2025 TFA November/December Topics: AI, Natural Gas, Public Lands, and Hacktivism
We’re back again with another batch of TAs for the 2025-2026 TFA topics! This batch includes:
This House would regulate artificial intelligence as a public utility by Hanh Do
This House, as the EU, would ban member nations from importing Russian natural gas by Rohan Sanghavi
This House would increase protection and preservation of public lands by Poorvi Kumar
This House believes that hacktivism is a legitimate tool of resistance by Dithyae Devesh
Happy reading!
This House would regulate artificial intelligence as a public utility.
As with any “would” motion indicates, this would require a comparative world of a model/countermodel debate and how regulation would look in the proposition world or deregulation/non-regulatory standards in the opposition world.
In all forms of debate, framing is key and thus, contextualization will be one of the most contested clash points in how this motion is stated. Terms of art that must be defined includes, “regulate,” “artificial intelligence,” and “public utility.”
Principally, the motion rests on the purposes of a public utility and whether AI meets its goals to serve what it is classified as and whether it is necessary to regulate such a tool and/or the technology surrounding the term of artificial intelligence. So, you ought to look at principal words that are flexible to uphold depending on which side you are debating. What is your side’s stakeholders and narrative? This will determine what you are fighting to achieve in your model or countermodel world.
Regulation breaks down into two major areas: Economics and Social.
Economic regulation talks about the minimum and maximum price charges that the utility company may charge to the consumers (price floors, ceilings, and controls). This also encompasses a multi-layered system of pricing for varying stakeholders on two market levels: wholesale and retail. Wholesale pricing denotes the price that utility retailers/companies purchase before reselling it to consumers at a retail price. It is very similar to the Costco model that a large chain of restaurants purchases items in bulk and sells it at the per unit rate to the customer such as a bag of chips. Retail pricing is the price that consumers pay per unit of a particular utility whether that is a watt, gallon, cubic feet, queries, or megabits per second. For artificial intelligence, the motion will center around number of watts, queries, or bits/kilobits/megabits/gigabits per second.
On a secondary analysis, economic regulation also determines the number and type of competitors within the market and their coverage areas whether that is divided by zip codes and/or economic zones that are determined by the governing body on a scaler level: local, state, regional, and national. For instance, South Korea is known for its nationalized internet as a public utility. But for now, there is no country that has created statutes and/or laws governing AI as a public utility yet although some countries and governing bodies such as the European Union, tentatively are attempting to navigate the balance of research, development, innovation, and competitiveness.
Socially regulating such AI as a utility impacts several stakeholders: varying levels of government, AI companies, developers, policymakers, wholesalers, consumers, educational institutions, academia, public institutions, and others. Governmental regulations typically regulate via policymaking based upon how third-party actors use the utility and the implications that happen to fall upon others. For example, governments will always want to regulate either individuals and/or companies based upon how those agents act and how their actions have positively or negatively impacted others within that space. If there is a greater toll and or existential risk, governments will act in accordance to mitigate contrasting levels of harm to their constituents as their core obligation is to protect its people.
The crux of the debate will rest on whether it is NECESSARY to classify AI as a public utility and then whether it is NECESSARY to enact said regulations. This should be outlined in the framing and contextualization early on to provide adequate timing to flush out key offense.
Artificial intelligence can be framed in several ways such as the main types based on how they task: Machine learning, natural language processing, robotics, and neural networks. In reviewing the motion itself, it is regulating more productivity and business-related applications of AI. The public now integrates AI daily in a multitude of ways in particular sectors: education, governmental, non-profits, and healthcare to manage efficiency and efficacy. There will be also a clash focusing on what classifies as a “public utility”. Does AI currently, qualify as a “public utility?” Public utility companies can be public or privately owned and as with any private public clash, it comes down to whether the public good is upheld, or profitability is preferred.
This debate comes down to three Ps: Power, the public, and profitability. There are many layers of how to debate this topic, but it is best to balance micro and macro arguments to make it easy for adjudicators to understand since it is a tech topic. Tech topics can get too deep and parameterized and then you lose the adjudicator when it should be more broadly done. As with any WSD round, it is your team’s burden to find worldly examples of public utility regulation and its impacts even when AI is NOT currently being regulated as such. Good luck!
Hanh M. Do has served on the Chief Adjudication Panel in World Schools for the Stanford Invitational tournament and is the current NSDA Big Questions Chair for the past six years. She is the LD Curriculum Director for Summit Debate and has adjudicated at the WSDC in Singapore and Stuttgart. She is proud to be a debate coach and private consultant for the past 30 years.
This House, as the EU, would ban member nations from importing Russian natural gas.
Context
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 European countries that was formally established through the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Its origins trace back to post-World War II cooperation efforts in the 1950s. It was created to promote peace, stability, and economic prosperity after centuries of European conflict. The EU facilitates the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital among its member states through a single market with standardized laws and regulations.
The union operates through several key institutions, including the European Commission, which serves as the executive body, the European Parliament, which represents EU citizens, and the Council of the European Union, which represents member state governments. Twenty of the 27 member countries use the euro as their common currency, and most participate in the Schengen Area, which eliminates internal border controls.
Natural gas is a major fuel for Europe’s economy – used in power generation, industry (e.g. chemicals, fertilisers) and heating (about 30% of EU homes). Europe has limited domestic gas production, so roughly 60% of its energy is imported. Prior to 2022, Russia was by far the EU’s largest supplier: in 2021 Russian pipelines delivered roughly 40–45% of Europe’s imported gas. Some member states (Germany, Austria, Italy, the Baltics) relied on Russia for the majority of their gas. Russia built key pipelines to lock in these exports. Russia has historically “weaponised” this leverage – for example cutting supplies during disputes with transit countries – making EU buyers acutely vulnerable.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 shifted the situation. EU leaders immediately agreed in March 2022 to reduce dependence on Russian energy. Sanctions and market changes quickly slashed Russian fuel flows: EU coal and oil imports from Russia are now near-zero, and gas has fallen sharply. By 2024, Russia’s share of EU gas imports had dropped below 19%. In practice this means Russia went from supplying 150 billion m³ in 2021 to around 50–55 in 2024. As a result, Norway, the US, Algeria and other producers now dominate EU gas imports, while Russia accounts for roughly 19%. Overall EU gas consumption has also fallen 20% since 2021, due to efficiency and switching. Some EU members remain heavily dependent on Russian gas, due to geography and existing infrastructure.
Framing:
The wording of the motion has two important parts:
The fact that it is an actor motion, meaning that the debate must flow to the side that most successfully demonstrates the benefits and harms to the EU specifically.
It is a woulds motion, meaning that if proposed, the action in the motion would take place immediately, so we must evaluate the benefits and harms of passing a policy that would ban member states from importing Russian natural gas.
The proposition has grounds to run a model which would detail how this specific full ban on Russian natural gas would look (for example, phasing the ban out so there isn’t an immediate economic impact on the Russia-reliant economies). The opposition can also run a counter model that still details some specifics of their world while not accepting the world created by the proposition to potentially dampen the impacts that the proposition will talk about.
The Proposition must argue why an outright EU-wide ban is beneficial and why passing this policy would outweigh all negative impacts while the opposition must do the opposite.
Specific Burdens: to specify the burdens of the debate further, we can look at specific impacts on europe and debate about which should be the most prioritized (energy security, climate targets, support for Ukrainian citizens are all examples of specific burdens.)
Both sides should define what “ban” and “imports” mean (something like a binding EU regulation affecting both long-term and spot purchases of natural gas). Since the EU can act by qualified majority, it could force compliance even if some states resist. The key clash is trade-offs: Proposition will frame the ban as the necessary step to break Russia’s hold and accelerate clean energy; Opposition will frame it as a self-inflicted shock that stunts Europe more than Russia. A trap for both sides is to oversimplify as “for Ukraine versus for EU economy” – in reality the debate is about how Europe should manage the transition.
Proposition should mention the monopolistic nature of Russian supply and the EU’s commitments (Versailles, REPowerEU) to justify a sweeping policy. Opposition should emphasize the practical realities (existing dependence, lack of instant alternatives, social impact) and the fact that Russia can partly re-route exports making the ban less effective. Ultimately, the argument is weighed on the EU’s security and long-term goals versus short-term economic/social harm.
In the framing, I would also mention the specific impacts/uses of natural gas (heating, burning for energy, liquefied natural gas, generating heat).
Proposition:
S1: Enhancing Energy Security. An EU ban removes Russia as an energy spoiler. Europe faced a severe crisis when Gazprom cut supplies in 2022; a full ban prevents any future gas blackmail. With no Russian imports, the EU relies solely on controllable, diversified sources (for example Norwegian pipelines, U.S./Qatar LNG, North African gas, plus renewables). This strengthens the EU’s long-term resilience against oil shocks. This argument essentially calls for an independent Europe that is not reliant on Russia for more energy security. The ban would force completion of projects like the Baltic Pipe (Norway-Poland) and accelerated roll-out of LNG terminals and interconnectors. In short, ending Russian gas improves bargaining position and guarantees supply under EU rules. Impact: Europe gains strategic autonomy: it can set its own energy prices and policies without fear of external coercion.
S2: Reducing Russia’s War Revenues. Every Euro spent on Russian gas helps fund the war in Ukraine. By banning imports, the EU would deprive Russia of this important income stream. Although Russia has partly pivoted to Asia, EU gas contracts still yield €10–15 billion annually. The ban signals that the EU will not pay for Russian aggression towards Ukraine and other countries as a measure to restrict Russia’s political influence and power to take over smaller former USSR nations. This dimension was explicitly noted by EU ministers: the regulation is designed to “deprive the Kremlin of revenues to fund its war in Ukraine.” Impact: The ban raises political pressure on Moscow. Reduced income could force Russia to reconsider its invasion or limit its military spending. At minimum, it isolates Russia in global markets and shows EU resolve.
S3: Green Energy. Eliminating a major fossil fuel import helps the EU’s climate ambitions (55% CO₂ cuts by 2030, net-zero by 2050). Natural gas is cleaner than coal but still emits a lot of CO₂ and leaks methane. A permanent ban can force European investment in renewables, energy efficiency, and storage, especially because European nations are already looking for a switch from fossil fuels. This essentially moves Europe off all fossil fuels sooner. For example, heating systems and power plants must be redesigned for wind, solar, hydro, and hydrogen. The proposition can argue that such a forced transition yields long-term environmental and economic benefits (green jobs, lower emission damage) that outweigh short-term pain. Impact: The EU firm-wires a decarbonisation pathway. Over time this could make European industry more sustainable and less exposure to fossil fuel price swings.
Opposition:
S1: Economic Harm. A blanket ban will double or triple Europe’s gas bills in the near term. Historically cheap long-term Russian pipeline contracts (often €200–300 per 1000m³) must be replaced by expensive LNG (which is almost triple the cost of Russian contracts). A full embargo could double the welfare costs for the EU, sharply raising energy prices. This hikes inflation, erodes industrial competitiveness (steel, fertilizer, chemicals), and burdens households. The EU already spent €1.35B Russian fuels as of mid-2025; cutting these supplies would mean crippling cost increases unless massive subsidies follow. Moreover, some industries (glass, ceramics, refrigeration) and 30% of households could literally lose fuel. Impact: The ban would trigger recessions and social unrest in Europe. Governments would face angry voters over job losses and cold winters, undermining the very political will to support Ukraine.
S2: Energy Crisis. Europe’s share of Russia’s gas export market is smaller than before, and Russia can reroute supply. Even after cuts, Russia’s gas exports to Europe still earn about €10–12 billion per year, but Russia was already preparing to sell much of it to China via Power of Siberia 2. In effect, a ban might inflict only marginal additional pain on Russia while inflicting huge pain on the EU. Indeed, one analysis bluntly states that Russian gas revenues from Europe are “already tiny and unlikely to be affected by any EU measures”. Countries like Hungary and Slovika have already said their economies will suffer with the ban. Meanwhile, if Europe slashes supply abruptly, global gas prices could spike (as supply shifts to more expensive markets), and Russia could benefit by selling its remaining gas at higher Asian prices. Impact: The EU would suffer economically for little strategic gain. If Russia feels less “gagged,” it might even intensify hybrid attacks or price wars. The opposition can argue that continuing some imports achieves similar symbolic pressure without self-harm.
S3: Environmental Contradictions. Cutting gas too fast could raise Europe’s carbon footprint in the short term. During the 2022 gas crisis, many countries reverted to coal (the continent’s dirtiest fuel) to avoid blackouts. If pipeline gas is banned without immediate green alternatives, utilities will burn more coal, which emits much more CO₂ than natural gas. Europe might also import LNG carrying a high methane leakage cost from shipping. EU’s climate goals should not be sacrificed by a quick ban, instead, measures like accelerating renewables should be prioritized. Impact: The ban could undermine the EU’s “Green Deal” credibility and actually worsen emissions in 2030.
Further Reading:
Rohan is a freshman at UT Austin studying Business in the Honors program. In his free time, he likes to watch football, play poker, and eat lots of new food.
This House would increase protection and preservation of public lands.
Info Slide: Public lands are held and administered by the federal, state, or local government. They are maintained for the use and enjoyment of the public.
Context
While the motion may seem intimidating, a lot of the background and context surrounding public lands is actually pretty intuitive.
Public lands are territories owned or held in trust by governments for the collective use and benefit of citizens. These areas, ranging from national parks and forests to wildlife refuges and conservation reserves, are legally protected from privatization or development usually by states. Globally, they form the backbone of environmental preservation and biodiversity protection, representing about 16% of the world’s land surface according to the UN Environment Programme. The key challenge across nations is how to balance ecological protection with economic development, energy demand, and Indigenous land rights.
In the United States, public lands encompass roughly 640 million acres, or 28% of total territory, managed by federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Legislation such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) define how these lands are designated and used. Historically, American public land management emerged from the 19th-century ideal of Manifest Destiny, which enabled westward expansion but also displaced Indigenous peoples. By the 20th century, conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir transformed this ethos into one of preservation, protecting natural landscapes for public enjoyment and ecological stability.
Internationally, different models of public land governance have evolved. In Costa Rica, over a quarter of the country’s land is protected, supporting one of the world’s most successful eco-tourism economies. Kenya and Tanzania use public lands for wildlife conservancies that generate significant tourism revenue while also facing tension with local communities who lose access to ancestral grazing grounds. In Brazil, the Amazon rainforest is legally defined as public land under federal jurisdiction, yet illegal mining and deforestation continue to outpace enforcement. China, India, and Indonesia have expanded public conservation areas, but economic pressures often lead to what is known as “paper parks”, protected in name only. Globally, there has been a push for something called 30 x 30 or protecting 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. This has become the centerpiece of international environmental agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. TLDR know that there are measures being taken globally to help protect and preserve more land.
At its core this motion is about the state’s role in preserving the planet’s natural infrastructure. The debate centers on whether governments should expand and enforce protections, or adopt a more flexible approach that integrates economic, industrial, and energy needs.
Framing
This debate is not about whether the environment matters. Everyone agrees that it does. The real issue is how far governments should go in locking land away from economic use and whether doing so actually maximizes human and ecological welfare in the long run. Protection exists on a spectrum, from total preservation that forbids extraction or development to multi-use management that balances conservation with grazing, mining, renewable energy, or tourism. The motion asks whether we should shift further toward the preservation end of that spectrum. That means the central trade-off is between environmental durability and economic flexibility, between safeguarding natural systems indefinitely and using them to meet immediate human needs.
On the proposition, the frame centers around long-term rationality and intergenerational justice. Public lands function as humanity’s life support systems. Once old-growth forests, wetlands, or coral reefs are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. Every ton of carbon released and every species lost narrows the margin for survival in the future. Preservation is not sentimentality but rational risk management. It treats land as a trust asset held for future generations rather than a commodity to be spent. Governments have a duty to maintain that ecological principle instead of consuming it for short-term gain. From a global perspective, each acre of protected land contributes to climate stability for everyone, not just the citizens of one country. Protecting forests in the United States or the Amazon benefits the entire planet by removing carbon from the atmosphere. The proposition should therefore frame that protection is not anti-growth but anti-collapse. Expanding preservation is the only way to secure the ecological foundation on which all economies depend.
The proposition can also frame the motion as a question of security. Degraded land drives food shortages, migration, and conflict. Preserving ecosystems is a form of climate security policy that prevents instability before it occurs. Protecting land is cheaper than fighting wars over its loss later. The core logic is that long-term survival must outweigh short-term profit, and that governments which fail to act now will pay exponentially higher costs in disaster response, reconstruction, and human suffering.
The opposition’s frame revolves around adaptive governance, justice, and realism. The key argument is that more protection does not necessarily mean better outcomes. Capacity, not acreage, determines whether land is truly safe. Forests that are legally protected but unmanaged often become overstocked with fuel and burn catastrophically. Preservation without flexibility leads to ecological neglect disguised as solvency. The opposition should argue for smart conservation, active management that uses science, technology, and local knowledge to maintain balance rather than locking land away behind regulation.
Opposition framing also exposes the justice dimension. Most so-called public land sits on Indigenous territory or within poor nations carrying the burden of global climate goals. Wealthy countries that built prosperity on extraction now preach restraint to developing nations that need land-based growth to survive. This is climate colonialism. True sustainability requires empowerment, not exclusion. Conservation must involve those who live closest to the land. When protection displaces Indigenous communities or blocks economic opportunity without compensation, it becomes oppression dressed as environmentalism. The opposition therefore presents its model as one of co-management, where communities lead conservation through ownership and traditional practice rather than through bureaucratic command.
A third layer of framing for the opposition is climate realism. The global energy transition depends on land for solar fields, wind corridors, and critical mineral mining. Overly rigid preservation can block clean energy development and slow decarbonization, creating a paradox where protecting land for the environment ends up harming the planet. A flexible model that balances renewable infrastructure with targeted conservation saves the climate faster than absolute preservation.
Both sides can make strategic framing moves that determine how the round is judged. The first is to redefine what “protection” means. It should not be treated as simply fencing off land but as effective management of land that combines legal protection with funding and local agency. Whoever defines that concept favorable to their side has a huge leg up. The second is to shift the metric of success. Proposition should emphasize planetary resilience and future welfare, while opposition can redefine success in terms of human livelihoods and present equity. Each side can claim ethical superiority by changing what “good governance” means. Stakeholder prioritization also matters. Proposition can weigh the interests of future generations over corporate profit, while opposition can emphasize the rights and needs of current vulnerable populations who will bear the cost of overregulation.
Lastly, for the proposition, the narrative and rhetoric is centered around restraint in the face of greed. For the opposition, the narrative is justice over ideology, insisting that preservation without people is privilege. The judge should be forced to choose between these two visions of environmental responsibility: one that prizes permanence above flexibility, and one that prizes adaptability above rigidity.
Proposition
Sub 1: Environmental Protection and Climate Resilience
Increased protection of public lands is one of the most efficient, scientifically grounded ways to mitigate climate change and preserve biodiversity. According to the UN Environment Programme, protected areas store 30% of the world’s terrestrial carbon. Forests, wetlands, and grasslands act as natural carbon sinks, capturing and locking away CO₂ that human development would otherwise release. Once those lands are opened for drilling, logging, or grazing, the ecological damage is effectively irreversible. Preservation is not sentimentality, it’s risk management on a planetary scale.
Stronger protections prevent land fragmentation, which is the single greatest predictor of ecosystem collapse. Roads, pipelines, and industrial infrastructure dissect habitats, isolate animal populations, and accelerate extinction rates. For instance, development on BLM lands has severely disrupted migration corridors for elk and pronghorn in Wyoming, threatening entire ecosystems. When ecosystems lose integrity, humans pay the price: soil erosion intensifies floods, fire risk skyrockets, and carbon release accelerates climate tipping points.
Protection also strengthens resilience against extreme weather. Intact wetlands absorb floodwater, forests regulate rainfall patterns, and healthy soils reduce drought impacts. In other words, preservation isn’t just environmental, it’s infrastructural. It’s the cheapest insurance policy the government can buy against the trillion-dollar natural disasters we’re now facing annually.
The opposition may argue that management and restoration can achieve similar outcomes, but this misses the point: once development fragments an ecosystem, restoration rarely returns it to its original ecological function. The best management strategy is prevention, not triage. If the 21st century will be defined by climate instability, public lands are humanity’s last firewall against ecological collapse. (Holy rhetoric)
Sub 2: Economic Stability and Social Equity
Public land protection drives a massive and growing sector of the U.S. economy: outdoor recreation. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $639 billion to GDP in 2023 and supports 4.5 million jobs, more than oil and gas combined. By locking in natural assets, preservation provides stable, renewable economic value that doesn’t rely on depletion. Ecotourism, guiding, park services, and local businesses thrive when landscapes are protected, not when they’re mined or sold off.
Moreover, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped create thousands of community parks, trails, and green spaces, particularly in low-income areas. Increased protection means expanding these benefits to urban and rural communities alike, improving access to nature, physical health, and mental well-being. Public lands are not just environmental assets, they are social equalizers, offering every human access to clean air, open space, and shared beauty regardless of income. When the government expands preservation, it affirms that collective well-being is more valuable than short-term profit.
Protection also carries long-term fiscal rationality. Extractive industries generate temporary revenue but leave behind environmental degradation, wildfire risk, and health costs. Recreation and tourism, on the other hand, generate recurring income with minimal externalities. Investing in protection is investing in durability. It’s building an economy that lasts past the next commodity cycle.
Finally, there’s a moral dimension. Public lands represent the idea that some spaces should remain untouched, preserved for future generations. Expanding protection reaffirms that principle of management and intergenerational justice, an ethical commitment that can’t be measured solely in dollars. This could be run as a substantive, but I think it gives the same function and benefits as a really well-developed layer.
Opposition
Sub 1: Harms of Overprotection
The opposition’s main argument is that “more preservation” can paradoxically destroy the very ecosystems it intends to protect. By prohibiting mechanical thinning, road building, and prescribed burns, strict wilderness or conservation designations often handcuff land managers from addressing overgrown forests. The U.S. Forest Service has repeatedly reported that decades of fire suppression have left millions of acres dangerously overstocked with fuel. When these areas inevitably ignite, fires burn hotter and faster, destroying biodiversity, releasing stored carbon, and endangering nearby towns. Note: Really emphasize that this is not an argument out of left field and this is a MUCH bigger deal than people claim for it to be.
Increased preservation, in this sense, is ecological neglect disguised as virtue. What forests need is active management, not permanent lockdown. Prescribed burns, selective harvesting, and invasive species removal require access, manpower, and flexibility. When laws prioritize untouched wilderness over adaptive management, agencies lose the ability to respond to rapidly changing climate conditions. The “do nothing” model isn’t preservation, it’s slow-motion destruction. Especially because in so many instances like in the United States and European countries, ‘protecting lands’ usually just look like a cop out to make certain stakeholders happy because they seldom do anything to keep the land in good condition.
Opposition can argue that the true crisis isn’t insufficient protection but insufficient resources. Federal land agencies are chronically underfunded, forcing them to juggle maintenance backlogs while new lands are added faster than they can be managed. Increasing protection without increasing capacity only compounds failure.
2. Restricting Economic Growth and Clean Energy Development
A sweeping increase in land preservation risks constraining critical economic and infrastructure needs. In western states where the majority of land is federally owned, Nevada (80%), Utah (63%), Idaho (61%), locking away more acreage from development restricts not only resource industries but also housing construction, transportation corridors, and renewable energy siting. Ironically, the transition to clean energy, the very goal environmentalists champion, depends on access to public land for wind, solar, and transmission infrastructure.
For example, the Department of Energy’s Western Solar Plan and BLM’s Renewable Energy Rule are designed to streamline large-scale clean energy projects on federal land. Expanding preservation could reverse that progress by forcing developers into lengthy permitting battles or costlier private purchases. Every delay in clean-energy deployment is more carbon emitted into the atmosphere. Opposition can frame this as a paradox: environmental purism that slows down the green transition.
Furthermore, rural economies depend heavily on the responsible use of public lands through ranching, mining, and forestry. These industries sustain small towns that lack alternative employment bases. Blanket preservation without transition planning would devastate those communities, creating economic displacement that fuels political backlash and undermines public trust in environmental policy.
Finally, opposition can argue for targeted protection or prioritizing high-value ecosystems and cultural sites while allowing controlled multi-use in less sensitive areas. That model preserves flexibility, ensures energy security, and sustains rural livelihoods. The point is not to abolish preservation, but to reject the assumption that “more is always better.” My note here is to be careful to frame this in a way that you aren’t crossing the house.
Further Reading
Congressional Research Service – “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.”
Bureau of Economic Analysis – “Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (2023).”
Poorvi is a first year student at The University of Chicago double-majoring in Business Economics and Public Policy. In her free time loves writing, hanging out with friends and going down YouTube rabbit holes.
This House believes that hacktivism is a legitimate tool of resistance.
Info Slide: Hacktivism refers to the use of cyberattacks and hacking techniques to advance political, social, or ideological causes.
Context
From anonymous collectives leaking documents about government corruption to cyberattacks directly disrupting oppressive regimes, “hacktivism” is an extremely controversial manifestation of civil disobedience.
At its core, the goal of hacktivism is to expose corruption and internal abuses. In 2022, pro Ukraine hacktivists launched cyberattacks on Russian state media to counter their wartime propaganda. Similar groups have also defaced websites of groups like the Church of Scientology, PayPal, and other authoritarian governments to retaliate for censorship and injustices.
What is it?
The info slide tells us that hacktivism is a form of cyberattack which aligns with ideological causes. It is important to understand that in a majority of instances, hacktivists' main agenda is to explore corporate misconduct, government abuses, or human rights injustices. Basically, they try to expose malpractice by getting into the system.
Hacktivism can include:
Website defacement/data leaks: exposing corruption and wrongdoing
Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks: disable digital infrastructure as a form of protest
Data liberation: the release of censored or hidden information to the public (e.g., WikiLeaks)
It’s important to understand that not all hacking done for a cause qualifies as hacktivism. For example, ransomware attacks for personal gain or plain corporate sabotage that is politically neutral fall outside the scope of this motion. The focus of this debate is hacking directly motivated by resistance to injustices
Why are we debating this?
The legitimacy of these acts is contested. Is it considered civil resistance or are they digital crimes undermining the rule of law and privacy. This motion asks us to evaluate the moral and ethical foundations of hacktivism. Remember that it's not just about the legality or efficiency.
Framing
Like I said before, this motion is fundamentally about legitimacy. Proposition’s burden is to prove that hacktivism can be a morally or socially justified form of protest or resistance–regardless of if it breaks rules or norms (similar to any other act of civil disobedience) (think Rosa Parks during segregation). Opposition’s burden is to show that hacktivism is principally illegitimate. They must prove it undermines justice, democratic institutions, or any ethical principles of resistance
That said, practical outcomes still matter as weighing mechanisms. If hacktivism effectively exposes injustices or limits harm, that reinforces its legitimacy. Comparatively, if it disproportionately harms civilians or backfires, that delegitimizes it.
Let's look comparatively at other forms of civil disobedience. What makes them justified? How can you pull from those characteristics and connect them to Hacktivism making it similarly legitimate. What makes protests like sit-ins, leaks, or boycotts legitimate? If legitimacy in those cases stems from resistance against unjust power and the means used are proportional and nonviolent, then hacktivism can share a similar moral ground
Proposition
Propositions first argument could be something along the lines of a principle of retributive justice. Because hacktivism is a form of resistance against oppression and abuses of power, resistance must evolve alongside the power. When institutions abuse power, hacktivism acts as a form of retributive justice by giving citizens a means to proportionally retaliate. However, it also holds a level of restorative justice by exposing hidden truths, returning stolen information to the public, or forcing reform through digital pressure. In this way, hacktivism can serve as a nonviolent form of whistleblowing. Transparency is widened and social justice is enforced. For example the “BlueLeaks: release exposed police misconduct across the United States which forced reform in several departments. The same way civil rights activists broke segregation laws, hacktivists may justifiably violate digital laws to explore greater injustices. Historically, the justifications of civil disobedience have been: moral duty, nonviolence, and proportionality. You can use these same mechanisms to justify hacktivism
Moral duty: hacktivists often act out of their conscience to reveal the truth or challenge oppression
Nonviolence: there is rarely any physical harm associated with hacktivism, unlike terrorism or armed revolts
Proportionality: many actions are symbolic, not destructive.
One of the most important things to keep in mind is also the social contract. When citizens give up their rights to be protected by their government, they have the same power to overthrow that government or retaliate if their social contract is violated. Note that this argument only works under governing bodies and not towards corporations. If citizens are morally entitled to resist injustice, proposition can argue that digital tools are the most effective avenue which makes hacktivism a legitimate extension of dissent in a democracy.
Another argument for proposition can be centered around leveling the playing field. This argument revolves around power asymmetry and viewing hacktivism as a weapon for those that are powerless in the digital age. Since corporations and governments have total control over the flow of information, traditional forms of protest are often suppressed or surveilled. Groups like Anonymous or other pro-democracy cyberactivists in Hong Kong have shown how hacktivism is a mechanism of striking backs in asymmetrical power dynamics as they leaked censored information, exposing corruption, or dismantling propaganda networks. This argument can talk about how redistributing informational power through hacktivism actually restores accountability in societies where traditional checks and balances have failed.
There is also a comparative argument that can be made about how it is a more ethical tool than violence. Another lens to view this round is by looking at alternative mechanisms to resist oppression and argue that hacktivism is by far the most ethical. If proposition proves that resistance to oppression can be morally justified in some instances (revolutions, riots, etc.) then hacktivism–whose main target is infrastructure–is comparatively more legitimate. It has more similarities to a sit in, not a bombing. By expanding the scope of nonviolent resistance, prop argues that hacktivism reduces physical altercations and prevents escalation that costs lives.
Opposition
The first argument for opposition is also a principle. This one is centered on the illegitimacy of vigilante justice. It is important for opp to push the idea that to legitimize resistance, it’s not only about the intent but the means by which it is carried out. That said, hacktivism violates key democratic principles like due process, rule of law, and consent of the governed. Collective justice is replaced with individual judgement. So, even if it is motivated by noble causes, hacktivists act without accountability which leads them to cause collateral harm (exposing personal data, harming small businesses). Opp can argue that on a principle level, in a democracy, there are lawful channels for resistance like elections, courts, and advocacy, which makes illegal cyberattacks unjustifyable. Also, hacktivism directly erodes trust in digital infrastructure which is a vital lament of modern life. Therefore, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
That leads into another argument about the slippery slope. When hacktivism is legitimized it blurs the line between protesting and blatant crimes. Governments, corporations, and citizens will try to claim legitimacy for cyberattacks with any cause ranging anywhere from climate activism to xenophobic nationalism. The normalization of hacking as a form of resistance then threatens cybersecurity and international stability. So, even if the intentions were surrounded around resistance, it can very rapidly turn into chaos and authoritarian regimes are very likely to use the same justification to suppress dissent through levels of counter-hacking. This also causes a lot of collateral damage. Since hacktivist attacks are often indiscriminate, innocent servers can be taken down in the process. Leaked databases often explore citizens' personal information alongside wrongdoers. This not only violates the ethical standard of proportionality I mentioned earlier but it delegitimizes the tool as a whole because the original intent of justice is no longer directly being served. And, since the line is so gray between what will end up getting revealed and what won’t, it is better to deem hacktivism as illegitimate simply because it gains access to information that had no place being violated in the first place.
Let’s look at the comparative then. True resistance should be morally consistent and publicly accountable. That being said, an opposition would look like previous forms of civil disobedience in history–those that relied on accepting consequences. Gandhi, King, Mandela. Hacktivists on the other hand remain anonymous which allows them to evade responsibility. With no accountability mechanism, it is easy to get out of hand. Opposition can argue that legitimate activism requires transparency and personal sacrifice.
At the end of the day, this motion is about the moral question between the law and justice. Proposition needs to show how hacktivism is a digital continuation of moral resistance and how its proportionality makes it justified in oppressive contexts. Opposition needs to prove how hacktivism has no bounds or laws which causes the very collateral harms that make it unprincipled and an illegitimate tool of resistance. Ultimately, this debate is not about the effectiveness or even feasibility of hacking, but rather if breaking power by hiding behind a firewall is just. Especially in an era of total surveillance and corporate dominance.
Further Reading:
The State of Hacktivism in 2020
Global Revival of Hacktivism Requires Increased Vigilance from Defenders
Dithyae Devesh is a freshman at Cornell University studying Public Policy and Economics. She competed for The Hockaday School and was on Team Texas for the 24-25 season. Outside of school she loves dancing, going to concerts, and exploring new places with her friends.
