Inside the 2026-2027 NFHS Policy Topic Writing Process

This post was originally posted in August 2025 during the NFHS Topic Selection Meeting.

The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Topic Selection Meeting (TSM) is a cornerstone event in the policy debate community. Each year, it brings together coaches and contributors from across the country to determine the direction of the upcoming debate season. For 2026–2027, fifteen topic papers were submitted, forming the basis for deliberation and eventual selection of five final resolutions.

These papers represent extensive research and intellectual labor.

We also want to give a special shout out to the NDCA members who authored papers this year:

• Tim Ellis, Washburn Rural – Nuclear Weapons & Executive Power

• Will Katz, Carrollton Sacred Heart – Carbon Pricing & Health Care

• Dana Randall, Carrollton Sacred Heart – Corporate Control

• Lucia Scott, Barstow School — Food Subsidies

• Aaron Vinson, New Trier High School – Energy

• Marna Weston, Lincoln Middle School – Mass Transit

Topic Paper	Download Paper	Author
Carbon Pricing	Click Here to Download Paper	Will Katz
Communicable Diseases	Click Here to Download Paper	William Honea & Skylar Wall
Corporate Control	Click Here to Download Paper	Dana Randall
Disability	Click Here to Download Paper	Daniella Choi & David Trigaux
Energy	Click Here to Download Paper	Aaron Vinson
Executive Power	Click Here to Download Paper	Tim Ellis
FDA Regulations	Click Here to Download Paper	Tessa Gregory
Food Subsidies	Click Here to Download Paper	Lucia Scott
Healthcare	Click Here to Download Paper	Will Katz
Individuals Over 65	Click Here to Download Paper	Clint Adams
Infrastructure	Click Here to Download Paper	Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz
Labor	Click Here to Download Paper	Daniella Choi & David Trigaux
Mass Transit	Click Here to Download Paper	Marna Weston
Nuclear Weapons	Click Here to Download Paper	Tim Ellis
Voting and Election Reform	Click Here to Download Paper	McAlister Clabaugh & Darin Maier

How the Meeting Works

Day 1 — Friday: Topic Area Exploration & Subcommittee

The first day is all about learning the landscape of each topic proposal. Authors begin by giving short, focused elevator pitches outlining their topic areas. From there, coaches rotate through Debatability Roundtables, where every attendee meets with each author to ask questions and evaluate:

• The scope of the topic

• Its timeliness for the 2026–2027 season

• The balance of arguments available on both sides

This is a valuable time for authors to gather feedback and refine their ideas before entering the Marshall Subcommittees.

In the afternoon, the Marshall Subcommittees meet. Here, each author presents and defends their full report in detail. These sessions are facilitated by the Wording Committee co-chairs, who guide discussion and later report outcomes in the general session. This is a crucial stage where wording revisions and topic direction take shape—so if you have input, this is your moment. Once these meetings conclude, a First Vote (Straw Poll) is taken. Topics receiving at least 25% of the vote from those present will advance to Saturday’s working session.

Day 2 — Saturday: Wording of Topics & Group Cross-Examination

Saturday is the longest and most intensive day of the TSM—and arguably the most rewarding. Each author has a dedicated time block to present their refined topic to the full Wording Committee and respond to questions. This session resembles a giant cross-examination, where anyone present can ask about key decisions made during subcommittees.

At the end of each session, a proposed resolution is submitted for consideration.

After all presentations, a Second Vote is taken. To move on to the final day, a topic must now receive support from 33% of those present.

Day 3 — Sunday: Final Voting & Resolutions

On the final day, finalized resolutions are presented to the full delegation. The NDCA will also host a public straw poll on this blog to gather feedback from our wider community.

During the in-person session, delegates representing state and national organizations cast binding votes. Coaches have time to caucus between each of the four rounds of voting, which narrow the field to the top five resolutions for the national ballot.

LIVE from the Debatability Roundtables

The first part of the Topic Selection Meeting has coaches rotate through Debatability Roundtables, where we can meet with each author to ask questions and evaluate:

• The scope of the topic

• Its timeliness for the 2026–2027 season

• The balance of arguments available on both sides

Each table rotation takes 8 minutes and we will report back through each session. You will notice we have two representatives so we are seeing each topic in a conversation twice so some comments may be repetitive.

9:45-10:30 — Mass Transit, Corporate Control, Food Subsidies, Labor and FDA Regulations.

Mass Transit — Comments and concerns centered around the federal key warrants. Topic author explained that the idea of the topic would allow for local and regional affirmatives. The second iteration discussed the states counterplan. The topic author discussed the possibility of having the resolution be “United States” rather than “United States federal government.” We also discussed whether there was a disadvantage that was not based on spending or politics. 

Food Subsidies — we discussed advantage areas, the definition of “primary subsidies” and what is included there. Topic Author prefers topic 2 (‘Eliminate’). The second iteration focused again on ‘primary subsidies’ and the topicality of affirmatives that dealt with ending specific subsidies for specific ag. There were some concerns about PICs and the 'eliminate’ version of the topic. The best affirmative ground against the PICs is that subsidies are bad.

FDA Regulations — Bidirectionality of ‘reform’ was discussed - which direction is better? Topic author likes the bidirectionality of the topic. They are working with Rich and they are now focused on the word ‘regulations’. If the topic had to pick a direction, they would want to probably explore more ‘deregulation’. Author is opening to excluding ‘food’ from topic, but would want to be there. Community seemed to think biometrics and drugs are enough ground for the topic. The Author would like to keep the actor as the FDA to help narrow the scope of the topic, unless the topic shifts to ‘increasing regulations’. Community expressed interest in the action being narrow, while the actor should be larger. The second iteration discussed the three areas in the topic and why including all three, especially since food can be regulated at other levels. One participant asked why devices were not included. We discussed the bidirectionality of the topic. The topic author advocated for bidirectionality of the topic. The author said that the core DA was government overreach. We discussed whether there were answers to the states counterplan in the food area.

Labor — Initial concerns were raised about about the overlap with the 2025-2026 NDT/CEDA Topic Area (Resolution 5 and 6 can exclude the college topics). Author prefers 1 for simplicity but likes 5 and 6 for the college reason. In terms of resolution 6, the negative ground to outsourcing and rights, the author considers the Economy DA as the core negative ground. The core novice aff on this topic could increase minimum wage. Author said their favorite categories were RTW laws and organizing for 5 and automation, protection of discrimination and outsourcing for 6. In terms of resolution 1, Author prefers increase over enforcement as the verb.

Corporate Control — The Author admits that the federal key warrants may not be the best, but its better than some topics. The Author thinks the best part of the topic is breaking up the Big Tech industry or AI. The Author prefers Resolution 2 — ‘core antitrust statutes’ always refer to the three statutes in 1 so there’s no reason to repeat. Author does think there needs to be a sector specification to keep the topic narrow. The second iteration discussed novice debaters and how to get them access to a complicated issue. We talked about the different wordings and their legal interpretations.

10:45-11:30 — Carbon Pricing, Voting & Election Reform, Communicable Diseases, Infrastructure, Nuclear Weapons

Carbon Pricing — Author prefers Resolution 1. and wants the aff to be carbon pricing. The Author believes ‘domestic climate policy’ is the limiter in the resolution. Author says the college overlap is a good and thing — but says resolution is different as college was primarily an Energy topic. Under the resolution, every aff has to be ETS or Carbon Tax — but the sectors add to the affirmative ground. The second iteration discussed the core disadvantages to this area. The author prefers version #1 but is amenable to #2 as well. We discussed the differences between this aff and the recent college topic. We discussed novice style counterplans as being either incentives or command and control. We discussed the size of the topic and whether it would be perceived as too limiting — the author explained that there are sector specific solvency advocates and also the specifics of the policy.

Infrastructure — we discussed the states counterplan and the answers. The author said the answers are (1) funding, (2) administration, and (3) disadvantages to state spending. The author believes that a substantial increase in infrastructure spending is at least one trillion. We also discussed what "hard infrastructure" means and if there are exclusively federal areas. The second iteration started with the Author’s preference - which is resolution 1. Author chose to not go with ‘critical infrastructure’ because it was too large of a topic. We circled back around on the States counterplan. The Author is not opposed to writing the topic with just ‘United States’. There may need to be a comma after public and before hard in a resolution as the term of art is ‘hard infrastructure’ and not ‘public hard infrastructure’.

Voting & Election Reform — The Authors prefer 1 but have modified it — their recommendation is to remove electoral integrity and foreign electoral intervention from the topic. The phrase ‘regulation of elections’ was questioned. Authors say the answer is area-specific. Community think the best way to solve the federal issue is just to pick court cases. The second iteration discussed what disadvantages might be core on this topic. The authors thought that federalism was the most accessible DA and that right wing backlash is the best DA. We discussed whether the topic was bidirectional; the authors think that it is but that debaters will be unlikely to read those affs.

Communicable Diseases — we discussed the states counterplan. The authors agree that there is not any part of the resolution that is exclusively federal. The author thinks medical mistrust is the core disadvantage. We discussed whether that was a disadvantage or a case turn. The second iteration indicated that the topic authors think the first resolution is best, but prefer the topic of ‘increase’ over ‘expand’.

Nuclear Weapons — Author prefers resolution 2. The Author is not nervous about a large topic because the core disad ground is the same to most affirmatives. The Author doesn’t believe the term ‘roles’ changes the topic a lot - it seems like the Dealert aff would be topical but not under a list. NFU would be a core affirmative under the roles topic. The Author considered ‘doctrine’ but didn’t think it was well defined in the Nuclear Posture Review. The overlap with the 2023-2024 NDT/CEDA topic is just a plus at this point because it creates a good baseline, but new research/updated evidence will be required in 2026-2027. A question was raised about two straight years of Russia topics (with Arctic this year and potentially this in next years), but the Author thinks the topic would be more geared towards China. The concern for limits that the Author is most concerned with is disarming specific weapons. The second iteration discussed “roles” vs. “missions” for a long time.

11:30-12:15 — Individuals over 65, Health Care, Executive Power, Energy, Disability

Disability — Author prefers resolution 1. When looking at core affirmatives of first resolution, the Author says it would be primarily adjusting preexisting conditions of the ADA - such as increasing infrastructure that are ADA compliant, change the ADA definitions, etc. There were questions to the bidirectionality of ‘strengthen’ as there were concerns that you could strengthen the Act by removing some protections — the Author thinks that ‘strengthen the ADA’ probably limits it to one direction. In the second iteration, we discussed the states counterplan as well as core negative ground. The author likes topic #3 the best and believes that federal coordination is the best answer to states. We discussed whether the topic was bidirectional.

Energy — We talked about the differences between this and the college topic. We also talked about the role of the States Counterplan in resolution #2, the author’s preferred topic. In the second iteration, it seems the Author has moved that resolution #1 is now their favored topic but with the term ‘promote’ rather ‘adopt’ and remove policy. A comment was made about how inclusion of ‘in the United States’ would be needed or if ‘market based instrument’ limits that out.

Health care — We started with identifying what the resolution ask us in context of the Healthcare Marketplace? The author says the government mandate for universal healthcare option. The Author uses the Roberts evidence to answer this question and says Myers are the best cards on the topic and the Author is going to make sure they’re still being used as the term of art post-ACA. There seemed to be a push to add ‘system’ or ‘plan’ to resolution 1 — but the Author is concerned only one card says that versus the litany of cards that use the term NHI. In the second iteration, we discussed the size of the topic. The author prefers resolution #1. We also discussed which things were aff ground and which neg, like socialized medicine. The author believes socialized medicine (meaning publicly provided care) is a negative argument. We discussed the states counterplan and that ERISA likely prohibits even the strongest forms of states counterplans.

Executive Power — The Author thinks that ‘emergency powers’ is better defined than the War Powers topic but there are 136 types of Emergency powers. While 'statutory and/or judicial restrictions’ doubles that, the Author believes the ESR solves most of those affirmatives drastically limiting real ground. The next area of concern for this topic would be list vs no list.

Individuals Over 65 — we discussed answers to the states counterplan and negative ground on the topic. The author thinks the core neg ground is tradeoff disadvantages. We discussed what “social programs” means. In the second iteration, the author prefers Resolution 1 but forgot ‘United States’ in front of federal government so would want that included. The author prefers a large topic which is why they prefer the term ‘social programs’. The author indicates that adding new social programs would be a fine interpretation for this topic.

LIVE from the Marshall Subcommittees

At the NFHS Topic Selection Meeting, delegates are divided into Marshall subcommittees, where each topic report author presents and defends their report in detail. These sessions allow for in-depth discussion, with delegates asking questions and weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. If you have questions you would like to ask, please comment here and we will try to relay them for you.

Theses meetings are led by the co-chairs of the Wording Committee (designated by asterix), who also summarize the subcommittee conversations during a second general session. At that session, authors may answer additional questions, and a straw vote is conducted. Any topic receiving over 25% support from those present moves forward for further consideration.

Special thanks to Janet Novack, Maggie Berthiaume, Shunta Jordan and Sohail Jouya for helping us compile these live conversation summaries.

• Carbon Pricing

  Beginning with the topic — Resolved: The United States federal government should enact a domestic climate policy, at least including a carbon pricing instrument.
  
  There were discussions on what is topical and what isn’t with the phrase ‘domestic climate policy’.

  • Carbon tax to reinvest in renewables - topical

  • Carbon tax UBI - not topical

  There were discussions on ‘carbon pricing instrument’ vs ‘carbon price’. The instrument may be key to preventing affs like fossil fuel subsidies, forest clearing, etc (Pizarro 22).

  Proposed Modification to remove at least and change verb: Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt enact a domestic climate policy, at least including a carbon pricing instrument.

  Conversation on adopt vs enact. Use of Congress seems inevitable but adopt is more in the literature.

• Communicable Diseases

  Starting with : Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase communicable disease outbreak preparedness programs in the United States in one or more of the following areas: Disease Surveillance, Medical Supplies, or Research Capacity.

  Concerns:

  • and/or versus or - eliminate or in the list and then have an and/or

  Committee eliminates or and moves forward with: Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase communicable disease outbreak preparedness programs in the United States in one or more of the following areas: Disease Surveillance, Medical Supplies, Research Capacity.

  Concerns:

  • Why do we capitalize the areas? The answer is no - they will all go lower case

  • Do we need the word programs? Messy T debate - it checks the topic

  • What is communicable disease outbreak preparedness programs? Not a term of art

    • Term of art is PHEP (Public Health Emergency Preparedness) Program: https://www.cdc.gov/readiness/php/phep/index.html

    • List of areas can resolve some of that

    • “communicable disease outbreak preparedness” as a term of art - are there distinct programs that are used?

    • Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) - maybe not a way to go about.

  The committee moves forward with a recommendation for author research and a suggestion to remove program from the resolution. Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase communicable disease outbreak preparedness in the United States in one or more of the following areas: disease surveillance, medical supplies, research capacity.

  Concerns:

  • Increase its? Or just increase? Does in the United States resolve this?

    • Is the issue being done internationally? As in the US providing help internationally?

    • Its or domestic can be explored - words DA

    • “Significantly increase its domestic” – people will look for domestic communicable disease outbreak preparedness

    • With its - is there a difference between generally preparing the public versus the government’s preparedness?

    • Perhaps keep the domestic and not the its

    • Preparedness that isn’t the USfg would be neg ground -

    • Worries about extra topicality

    • Change from significantly to substantially?

  The committee moves forward with the following resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase communicable disease outbreak preparedness in the United States in one or more of the following areas: disease surveillance, medical supplies, research capacity.

  Concerns:

  • If you have domestic you don’t need in the US, but that creates other problems

  • What’s the difference between domestic and in the US? – authors will look into term of art

  • Can we just add its? Do we need domestic? If it goes before communicable it’s about the government agencies versus the public

  • Maybe the term of art is infection prevention and control

    • Of what? Infection 

  • Communicable Disease Outbreak Preparedness is NOT a term of art after research

    • Pre 1980 terminology and has since been outlined by the WHO

  • Putting a pin in domestic versus its until we find a term of art

  The committee keeps the prior resolution. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase communicable disease outbreak preparedness in the United States in one or more of the following areas: disease surveillance, medical supplies, research capacity.

• Corporate Control

  Beginning with the topic: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially expand its interpretation of anticompetitive practices pursuant to one or more of the its core antitrust statutes.Other resolutions discussed:
  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase prohibitions on anticompetitive business practices by the private sector by at least expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.

  • "Core antitrust laws" - relates to the same as the list in 1

  • "By the private sector" allows expansion of laws for individuals - federal unions and contracting

  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially expand the scope of liability for anticompetitive practices pursuant to its core antitrust laws.

  • Gets rid of anticompetitive practises by expanding the scope of liability

  • Liability needs to have a deterring effect

  • Not sure if this resolution gets to limit behaviours that are not considered anti-competitive

  • This resolution allows redress to be expanded (the penalty is expanded) but not necessarily getting rid of a particular practise

  • Expand scope of liability and/or damages - Issue of "enforcement" and more - like increased scope/"liability". Damages are the consequence and alters the brightline. Increasing liability likely includes damages.

  • Damages may not be relevant to include. Scope of liability implicitly assumes damages.

  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase prohibitions on anticompetitive business practices by expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.

  • Concern about the weird part of the "prohibition" means only DOJ injunction. Increase penalty is an  increase restrictions.

  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase restrictions on anticompetitive business practices by expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.

  • A lot of issues regarding clarity for "scope of liability" that is being bookmarked for additional research tonight.

  • Conversations about specifying Big Tech in the resolution.

  Final Wording:
  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially expand the scope of liability for anticompetitive practices pursuant to its core antitrust laws.

• Disability

  Starting with:  The United States Federal Government should significantly strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act2. The United States Federal Government should substantially increase enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the areas of employment, education, public transportation, and/or public accommodations

  • Excludes VA benefits and healthcare

  • Some discussion about removing subset list and allowing those kinds of Affs

  • VA has a different definition of "disability" compared to the ADA - inclusion of the VA as topical ground could be good

  "Strengthen" as the actionable verb:

  • Allows the Aff to amend/add to the ADA - should it be required (enforcement)?

  • "Expand the scope/coverage" vs "Enforcement" - concerns about increasing the scope of who's implicated and scope of possible protections. t

  Final Wording:
  The United States Federal Government should substantially increase protections for persons with disabilities by amending the Americans with Disabilities Act

• Energy

  Beginning with the topic: Resolution 1: The United States federal government should adopt a renewable energy policy, including
  a market-based instrument
  
  Edited initially to: The United States federal government should promote renewable energy in the United States, at least including a market-based instrument.

  • Result of wording suggestions from meetings. Moved toward "renewable energy" and "promote" as the action/verb. Another group suggested "at least including" that wouldn't set a floor on Affirmatives.

  • "Promote" selected to ensure there's no bidirectionality. Seeking recommendations. "Incentivize" could be preferable versus "adopt"

  Final Resolution Wording:
  The United States federal government should establish a policy promoting renewable energy in the United States, including a market-based instrument.

• Executive Power

  Concerns: If the resolution says emergency powers, Trump thumps by using _____ power. Not sure that the aff has answers to the circumvention arguments. Author moves forward with broader “powers of the president” and then has a list.

  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its judicial and/or statutory restrictions on the powers of the president in immigration, sanctions, tariffs, and/or the deployment of the military.

  Concerns:

  • What sanctions can authority cover? Are sanctions and tariffs separate? They are different enough that we should keep them different

  • List resolves the resolution being too broad

  • Is powers of the president well enough defined? Powers of the presidency or powers of the executive branch?

    • AG has authority - may be distinct

    • The list may resolve this wording issue

  • Powers of the president in one or more of the following and remove and/or? Articles are broadly about things 

  • Is there a problem with affs that will create broad review of presidential emergencies? Would it be extratopical? That’s an argument that can be made in the debate

  • Circle back to presidential power: federal executive power (term in the constitution) - but that makes everything broader

  • Should president be capitalized? Yes

  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its judicial and/or statutory restrictions on the powers of the President in immigration, sanctions, tariffs, and/or the deployment of the military.

  Concerns

  • Power of the executive versus powers of the president - there’s concern about using the constitutional wording because of Trump’s current approach 

  • Domestic deployment of the military is a term of art - removed domestic in case people want to discuss international 

  • Concerns about how broad the topic is

  • and/or is used twice

  • Alphabetical order for the list

• FDA Regulations

  Beginning with topic — The United States Federal Government’s Food and Drug Administration should substantially increase regulations of one or more of the following areas: Food, Drugs, Biologics.
  There were discussions of whether this wording eliminated bidirectionality.
  There were discussions of whether we need the words “federal government” in this context.
  The author is most interested in the “food” portion of the topic.
  Ended with: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of food labeling and/or integrity.

• Food Subsidies

  Beginning with the topic — Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its direct payments for domestic agriculture.
  There was a lot of discussion about “direct payments” and whether they still exist. And "primary subsidies" and whether that included what the author was looking for.
  Ended with: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its domestic agriculture subsidies.

• Health Care

  Beginning with the topic — Resolved: The United States federal government should establish national health insurance in the United States.

  The discussion starts about NHI vs NHI system. We will explore overnight before tomorrow. The goal is to exclude the aff that increases subsidies to Marketplace.

  Resolved: The United States federal government should establish national health insurance in the United States.

• Infrastructure

   Beginning with the topic — Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its direct spending on public hard infrastructure in the United States.
  There were discussions on the meaning of “public hard infrastructure” and whether a comma is needed.
  There was instruction on the mechanism of “direct spending” versus other spending mechanisms like tax breaks. And whether pre-existing was included.

• Individuals Over 65

  Beginning with the topic — Resolved: The federal government should significantly increase its social programs
  for citizens over age 65.
  Discussed other terms like “social services” and “public services.”
  Discussed terms like “elderly,” “early elderly,” and “late elderly.”
  Discussed “citizens” vs. “individuals.”
  We discussed whether there were any wordings that would create disadvantage ground.
  Resolved: The federal government should significantly increase its social services for individuals over the age of 65.

• Labor

  Beginning with the topic:The United States Federal Government should substantially increase rights for workers in the United States within the areas of AI adaptation / automation, protection against discrimination, organizing rights, outsourcing, and independent contracting.

  • Question about a more limiting term of art - "labour law" or "labour rights" - "Labour laws" is likely more limiting but the object/subsets can help provide limits

  • Labour Union formation is topical and ought to be.

  • "Increase" can't be the verbiage. Reform is bidrectional. The purpose is to protect employees - preferred action of the resolution could be: "strengthen labour law for workers"

  • Concerned about NDTCEDA resolution from a couple of years ago; considering axing "collective bargaining". Preference for Resolution #6: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase rights for workers in the United States within the areas of AI adaptation / automation, protection against discrimination, organizing rights, outsourcing, and independent contracting.

  • Resolution 5 is great - there's some possible overlap with Affs/Neg args from NDTCEDA. Questioning if overlap is bad

  • Equity concerns over access to NDTCEDA files

  • 5 includes the best parts of 6 without artificially limit out args. Overlap's Disincentive on Research is mitigated - new admin deters recycling old research.

  • Right to Work Laws - "What does it mean to 'strengthen' labour laws in the context of RTW? Daniella Choi: Labour laws would allow federal reversal of states doing RTW

  Resolution 5 is moved on and passes unanimously.
  The United States Federal Government should substantially strengthen labor law for workers in the areas of bargaining, right to work laws, and/or organizing.

• Mass Infrastructure

  The USFG should initiate and enforce significant increase in support of public mass transportation by one or more of the following services: bus, commuter rail, light rail, high speed rail, subways, trolleys, ferries

  First edit - verbiage — replace initiate and enforce

  USFG should incentivize {list} in support of public mass transportation.
  
  Second issue was create a list.

  Debating inclusion or exclusion of — passenger rail, airport, seaports, roadways.

• Nuclear Weapons

  Starting with: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce the size and/or restrict the role of its nuclear arsenal.

  Concerns:

  • Does or not allow schools to just pick to restrict? Yes they can

  • A little awkward wordingwise because they’re different verbs

  • Role versus roles: roles because there’s not just one word. Grammatically, the wording doesn’t require you to restrict all - role implies one.

  • What are the implications of the roles of the nuclear arsenal changing between our voting and the 26-27 season? The roles haven’t changed in at least 15 years

  The committee moves forward with the resolution as worded. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce the size and/or restrict the role of its nuclear arsenal.

• Voting & Election Reform

  Authors prefer a modification of Resolution 1, but don’t shut the door on Resolution 2 - Res 1 removes electoral integrity, foreign electoral intervention.

  Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of elections in one or more of the following areas: drawing of legislative districts, campaign finance, strengthening voting rights, and electoral processes.

  Concerns:

  • Exclusive federal government control concern 

  • “Increase its regulation” is bidirectional - is this the intention? Not necessarily - resolution 2 is the way to resolve, USfg should enact, overturn or restrict.

  Resolution 2: Resolved: The United States federal government should act to overturn or restrict the scope of one or more of the following Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Shelby County v. Holder, Rucho v. Common Cause, Brnovich v. DNC.

  Concerns:

  • Strictly courts? Choose courts and neg gets the other ground  – the authors think that the resolution is overlimited by SCOTUS as the actor - Congress provides the best solvency on many of these decisions

  • Number of courts cases is high - is there a benefit on 5 versus 3? 

  • Brnovich v. DNC is least consequential but the others provide unique benefits

  Benefits:

  • No bidirectionality

  The Marshall Committee moves forward with the following resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should act to overturn or restrict the scope of one or more of the following Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Shelby County v. Holder, Rucho v. Common Cause.

  Concerns: 

  • Wording of overturn OR restrict - we may need and/or

  • Why do we need act to?

  The Marshall Committee moves forward with the following resolution:

  Resolved: The United States federal government should overturn and/or restrict the scope of one or more of the following Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Shelby County v. Holder, Rucho v. Common Cause.

  Concerns:

  • Can you overturn AND restrict? Yes - there are ways that happens

  • They can overturn and restrict another - debaters can try it if they want to

  • Word scope can resolve some of restriction being large - we should add substantially? Solvency advocates check back