2026 TFA January/February Topic Analyses: Green Capitalism, African Union, Charter Schools, and De-Extinction

Topic Analyses

Dec 25

Happy Holidays! This topic analysis batch includes:

This House regrets the narrative of green capitalism as a response to climate change by Sophia Li
This House believes that the African Union should prioritize strengthening regional alliances as opposed to continental unification by Arjun Patil
This House believes that charter schools have done more harm than good to the education system by Taite Kirkpatrick
This House supports the use of de-extinction technology by Effie Shen

  
    This House regrets the narrative of green capitalism as a response to climate change.

Info Slide: Green capitalism is the theory that a free market economy can solve the climate crisis.

Background Overview

Green capitalism argues that market mechanisms can solve climate change through profit incentives. This includes carbon markets, ESG investing, corporate sustainability pledges, green bonds, and consumer choice driving eco-friendly products. The theory is that companies will innovate solutions because there's money in it.

The global green economy is projected to reach $12 trillion by 2030. Companies like Tesla prove you can be profitable and sustainable. Carbon markets now trade $850 billion annually. Major corporations pledge net-zero targets.

The heart of this debate is whether this market-based approach actually works or whether it's a distraction that delays real action while letting the worst polluters greenwash their way out of accountability.

Proposition

Framing: Green capitalism rebrands the very problem as the solution. We're asking the same profit-driven system that caused climate change in the first place to fix it voluntarily.

Characterization:

Corporations make net-zero pledges they don't keep
Carbon markets let polluters pay to keep polluting
Climate action = buying the right products (if you can afford them)
Oil companies use green marketing while extracting more fossil fuels

Substantive 1: Green capitalism delays fundamental change

Layer 1: Greenwashing without real action

Net-zero pledges cover 90% of global economy but emissions keep rising
2023 global emissions hit record 37.4 billion tons (up from 36.8 in 2022)
Oil companies knew about climate change since 1970s, buried research, funded denial
ExxonMobil scientists accurately predicted warming in internal documents while company publicly disputed climate science

BP rebranded as "Beyond Petroleum" in 2000 with $200 million marketing campaign. Two decades later, 96% of their business is still fossil fuels. Shell's "Sky Scenario" pledged carbon neutrality but then increased oil production.

The link here is green capitalism creates a system where looking green is more profitable than being green. Companies exist to maximize profits, and it's always cheaper to spend millions on advertising about sustainability than billions actually changing how they operate. When BP spends $200 million to rebrand as "Beyond Petroleum" while keeping 96% of business in fossil fuels, they're making a rational business decision—the green marketing attracts environmentally-conscious investors and customers, deflects criticism, and prevents regulation, all while they keep doing what's actually profitable: selling oil.

Layer 2: Market solutions can't address market failures

Climate change is literally a market failure - externalized costs that markets don't naturally price in. You can't fix market failures with more market mechanisms.

Markets require short-term returns (quarterly earnings)
Climate requires 30-50 year planning horizons
Markets optimize for profit, not planetary survival
When these conflict, profit wins every time

Renewable energy only became viable through government subsidies ($634 billion globally in 2023), not market forces. Germany's solar revolution happened because of feed-in tariffs mandating prices. Markets didn't choose renewables - policy forced it, then markets followed.

Impact: Green capitalism prevents real solutions

Every dollar and policy conversation spent on market mechanisms is a dollar NOT spent on what actually works - direct regulation, public investment, nationalization of energy systems. It gives politicians an excuse to avoid hard choices. "Let the market handle it" means "let someone else deal with it later."

Good rhetoric: We have 6-7 years left to cut emissions in half to stay under 1.5°C. Green capitalism has had 30 years and emissions went UP. We don't have another 30 years to keep trying the same failed approach.

Substantive 2: It deepens inequality and exploits the Global South

Layer 1: Green capitalism extracts from poor countries to greenwash rich ones

Companies need to maximize profits, so they source materials where labor and environmental protections are weakest and people have least power to resist. Green capitalism maintains the same colonial extraction patterns as regular capitalism. It just rebrands exploitation as "sustainable development"

Lithium mining for batteries: Indigenous communities in Chile displaced for water-intensive extraction
Cobalt for EVs: 40,000 children mining in Congo for $1-2/day
Carbon offsets: European companies buy land in Kenya, displace pastoralists, claim "reforestation"

What this means is when Apple claims carbon neutrality through offsets, they're not reducing emissions. They're paying for the right to keep polluting while someone in the Global South pays the real cost.

Layer 2: Climate solutions become luxury goods only rich people can afford

Markets target customers who can pay the most, so green products are priced for wealthy consumers to maximize profit margins. Green capitalism turns climate solutions into commodities to sell rather than rights to guarantee, automatically excluding billions of people

Tesla's average buyer makes $143,000/year
Rooftop solar requires home ownership and upfront capital
Organic food costs 47% more than conventional
Green products marketed to wealthy consumers while poor communities live near refineries

This makes climate action about personal consumer choices instead of systemic change.

Impact: This narrative destroys solidarity

Fighting climate change requires collective action across class and national lines. You can't build a mass movement when the solution is "shop at Whole Foods." Green capitalism turns it into a market where rich people buy their way out while poor people suffer.

Opposition

Framing: Markets have solved every other major challenge - disease, hunger, communication. Climate is no different. Central planning failed in the Soviet Union, it'll fail on climate too.

Green capitalism works BECAUSE it aligns incentives. Companies innovate when there's profit in it. The alternative is massive government control that's both ineffective and politically impossible.

Substantive 1: Green capitalism is delivering results faster than ever regulation could

Layer 1: Market forces are rapidly transitioning energy systems

Solar costs dropped 90% in 15 years (2010-2024)
Wind costs down 70% same period
Renewable energy capacity grew 10% annually 2020-2024
EV sales jumped from 2 million (2018) to 14 million (2023)

This didn't happen because governments commanded it. It happened because competition drove innovation. Tesla proved EVs could be profitable, so now every car company is competing.

That's markets working! Solar got cheap because manufacturers competed on price and efficiency.

Once renewables became profitable, investment exploded - $1.8 trillion globally in 2023. No government budget could match that.

Layer 2: Corporate competition accelerates innovation beyond what policy requires

Companies are actively racing ahead of standards:

● Microsoft pledges carbon negative by 2030

● Apple's entire supply chain on renewables

● Google purchases more renewable energy than it uses

● These exceed any regulatory requirement because shareholders and consumers demand it

The profit motive drives breakthroughs. Battery costs dropped 97% since 1991 because companies compete for market share. Carbon capture technology improving because there's money in it. Alternative proteins making meat substitutes viable - not from mandates but from investment.

Impact: We need this speed and scale

Government regulation moves slowly. Bills take years upon years. Implementation takes longer. Markets move at internet speed. We're seeing 10-15 year innovation cycles compress into 2-3 years. Climate crisis needs rapid deployment of solutions. Markets deliver that. Regulation can't.

Substantive 2: Top-down control fails

Layer 1: Command economies have terrible environmental records

Soviet Union: Aral Sea disaster, Chernobyl, rivers catching fire
China's planned economy: worst air quality before market reforms
Cuba: ongoing environmental degradation despite socialist economy
Venezuela: oil spills, deforestation, pollution under state control

When governments control production, environmental protection always loses to production targets. Soviet planners ordered maximizing output and pollution didn't matter. Market pressure from consumers and investors creates accountability government planning never had.

Layer 2: Political solutions are fragile and face implementation problems

Green New Deal proposed, never passed
Paris Agreement has no enforcement mechanism
Build Back Better climate provisions stripped out
Every administration changes priorities, reverses previous policies

Political will is unreliable. Markets don't depend on elections. A profitable solar company keeps operating regardless of who's in power. Regulation requires sustained political consensus across multiple election cycles - that's unrealistic.

Plus, government implementation is notoriously inefficient. Government programs suffer from bloat and bureaucracy. Markets cut through that with competition.

Impact: The alternative to green capitalism is worse and delays climate progress

On their side, reject market solutions, and you're left with massive government control over energy, transportation, agriculture,and manufacturing. That means rationing, restrictions on consumption, probably declining living standards - and it's politically impossible in democracies. People won't vote for a lower quality of life. Green capitalism offers the only viable path to maintain prosperity while still transitioning to sustainability.

Context

Definitions

There are three important words/phrases in the motion that should be defined before entering the debate.

African Union - a continental body of 55 member states aiming to foster unity, development, and peace in Africa
Regional Alliances - cooperative blocs among nearby African nations (such as ECOWAS, SADC, or the East African Community) that coordinate on security, trade, and political issues within a specific sub-region

Official Definition - a formal partnership between countries or entities in the same geographical area, created to achieve common goals like boosting trade, ensuring security, or tackling shared challenges, through political, economic, or military cooperation for mutual benefit.

Continental Unification - broader, Africa-wide integration efforts (similar to the structure of the EU) that aim to centralize political decision-making, harmonize institutions, or move toward continent-wide economic or political union.

Official Definition - the concept of creating a single political, economic, or social entity from multiple nations on a continent, often driven by shared interests, culture, or overcoming colonial legacies, aiming for greater strength, cooperation, and development

Characterizations

In this debate, it is going to be very important to characterize incentives. That is to say, in framework, you should identify which stakeholders are involved within the African Union: governments, regional tribes, individual citizens, etc. This region is incredibly diverse both politically and socially, and this debate is won by correctly understanding the incentives of all actors involved and structuring your case around how your side benefits each of them to the greatest extent possible. In the framing section, I have included some direction on burdens and my takes on generally useful incentives for each of the actors I think are key in this debate.
Be very detailed in your research about the African Union. In this space, discussions about the African continent are often extremely over-generalized or stereotyped, and that will lead you to come off as uninformed and insensitive. In terms of applying that nuance to your case, you can include a few things throughout your case:

Characterize the different levels of development across Africa, with certain states like South Africa, Mauritius, and Seychelles being far more developed than nations like South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Further, establish the specific differences that exist among nations, which are primarily political, economic, and social.

Framing

Here is some generally applicable advice on each actor's incentives that could help shape your burdens and strategy.

Governments desire control over their people, buy-in to their policies, legitimacy as a credible institution/administration to both their people and the globe, and power to execute, enforce, and enact policy.
Regional Tribes are largely split on what they seek to achieve; however, since many of these tribes are underrepresented or involved in conflict, it is plausible that these groups seek representation, legitimacy, and ownership over land/wealth.
Individuals are primarily focused on safety (the greatest reduction of conflict), economic welfare/upward mobility (the ability to provide for themselves and their families), representation in government, and autonomy/consent. Many of these incentives are prerequisites to others or go hand in hand.

Creating a clear outline of what governance structures in each world look like, and some sort of a plan/model will help make this debate much clearer and more coherent to a judge.

On Prop, I think that looks like crafting a clear picture of what regional alliances look like right now and how you think they would develop in the future. Further, it means clarifying what alliances look like (purely economic, military, or something in between). Remember to base your model off of things that could predictably emerge from the status quo, and provide a rationale for why it will happen.
On Opp, I think the burden is a bit higher. First, provide an in-depth plan of what unified governance looks like for Africa. How much power would this unified system have, how are decisions made, and most importantly, how is representation and equality in that representation guaranteed. If you have a fairly comprehensive model on how each country gets a say but decisions are still made efficiently, you put yourself very far ahead in curbing Prop offense about autonomy. Again, provide rationale, and incentive for why actors would buy-in to this system.

Proposition

The biggest argument the proposition has here is about autonomy. In my opinion, this can be ran as a true principle or a practical, but it is probably easier to frame it as a practical that, if won, provides you within principled offense (to avoid the inveitable “its not a real principle” debate). That being said, this argument has to do a lot of pre-emptive work that predicts the basis of the Opp model. From the very start of the debate here you must contest any push from Opp framework about equal representation in their unified Africa. This argument basically rests on you proving that your characterization of a unified Africa is more likely than the one the Opp asserts. That being said, it is very, very important that you engage in the framing debate about what a unified Africa looks like and do not compromise on their being some sort of a power imbalance within it. This is the key link to this argument, that because African countries have such different histories, they are now left in the squo with far different levels of development, as we talked about in the context section. However, you must use that context to argue that if the entire continent is unified it will lead to a domination of the powerful countries within it that are more politicaly stable and economically strong at the expense of weaker countries. The most difficult part of this segment of the argument is justifying why that is necessarily different in a regional alliance. I think there are two big reasons 1) that power imbalances are less likely when there are only a few actors insofar as it is very difficult for one or a few to emerge as notable more in control and most small alliances have to have more inclusive and in-depth discourse before any major decisions and 2) most regional alliance form around countries with similar levels of economic development which means there is a lower chance that one is able to be taken advantage of. The next part of this argument is about the dilution of the minority. African states contain vastly diverse countries and to force them all under an individual governing structure would be incredibly harmful to the capacity of those that do not remain in the majority, even in a perfectly equal system, to have a say in the policy they are forced to abide by. While this is true of any large organization (NATO, the IMF, the EU, etc.), there are two things to consider: 1) the diversity of needs, interests, and desires of African nations far expands that of most Wester regional blocs and 2) that these organizations are arguably very flawed and controlled by a few actors that actively exploit the support and allyship of the others in the organization. In my opinion, this is the strongest argument that the Proposition has, and it can be developed in numerous ways, but you absolutely have to die on the hill that you are willing to sacrifice some level of power on the global stage if it means that every country is able to have more autonomy and choice over their governance. This is going to be a bit contested if the Opp (validly) brings up that currently, African nations are struggling with dependence on foreign actors; however, you must argue that regional blocs are more effective at supporting actors in such a condition, but a unified African means the same exploitation for the most vulnerable nations under the veil of consent.

The second big argument is about fostering development. I think this has similar pretenses and incentives to the first argument, but focuses away from the principle. Big governance systems like intuitively what a unified Africa would have, are incredibly taxing to nations inside of it. I think there are a few mechanisms you could use here to clarify exactly why this specific unification would be far more negative than the comparison of regional alliances. First, corruption, since it is much harder to identify, call out, and hold accountable/reform in larger organizations, whereas regional alliances are typically much more transparent among each other about where money and arms are traveling and for what purpose. Second, individualized help, because in bigger organizations, it is very likely that small conflicts or insurgent groups hurting small countries are deemed “low-priority” in the context of the entire continent, and thus resources are not fairly allocated towards solving them but rather towards larger, continent-wide problems. The issue becomes that when individual state governance is weak in these nations (as opposed to individual nations in organizations like the EU or NATO), there is almost no capacity to deal with these regional, individual threats, and notably, the ability to resolve them is hindered when a bigger organization requires you to commit military strength to the unified government structure. Third, on resource drain because the overarching governing system would likely require a substantial amount of capital and military force to operate, and the only way to get that is to require is of member nations, which would be especially harmful to nations that are currently struggling to initially develop politically and economically. For those countries, every resource and dollar counts. Fourth, on individual oversight, since democratic reforms and internal political development are unlikely in a unified continent that will likely primarily focus on international issues like global trade and developing soft power. This means that problems will brew within the continent that could accelerate the existing conflicts on borders and religious ideologies.

There is a potential argument here on inefficiency, but I do not think it is enough to stand alone, but could definitely be part of one of the other arguments on how unification leads to backlog in decision-making, and especially in a polarized continen,t could lead to very little meaningful action at all.

Two final notes on the proposition. First, one of the largest ways to sway this debate in your favor is to capitalize on the ambiguity I can guarantee will be present in the Opp’s conception of what a unified Africa looks like. Despite what they say, they do not get “fiat” to a perfect governance structure in a region that has long been riddled with religious conflict, border disputes, corrupt leaders, and unstable democratic systems. They have to defend how an overarching government will solve individualized issues better than the regional alliances that were literally created to solve more grassroots, individualized, niche issues, which is a difficult burden to prove. Second, this debate is incredibly comparative. Every argument you make about unification being harmful has to be supplemented by a description of how regional alliances are different on an incentive and structural level, and why those differences are meaningfully better at stopping things like poor representation, inefficiency, and corruption.

Opposition

The first and most intuitive argument on the Opposition is about internal division. There are several potential parts to this argument that can be extended and impacted to create a strong path to the ballot for the Opp. This slightly ties into the third argument I have listed on the Opp so if you are running these both in the same case, really spend time making them different from one another, and in my opinion, the easiest way to accomplish that is by running the argument mentioned after this as a true principle and running this argument as a solely practical one. That being said, I think this argument also has to do a lot of work 1) establishing relevant context about the region as a whole and the existing regional alliances that have taken shape (like the info slide mentions) and 2) characterizing incentives as they exist right now and 3) providing a realistic, reasonable, but relatively opp-skewed interpretation of how these alliances and their incentives are likely to change in the future as the African Union develops more rapidly. The crux of this argument lies in proving that the incentives of these alliances either (at your best ground) are right now or (at your worst ground) will in the future be opposed to one another, leading to conflict militarily and economically, devastating the region, and preventing development. There are several reasons why this could happen, but it is up to you to prove that these incentives prove beyond reasonable doubt that conflict is inevitable and that this conflict will inhibit development in the future to an extreme extent. This could look like 1) talking about how borders in the African Union right now mean regional alliances will simply escalate pre-existing conflicts by bringing multiple actors and the forces of their respective militaries into the conversation 2) establishing that minerals and raw materials are often split between actors and thus there would be disputes that could escalate over ownership and control of those resources and 3) arguing that insofar as global actors like China, the US, Russia, and European nations have an incentive to exploit African Nations, that they will use their power to pit regional groups against each other and orchestrate internal division to continue profiting off of the dependency that conflict creates in this continent. However, I think it is not enough to stop at arguing why regional alliances are potentially negative, but you have to paint a positive comparative as to why a unified Africa is better. I think that looks like proving, through framework, characterization, and this argument, how exactly a unified structure would exist to solve these problems and resolve disputes in an effective way. In this debate, I do not think it is enough to assert that you have the power to assume a unified Africa would work, but you have to prove the specific structural reasons and ways this new unified continent will deal with the history of conflict it has had. That is where I forsee the biggest hurdle for the Opp will be, so spend time developing a defensible means to how you are going to address these issues. Impacting here is fairly simple: conflict results in death so lower conflict is a good for citizens wthin the region, development is near impossible when countries are worried about fighting the nation next to them, so you help overall development too.

The second argument is about developing global influence. The premise of this argument is very intuitive and, in my opinion, the easiest of the three to prove as true. The harder and more complex part comes in weighing this argument over the strong arguments the proposition has. The basis is simple:, if the African Union combines all their resources and, theoretically, absolves their divisions, they will be able to gain a massive influence on the global stage. I think there are a few ways to prove this is true. First, the monopoly of control over natural resources the continent would have if they combined into one unified force would be unrivaled, specifically cobalt (which happens to be a key component of advanced semiconductors which power massive amounts of technology globally especially in highly developed nations like the US, EU, China, etc.) and industrial diamonds (for which there is a massive market for in Western Nations and globally as well). These are just two examples of the natural resources they would have a chokehold on, but there are several more that are critical to supply chains that exist around the world. Second, the combined economies of each of these countries would allow them to make up a major trading bloc and to be a formidable middleman in production supply chains globally. Given that most economies in the African Union are heavily focused on either the extraction of raw materials (primary sector economy) or the manufacturing of those materials into finished goods (secondary sector economy), if the continent was to streamline their trade deals under the umbrella of a single governing model, it would be an incredibly important player to the rest of the globe and thus give it market power with respect to the international economy. Third, when divisions are absolved, independence soars in these countries because in a world of regional alliances, they will likely be forced to rely on global powerhouse economies like the EU, China, and the US, creating a cycle of dependence and further escalating conflicts by proxy to execute the will of the nations that fund them. Again, I want to emphasize that you have to be detailed about exactly how this new unified Africa is going to successfully ensure representation of nations within it. Opp can easily fall into a trap of assuming they get access to things like representation and autonomy just because they are different from the status quo, but you must prove how exactly you differ from the systemic problems with this world. Impacts here look like creating more global representation for Africa and allowing for increased development by leveraging the greater amount of soft power in an Opp world.

The third argument I think could be run is a principle of reparative justice. I think this argument has two big layers. In the first layer, I think this argument should contextualize how the majority of divisions and the subsequent regional blocs that have emerged with the African Union are the result of lines drawn at the Berlin Conference or, somehow, otherwise imposed by the lasting effects of colonialism. That being said, there is a principle path to ballot about how African states being divided the same way that their colonizers divided them is a principle wrong that has to be repaired. Given that context, I am persuaded to believe that using an argument about reparative justice is a strong push here, where you argue the following things. First, that all wrongs have to be repaired for in some way. Second, that the biggest principle wrong with respect to this motion is the artificial creation of internal conflict within Africa that is rooted in regional divisions, which is connected to a lack of autonomy, self-control, and consent. Third and finally, the way to address that is for the whole country to be unified. If running this argument as a true principle, be prepared to defend it and justify it as such. That is to say, whether you choose to run this as reparative justice, be clear and consistent down the bench on why this specific action (the arbitrary division of the African Union) is the largest violation of justice broadly, and subsequently, but equally as importantly, why holistic unification is the best, most principally correct way to solve for this. On that front, I think the intuitive link chain that if the wrong is being divided that the way to solve that wrong is to unite is a good start, but your argument has to by dynamic and nuanced enough to address why things like autonomy and consent are not further lost under one sweeping governing structure that would assumably be put in place in the African Union.

What/Where/When/Who/Why Charter Schools?! (Context)

Well, props to whoever wrote the info side, (shout-out TFA) because it does a good job generalizing what charter schools are. They exist in all but three states (shout-out Vermont, South Dakota, and Nebraska!), yet the specifics vary based on the state (last shout-out goes to the federal government for education federalism, I guess).

For a charter school to be formed, the school submits a proposal to an “authorizing agency.” In most states, authorizing agencies are either local education agencies (LEAs) (local school boards), or the state board of education. However, there are some other types of agencies, such as universities, non-profits, or independent charter boards.

If the authorizer approves the proposal, they create a contract (the charter!) that outlines expectations and guidelines for the charter school. Like the lovely info slide says, the school will now be able to operate with more autonomy, but it is still accountable to that agency and faces the possibility of closure if it fails.

If not a local school district running the school, then who? The question of who is actually in charge of charter schools is complicated. On a day-to-day level, the schools are run by principals who answer to a board of directors. Some schools are part of large networks, such as BASIS, IDEA, or KIPP. Each of these schools are run by Charter Management Organizations, also known as CMOs. A CMO is a non-profit entity that runs multiple charter schools. Unfortunately, this acronym is very similar to EMOs, which are Education Management Organizations. EMOs are for-profit entities that run charter schools. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the US had approximately 8140 charter schools during 2023-2024. 31% of these were run by CMOs, 12.3% by EMOs, and 56% were freestanding, meaning they were not run by either.

When considering who attends charter schools, it’s important to remember that all charter schools are public schools. They can not charge tuition. From a funding standpoint, this means they are more similar to public schools than private schools, and the majority of their funding typically comes from tax dollars. However, charters in many states do not receive funds from local property taxes. As such, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools reports that “On average, charter schools receive 75 cents for every dollar a traditional district receives.” Often, the funding a charter school receives from the state is formulaic based on the number of students attending the school. Additionally, the federal government supports charters via the Department of Education’s Charter Schools Program. In September, the DOE announced the program would receive $500 million in funding, the largest investment the program has ever had.

Last, it’s important to know who attends charter schools. Charter schools, unlike private schools, cannot reject applicants. Students typically fill out an application, but charters are open enrollment to any student living within a certain geographic area (within a state, district, etc.). If a school receives more applicants than available seats, they run a fair, random lottery to determine admission. Charter schools also, demographically, serve a more diverse population of students than traditional public schools, including more students of color and low-income students. Charter school enrollment has grown significantly in recent years (particularly since the pandemic), and approximately 1 in 12 public school students attend charter schools. However, five states (California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New York) educate more than half of all charter school students in the country.

If you’re looking for more data and numbers to understand charter schools, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools "Knowledge Base” has a lot of very organized, digestible research based on the 2023-2024 school year: https://data.publiccharters.org/knowledge-base/

Opposition

I’m starting with ideas for opposition, because I personally think it’s harder to shift into a pro-charter school view after being presented with arguments against them than the other way around.

First, opposition teams should make sure they are well-versed in the underlying idea and intent of charter schools. Charter schools were created to be laboratories of education innovation. Theoretically, they would be spaces where new practices could be developed and implemented. They would give parents alternatives to failing public schools. They would be a rising tide to lift all boats; by experimenting in new education practices, they would create better standards for traditional public schools. In today’s age, charter schools also operate as a form of school choice, allowing parents a little more freedom to control their child’s education, especially parents who are dissatisfied with their traditional public school but cannot access private schools.

With this in mind, the first logical stakeholder for an opposition team to consider are the students who are opting to attend charter schools right now.

Fortunately for opposition, there are mountains of evidence and examples showing positive outcomes from charter schools. Opposition teams need to point this out, and make sure they don’t allow proposition teams much leeway with mischaracterizing the successes of charter schools. For instance, Jay Matthews, just one very prominent advocate for charter schools, has written for the Washington Post that some of the nation's most rigorous high schools are charters uniquely serving low income students, have helped provide more resources to low-income students, and in some charter systems, graduates finish college at higher rates than peers.

Additionally, to avoid encountering the argument that charter schools are only for the elite, opposition should establish early on (either in framing, the weighing of a potential substantive argument, or both!) that charter schools often serve the most disadvantaged students. Charter schools, on average, serve higher percentages of students of color and students receiving free/reduced lunch. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, as of the 2021-2022 school year, 50% of charter schools offer schoolwide title I programs. At these schools, at least 40% of students must be considered low-income. (For further comparison, see source.)

More importantly, opposition will want to argue that charter schools don’t just enroll large numbers of marginalized students, but also set these students up for success, often better than the available alternatives for these students.

The last aspect to fully weigh this argument is finding a way to connect the success of individuals from charter schools to the broader success of the education system. There’s multiple ways to do this.

One way is by arguing that the only way to improve public schools is to figure out what could be done better, which happens through experimentation at charter schools. Additionally, from a very broad perspective, improved social mobility for graduates at charter schools helps create the types of longer-term, structural changes that reduce the more systemic types of inequality that hold non-charter students back.

Finally, I would encourage opposition teams to paint a (perhaps an uncharitable, perhaps true) picture of the proposition world: without charter schools, these students are getting left behind in traditional public schools that aren’t meeting their needs. The opposition argues that proposition’s world would rather see these students flounder in the name of “equality”; because all students' needs aren’t being met, propositions would rather that no students get educated.

Proposition is going to argue that charter schools are part of the reason why traditional public schools fail; opposition will want to identify other causes that are unrelated to charter schools. Opposition needs a coherent theory as to why traditional public schools are not as successful as charter schools, and preferably, should identify reasons why charter schools’ successes spread. (Easier said than done.)

A second potential argument, that begins to accomplish the aforementioned goal, would be concerning the wellbeing of the entire education system, proving that the proliferation of high-quality charter schools improves traditional public schools. There are a few reasons why charter schools advocates argue this true, but the biggest reason is based on the idea of competition.

Essentially, proponents argue that when charter schools outperform district schools, the district schools are encouraged to improve. This happens as more and more students opt to attend the charter schools, which in turn indicates to a district that parents are dissatisfied with the quality of the traditional option. This argument is going to be tricky for opposition teams, because there are a lot of differing interpretations of how this competitive fuels improvement, and many of the studies on the subject are focused on correlation instead of causation. So, opposition teams will need to be sure to find analysis and have a concrete theory as to why they believe this correlation to exist.

Proposition

Now, the reason why I focused on opposition first is because understanding the opposition lets you understand the background information on charter schools better. The problem, however, is that when you get to proposition, there are so many questions that poke holes into the idea of charter schools altogether. From my perspective, I think this leaves proposition teams with a larger amount of choice in what arguments they want to combine and utilize.

First, there’s a long list of questions about how charter schools are run.

For instance, groups advocating against charter schools have found that large amounts of federal funds have been spent on charter schools that end up never opening, or close very quickly after their establishment. On the small-scale, this is harmful for students and teachers who are left in limbo when charters fail, but in the bigger picture, this can be seen as a waste of funds that could go elsewhere to support public education.

Similarly, it is worth spending time researching the efficacy and worth of EMOs, or Education Management Organizations. As mentioned earlier, these groups may be for-profit and have ramifications for the sanctity of public funding and efficacy of the charter schools they run. This is also why some studies estimate that charter schools spend more on administrative costs than public schools. It’s debatable whether that higher funding for administration is why charters successfully educate students, or if they are spending money inefficiently.

Another big-picture concern about charter schools about how they potentially increase segregation in schools. The reason why is because school districts themselves are typically lines that divide areas by income and race. Because charter schools often align themselves with school districts, they reify existing divisions, while simultaneously creating new ones within those districts.

Third, and potentially most crucially, there are a lot of questions to be asked about how charter schools impact traditional public schools. Most vitally, I encourage anybody debating this topic to ask themselves why they believe traditional public schools struggle in the status quo. (It’s okay if you don’t tell the judge that answer because it doesn’t behoove you… but to be educated on this topic, it’ll be helpful to sort through whatever you do and don’t believe to be “The Problem with Public Schools™.”)

This debate has happened before, actually. The 2022 season had a topic about school vouchers, which invited a similar question about whether or not competitive options other than traditional public schools is sufficient to improve those schools. One challenge with this idea is that the vast majority of public schools are doing the best they can. Generally speaking, the administrations and school boards and teachers working in traditional public schools believe that they are doing what is best to support their students; after all, it’s not they’re in it for the pay. Opponents to charter schools argue that they siphon funding and resources away from their neighboring public schools.

A final route to explore for propositions is specific to teachers. Many teachers unions are fiercely opposed to charter schools, which generally do not hire unionized teachers and have lower teacher retention rates. While charter school advocates argue this flexibility is part of their success, teachers’ unions and their members argue that this hurts individual teachers and the broader wellbeing of the profession.

This House supports the use of de-extinction technology.

Info Slide: Last year American-based Colossal Biosciences announced that they had “de-extincted” the dire wolf. Created from a combination of preserved DNA and gene editing technology, the dire wolf puppies represent the first in a growing attempt to bring back lost species through modern technology.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Background Information

At the core of this debate is a reckoning with our actions as a species. Our technology, its ability to destroy ecosystems, and potentially how we might right our wrongs. On one side is an aspirational new technology that speaks of technological miracles, on the other is a side wary of unintended consequences and flashy headlines.

In my own opinion as a writer, I don’t believe that the de-extinction of megafauna is the best use of de-extinction technology (as much as you might love the idea of wooly mammoths, reborn again, where would they live and are they actually useful? Does the giant ground sloth still even have an ecological niche?) but the promise of de-extinction is more than just dire wolves. And it’s those uses of the technology, as well as those more superfluous uses, that are what we’re here for today.

Lastly, before we get into analysis for either side, let us remember that the so-called “dire wolves” that Colossal “de-extincted” are not true dire wolves, but more strange grey wolf kind-of-dire-wolf hybrids that defy traditional categorization. The tech is cool and attention-grabbing, but its full promises are not actually here yet. This means any arguments about true de-extinction are “future” arguments (though both sides have ground that is decidedly more in the present).

Proposition

I’ll be honest, the example in the info slide is perhaps the one of the least useful cases for de-extinction technology there is– not without reason (it did grab a lot of headlines), but that’s important to keep in mind for the purposes of writing case. That being said, it does raise an important point about de-extinction technology that can guide prop’s analysis of the topic.

Proposition’s clearest and most straightforward ground is probably on principle. We, as humans, have caused massive amounts of damage to the world–including by wiping the existence of many species off the map. If we have the ability to, we are obligated to bring those animals back. To restore ecosystems to their original state, as best we can. To actually fix the problems we’ve caused. That is reciprocity. To pull off this argument, you need to pay attention to why justice will come specifically in the form of restoring the original species, not just re-filling the ecological niche. Other than that, this is pretty straightforward.

The second argument you might want to consider is on the practical side of restoring diversity–both the practical advantage of using a revived species instead of a substitute, and how this technology might serve to benefit all forms of restoration efforts. For the details of the first half, I’ll leave you to fill in the gaps yourself. But the second point is also important: for the species that we have restored to their natural habitats, there are often struggles with genetic diversity. The same technology responsible for the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf could be used to reintroduce genetic diversity from samples we still have into such populations (and indeed, this is kind of already happening). A good example to consider might be Przewalski’s horse (pronounced “chev-ALL-skis”).

Lastly, we can try to turn the example in our favor. The headline-grabbing nature of Colossal’s dire wolf “de-extinction” is not an accident. It’s a PR move to get attention, and more importantly, funding, for their other projects. Indeed, Colossal has been at work with other projects that are perhaps more relevant to ecological restoration, projects that are less made-for-the-headlines but will still benefit from the attention and money their flashier sibling rakes in. This means more money for research into making these technologies safer and more effective. This means more projects of that sort can get funding at all. What you lose in efficiency might be made up for in the volume of resources as a whole, which you’ll need to argue is a net positive. Will the headlines be able to draw in money that would not have gone to ecological restoration anyways? Why or why not?

Opposition

While it’s possible for opposition to create some principle on the sanctity of life untouched by genetic engineering, that argument will probably bring more troubles than it’s worth. Instead, it’s easier to just hang proposition’s principle on the practical and try to win the practical–or better yet, use unintended consequences as a buffer against principle arguments (one way to think of this might be: if I punch you, you might have a right to justice, but I don’t have the obligation to punch someone else to give you compensation). In addition, is the solution to toying with the existences of species to simply toy with them (but in a way we now feel good about)?

The first and clearest argument we can make comes from the info slide itself. These flashy headlines divert attention away from real, higher-efficacy restoration efforts. Not to mention the fact that this form of restoration is incredibly cost intensive for what it does–maybe our focus should be on fixing the problems that do the most good with the least amount of money, such as ensuring the continued existence of endangered but not yet extinct species or community-led restoration efforts. Or maybe it should be on higher-impact work, such as coral restoration. Here is where you argue that headlines merely divert attention to these efforts, that this sort of funding is zero-sum (or at least, not positive-sum enough for the lower efficacy to make up for in volume). This is also where we might argue for things like how environmental justice should prioritize existing species (and also human communities affected by ecological destruction!) rather than expensive vanity projects.

An extension of those arguments could deal with how the ability to “de-extinct” a species might remove the urgency behind preservation efforts. In the same way the excuse of carbon capture is used to dismiss fears of CO2 emissions, de-extinction might just be used to dismiss consequences as something to fix “in post”, merely because it might be possible, rather than actually proactively doing more cost effective and reliable conservation work. (Indeed, it can be argued that this already happening.)

The last thing we should talk about is the elephant in the room–what happens when something goes wrong? This is on multiple levels. First: what potential issues could the technology introduce? How might that be harmful? Second: what happens if this is not the right move for the ecosystem? If it turns out that an ecosystem has already adjusted to close the niche, what happens if reintroduction merely brings harm? Will we, after having invested so many resources in de-extinction, really be able to accept that and not reintroduce that species? Or will we try to anyways, heedless of any warning signs? There is no space in the Americas for a real dire wolf nowadays, but that didn’t stop Colossal. There’s simply too much that can go wrong when we try to play god.

Of course, there are good arguments on both sides that I have not mentioned. I highly encourage you to do some further reading into this topic, as I think this is one of the more interesting motions we’ve had recently.

2026 TFA January/February Topic Analyses: Green Capitalism, African Union, Charter Schools, and De-Extinction