topic Analysis - LD 2017-2018 Topics List
By: Indu Pandey
As debaters go to summer camps and gear up for the quickly arriving season, we decided to post some our thoughts on the 2017-2018 Lincoln-Douglas Potential Topics List and what positions could be viable.
Resolved: In the United States, workers ought to have a civil right to unionize.
Fem arguments might include: Marxist feminism as it relates to workers’ rights or feminist jurisprudence especially in the context of “rights.”
Interesting terms of art of words in the resolution include: “civil rights,” “unionize,” and “workers.” These might become particularly relevant in topicality debates and plan-writing.
Negative arguments could include a critical legal studies (CLS) kritik, a capitalism K, or generic economic backlash disads.
Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.
This topic was core negative ground during the 2014-2015 Jan/Feb living wage topic. Debaters might consider looking at the types of arguments that people who debated that topic read.
Some fem arguments one could read include: Marxist feminism, arguments relating to the “welfare queen,” or intersectional feminist arguments about disparate rates of poverty for women of color.
Other arguments could include the econ DA, politics DA, the spending DA, counterplans (such as the living wage CP), and more.
Resolved: The non-therapeutic use of human enhancement technologies is immoral.
This topic has a few different terms of art, so debaters should research the terms: “non-therapeutic” and “human enhancement technologies.” These may prove to be helpful when constructing an aff case or writing T.
Human enhancement tech has historical precedent of being sexist and masculine in terms of what enhancements are desirable and why they are chosen by particular people. A feminist genealogy would be a unique outlook.
The resolution is structured in a slightly different way than most debaters are used to: rather than phrased as an ought-statement (i.e. The non-therapeutic use of human enhancement ought to be banned), the resolution seems to preclude plans and promote an understanding of the resolution as a normative statement.
Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.
Criminal justice system (CJS) topics often require extra background reading to understand the history and legality of the practice in question. We recommend debaters take the extra time to get good foundational knowledge.
Plea bargaining is sometimes argued to disenfranchise minorities. Therefore, intersectionality might be a fem position to read.
Debaters might take a look at past Nov/Dec topics to understand the common neg positions that accompany CJS topics.
Resolved: In the United States, reporters ought to have the right to protect the identity of confidential sources.
These topics were sometimes discussed during the last Jan/Feb topic on free speech. The most common fem position was anonymity for IPV (intimate partner violence) and rape survivors.
Interesting areas of research might include: the First Amendment (in particular, freedom of press), theory of rights (both critically and philosophically), and confidentiality laws.
The majority of the ground on this topic appears to be critical or philosophical with less of an emphasis on policy-style arguments.
Resolved: A democracy ought to require the separation of church and state.
Fem positions that might be of interest are feminist Ks of the church and masculine notions of “democracy.”
Debaters could also consider the history of the United States and how it relates to constant reevaluations of what “separation of church and state” are. There have been many recent court cases hinging on “religious freedom,” which would be a good place to start in the background literature.
The neg could focus on the community action that churches often advocate for. The black church is a fundamental in getting people to vote and promote community well-being.
Resolved: In the United States, non-human animals ought to have legally protected rights.
The most common fem argument on this topic might end up being the ecofeminism kritik or some arguments about feminist jurisprudence.
Once again, CLS is a viable strategy against affirmatives that center on “rights.”
The resolution has a decent amount of ground for plans and unique advantage areas given the wording of the resolution.
Resolved: Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide development assistance to other nations.
This resolution is worded oddly because of its terms of art (i.e. wealthy nations, other nations). This may make T debates vague and unfulfilling; however, the topic allows for a variety of neg ground. The resolution is also an “obligation,” which makes plan-writing slightly different than usual.
Some fem arguments you should consider are: feminist international relations (IR), intersectional feminism, and Marxist feminism.
The topic is apt for a lot of plan debate or, at the very least, a lot of debates about the consequences due to the U.S. economic assistance of many countries around the world. Depending on the definitions you may find, there are also places that the U.S. military provides development assistance, like in AFRICOM.
Resolved: Privileged individuals ought not appropriate the culture of a marginalized group.
On face, this topic might seem incredibly one sided, but there is valid ground. Debaters could read starting point Ks, which say that an analysis of a certain structure should be a pre-requisite to the aff advocacy. They could also read specific DAs to the aff if they specify a type of appropriation. Framing issues and weighing would help on both the aff and the neg.
Good fem arguments to read might be: intersectional feminism, a feminist analysis of Global South cultures, and questions of the individual’s relationship to one’s culture and the broader neoliberal system.
One interesting part of the resolution’s wording is that it is unclear who constitutes as a “marginalized” groups and who belongs to a “privileged” group. The resolution might call for authenticity tests to determine who is a minority and who isn’t, as well as difficult questions about race.
Resolved: The United States’ use of targeted killing in foreign countries is unjust.
The resolution is both in the present tense and a normative statement. This could make plans and counterplans difficult to defend. In the case of counterplans, the aff has to defend is that current U.S. drone policy is bad, which makes regulation counterplans and certain PICs uncompetitive.
Feminist arguments about targeted killing often refer to the masculinity of global warfare or the disparate impacts to women of color in the Middle East.
Finally, there’s a lot of good generic DA ground as well as a robust literature base especially given Trump’s election and his increased use of drone strikes. This was an LD topic 5 years ago, so you may want to figure out what people read then to get some ideas.