2026 TFA State Topic Analyses: Pink Tide, High Speed Rail, Water, and the Indo-Pacific
This House regrets the Pink Tide in Latin America by Sophia Li
This House believes that the United States should significantly increase investment in a high-speed rail network by Poorvi Kumar
This House, as a water-stressed region, would restrict water-intensive industries, even at the cost of economic growth by Arjun Patil
This House prefers minilateral security groups over multilateral institutions for Indo-Pacific security by Shrayes Gunna
This House regrets the Pink Tide in Latin America
Infoslide: The pink tide is a political wave and turn towards left-wing governments in Latin America throughout the 21st century. Such governments have been referred to as "left-of-centre", "left-leaning", and "radical social-democratic".
Context for both sides
Definitions
Pink Tide - a political phenomenon beginning in the late 1990s and continuing through the 2020s, characterized by the election of left-wing governments across Latin America.
Key leaders to note include Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula da Silva in Brazil, and more recently Gabriel Boric in Chile and Gustavo Petro in Colombia.
Left-wing governments - administrations that prioritize wealth redistribution, expanded social programs, and greater state involvement in the economy. In Latin America, this typically includes nationalization of resources, land reform, and challenges to neoliberal policies imposed during the 1980s and 1990s.
This is a regrets motion so we’re arguing that the pink tide produced net negative outcomes for Latin America in terms of economic development, democratic stability, and social progress and prefer another alternative, such as social democracy like Chile under the Concertación or Uruguay under the Frente Amplio.
Historical Context
Latin America spent the 1980s and 1990s under the Washington Consensus, emphasizing privatization, deregulation, and free trade. These policies were often imposed as loan conditions by the IMF and World Bank. By the late 1990s, widespread dissatisfaction with inequality and poverty created space for leftist alternatives.
The first wave began with Chávez's election in Venezuela (1998), followed by Lula in Brazil (2002), Kirchner in Argentina (2003), Morales in Bolivia (2005), and Correa in Ecuador (2006). After a right-wing resurgence in the mid-2010s, a second pink tide emerged with leftist victories in Mexico (2018), Argentina (2019), Chile (2021), Colombia (2022), and Brazil (2022).
Contemporary Context
Fast forward, pink tide governments vary significantly. Brazil under Lula and Uruguay under Frente Amplio maintained fiscal discipline while expanding social programs. Venezuela under Chávez and Maduro pursued radical policies leading to economic collapse. Bolivia under Morales achieved poverty reduction before a constitutional crisis. Current pink tide governments face high inflation, debt burdens and the challenge of balancing progressive policies with economic stability.
Prop
Framing: The pink tide exploited legitimate grievances about inequality to consolidate power but delivered economic mismanagement and democratic backsliding that made the poor ultimately worse off.
Substantive 1: Pink tide governments produced economic disaster
Layer 1: Commodity dependence w/o sustainable foundations
Pink tide governments expanded social spending during commodity booms but failed to build sustainable economies. When prices crashed, their economies collapsed.
Look toward Venezuela, for instance. Chávez used oil revenues to fund social programs but failed to diversify the economy or maintain oil infrastructure. When oil prices fell, Venezuela had no alternatives. By 2019, GDP had contracted 65% since 2013, inflation hit 130,000%, and 7 million Venezuelans fled. This is among the worst economic collapse in Latin American history outside wartime.
Argentina under the Kirchners spent commodity revenues on subsidies without fiscal discipline, manipulated inflation statistics, and defaulted on debt again. Poverty reached 40% by 2023. Ecuador under Correa accumulated $65 billion in debt (much to China), and by 2016 spent 39% of its budget on debt service, crowding out social programs.
These governments prioritized short-term political gains over long-term development. They could have used revenues to build infrastructure or diversify economies. Instead, they created dependency on unsustainable handouts.
Layer 2: Nationalization destroyed productive capacity
Pink tide governments nationalized industries to fund social programs directly rather than tax private companies. Resource profits would go to the people, not foreign corporations.
But this required technical expertise to maintain production. Pink tide governments installed political loyalists instead of qualified managers. Private investors and technical experts left.
Venezuela nationalized over 1,000 companies. PDVSA oil production collapsed from 3.5 million barrels per day (1998) to under 500,000 (2020) after Chávez replaced engineers with political allies. Bolivia's gas investment dropped 60% between 2006-2019, causing shortages by 2022. Argentina nationalized YPF, leading to declining production and energy imports.
State companies became employment programs for supporters rather than functioning businesses. When oil or electricity production fails, poor people face shortages and price spikes while the wealthy have alternatives.
The impact here is deepened poverty
Venezuela's extreme poverty went from 8% (1998) to over 60% (2019). Argentina's poverty rate is higher now than before the Kirchners. Ecuador's poverty climbed back to 27% by 2023. When economies collapse, the rich leave. The poor are trapped with malnutrition, preventable deaths, and destroyed middle classes.
Substantive 2: The pink tide undermined democracy
Layer 1: Executive overreach and institutional decay
Pink tide leaders systematically weakened checks on power by attacking courts, legislatures and media.
Venezuela shows this trajectory completely. Chávez and Maduro packed the Supreme Court, seized the electoral council, stripped the opposition-controlled Assembly of power, and created a parallel "Constituent Assembly" after losing elections. By 2024, Venezuela is a dictatorship where Maduro holds power despite losing the 2024 election to Edmundo González, whom he forced into exile. The Foro Penal documented over 1,800 political prisoners as of October 2024.
Nicaragua under Ortega arrested seven presidential candidates before the 2021 election. His wife is now vice president in a family dictatorship. Ecuador's Correa used criminal defamation laws against journalists and was convicted in 2020 for orchestrating a kidnapping. Bolivia's Morales violated the constitution and a referendum to seek a fourth term, triggering the 2019 crisis.
Layer 2: Repression of dissent
When citizens protested, governments responded with violence. Venezuela's security forces killed hundreds of protesters since 2014, with the UN documenting over 15,000 extrajudicial killings between 2018-2024. Nicaragua killed over 300 protesters in 2018 and imprisoned thousands, with Amnesty documenting widespread torture.
When governments claiming to represent the poor shoot protesters, they've abandoned moral legitimacy.
Impact here is long-term institutional damage
Once democratic institutions are weakened, rebuilding them is extremely difficult (good weighing here). Venezuela can't hold legitimate elections anymore because courts, electoral councils, and media are government-controlled, with opposition leaders either in prison or exile. When institutions stop functioning, countries lose the capacity to address actual problems like poverty or crime, regardless of which party holds power.
Opp
Framing: Latin America was governed for decades according to a Washington Consensus that prioritized foreign investors over ordinary people. The pink tide represented democratic sovereignty and long-overdue focus on reducing extreme inequality.
Substantive 1: The pink tide achieved unprecedented poverty reduction
Layer 1: Social programs that reached neglected populations
The gut check here is just pink tide governments funded programs that massively improved health, education, and opportunity.
Brazil under Lula lifted 29 million people out of poverty between 2003-2014. The Bolsa Família program reached 14 million families with cash transfers conditional on keeping children in school and getting health checkups. Minimum wages rose 54% in real terms. Extreme poverty fell from 10% to 2.5%. Infant mortality dropped 58%, from 29.7 to 12.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. University enrollment doubled, particularly for Afro-Brazilians. Brazil's Gini coefficient fell from 0.58 to 0.51.
Ecuador reduced poverty from 38% to 22% between 2006-2014, while extreme poverty fell from 16.9% to 7.7%. Argentina's Universal Child Allowance reached 3.5 million children. According to ECLAC, regional poverty fell from 43.9% (2002) to 27.9% (2013), while extreme poverty fell from 19.3% to 11.5%.
Layer 2: Infrastructure investment alongside growth
Furthermore, these governments also invested commodity revenues in infrastructure that previous governments had neglected for decades. Bolivia built over 11,000 km of paved roads between 2006-2019, compared to just 3,700 km in the previous two decades, connecting rural indigenous communities to markets. Ecuador's Coca Codo Sinclair dam provided 1,500 MW of hydroelectric capacity. Brazil's Growth Acceleration Program invested $500 billion in infrastructure between 2007-2014.
Bolivia averaged 4.9% annual GDP growth (2006-2014). Ecuador grew 4.3% annually (2007-2014). Argentina averaged 7.5% growth (2003-2011). This demonstrates you can have both redistribution and growth.
The alternative here on proposition of maintaining neoliberal policies left poverty largely unchanged during the 1990s despite economic growth.
Impact: The WB estimates 70 million people were lifted out of poverty in Latin America between 2000-2014
In Bolivia, drinking water access increased from 71% to 90%. In Brazil, 40 million joined the middle class. In Ecuador, social security coverage tripled. Previous neoliberal governments failed to achieve this despite decades in power.
Substantive 2: The pink tide empowered marginalized groups
Layer 1: Indigenous rights and representation
For 500 years, indigenous peoples were politically excluded. The pink tide brought indigenous leaders to power.
Bolivia elected Evo Morales, its first indigenous president, representing the 62% indigenous majority systematically excluded from power. His government made 36 indigenous languages official, recognized indigenous justice systems, and required prior consultation on resource extraction. The 2009 constitution declared Bolivia a "plurinational state." Indigenous poverty fell from 74% (2005) to 37% (2018).
Ecuador's 2008 constitution recognized rights of nature and expanded indigenous autonomy. Venezuela's 1999 constitution reserved legislative seats for indigenous representatives. Brazil saw unprecedented Afro-Brazilian representation through affirmative action quotas. Social movements gained real political access.
Layer 2: Challenging U.S. hegemony
Pink tide governments rejected IMF programs that caused suffering. Argentina's Kirchner defaulted on $95 billion in IMF debt and paid off remaining obligations in 2006, then experienced sustained growth. Ecuador defaulted on $3.2 billion in "illegitimate" debts after an audit found corruption. Bolivia expelled the U.S. ambassador and DEA, asserting control over policy. Venezuela funded ALBA and PetroCaribe as alternatives to U.S.-dominated institutions.
The Washington Consensus failed Latin America. Pink tide governments had democratic right to try different approaches.
Impact: Political empowerment has value beyond GDP
When indigenous peoples see someone who looks like them as president, when workers have movements with real power, when countries can reject the IMF, these represent fundamental progress in who participates in democracy. The previous system excluded most people while keeping them poor. The pink tide gave them voice and material improvements.
Further Reading
The Latin American Left’s Setbacks: What Does It All Mean? - Venezuelanalysis
Latin America’s Second Pink Tide Looks Very Different from the First
Sophia is an Econ & Stats student at Stanford who is passionate about global private equity, U.S.-China diplomacy, and East Asian financial markets. She is the ‘24 Tournament of Champions (TOC) winner and 2023-2024 Team USA Debate co-captain.
This House Believes That the United States Should Significantly Increase Investment in a High-Speed Rail Network
Context
High-speed rail (HSR) refers to passenger rail systems that operate at sustained speeds of at least 155 mph (250 km/h) on dedicated, grade-separated tracks built specifically for high-velocity travel. Unlike conventional rail, which shares freight lines and is constrained by curves, crossings, and aging infrastructure, true high-speed systems are engineered for reliability, frequency, and integration into national transportation planning. Over the past half-century, countries such as Japan, France, and China have treated high-speed rail not as a luxury project but as foundational infrastructure that reshapes how citizens move, how cities grow, and how regional economies interact.
Japan’s Shinkansen, launched in 1964 ahead of the Tokyo Olympics, was designed to unify a rapidly modernizing country. It has since transported billions of passengers with an unparalleled safety record and extraordinary punctuality, fundamentally reducing domestic air travel on major corridors. France’s TGV similarly reoriented national geography, shrinking travel times between Paris and regional cities to a matter of hours and decentralizing economic opportunity away from the capital. China, beginning in the early 2000s, pursued high-speed rail as a state-led modernization strategy and now operates the world’s largest network, exceeding 25,000 miles and linking nearly every major metropolitan region. In each case, high-speed rail was not merely about trains; it was about compressing distance, stimulating secondary cities, and signaling long-term national ambition.
By contrast, the United States has no true nationwide high-speed system. The Northeast Corridor, served by Amtrak’s Acela, is often cited as America’s closest equivalent, but even their speeds are inconsistent and limited by shared freight tracks, century-old tunnels, and fragmented infrastructure ownership. Outside the Northeast, passenger rail is chronically underfunded, slower than driving in many corridors, and largely uncompetitive with short-haul flights. The national transportation model remains overwhelmingly centered on highways and aviation, systems built and massively subsidized in the mid-20th century.
The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $66 billion for passenger rail, the largest federal rail investment in decades. However, most of this funding is directed toward maintenance backlogs, incremental upgrades, and corridor improvements rather than the construction of a fully dedicated high-speed network. Notably, the United States remains the only major developed economy without a comprehensive high-speed rail system connecting its primary urban centers. This absence is not merely technological; it reflects policy priorities and competing visions of infrastructure.
At its core, this debate asks whether the United States should elevate rail to the status of critical national infrastructure, on par with interstate highways and major airports, or whether it should continue relying primarily on car-dependent mobility and short-haul aviation. It is a question about modernization, climate strategy, economic geography, and whether the U.S. intends to redesign its transportation backbone for the 21st century or optimize the 20th-century system it already has.
Framing
This debate is not about whether infrastructure matters. Everyone agrees the United States needs better transportation. The real issue is what kind of infrastructure the state should prioritize and whether high-speed rail is a transformative public good or an expensive misallocation of capital. Transportation investment exists on a spectrum: at one end, incremental optimization of existing systems, wider highways, better airports, electric vehicles, improved freight logistics; at the other, structural transformation, building entirely new national networks that reshape mobility patterns for generations. The motion asks whether the U.S. should move toward that transformational end of the spectrum. The central trade-off is between systemic redesign and marginal improvement, between long-term structural payoff and short-term fiscal prudence, between betting on a new model of mobility and refining the current one.
On proposition, the frame centers on structural decarbonization and national modernization. Transportation is the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The current model, car-dependent sprawl supplemented by short-haul flights, is carbon intensive, congestion-heavy, and increasingly fragile. High-speed rail is not simply another transit project; it is an electrified backbone capable of shifting millions of passenger miles away from oil-based systems. Like the interstate highway system in the 20th century, rail reorganizes economic geography. It compresses travel time between cities, integrates labor markets, and makes secondary cities economically viable without forcing further suburban expansion. Proposition should frame this as long-term rationality. Infrastructure lasts decades. The question is not whether rail is expensive today but whether failing to build it locks the U.S. into a higher-emissions, lower-efficiency equilibrium for the next half-century. Rail investment is therefore not aesthetic ambition; it is climate risk management and competitiveness policy. The argument is that modernization cannot occur without physical systems that enable it.
Proposition can also frame this as a security and resilience issue. Overreliance on highways and aviation creates systemic vulnerabilities: fuel shocks, airline collapses, extreme weather disruptions, and congested urban corridors. A diversified transportation portfolio strengthens national resilience. Electrified rail reduces dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets and
enhances domestic mobility even during crises. The core logic is that durable infrastructure reduces long-term economic instability. The cost of inaction is not neutral; it is cumulative congestion, rising emissions, and declining global competitiveness. If the 21st century is defined by climate volatility and technological competition, then investing in high-speed rail is a strategic hedge against both.
Opposition’s frame revolves around feasibility, fiscal realism, and geographic context. The United States is not Japan or France. It is less dense, more suburbanized, and structured around automobile infrastructure. High-speed rail only functions efficiently in dense corridors of
100 to 500 miles. Outside a handful of regions, the Northeast, California, parts of Texas, demand may not justify the cost. The key opposition argument is that ambition without alignment to geography produces white elephants. Infrastructure is only transformative if it is used. If ridership projections fail or construction costs balloon, the system becomes a subsidy sink rather than a productivity engine. Opposition should frame the debate as opportunity cost. Every hundred billion dollars spent on rail is a hundred billion not spent on urban transit, grid modernization, EV charging infrastructure, or road repair. The question is not whether rail works in theory, but whether it is the highest-yield climate and economic investment in the American context. This would also be a great place to add a climate change timeframe spike and stress the impending doom of the climate crisis and how HSR accelerates that.
Opposition also exposes the governance problem. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated difficulty executing large-scale infrastructure projects efficiently. Environmental review delays, fragmented state-federal authority, litigation, and labor costs inflate per-mile expenses far beyond international benchmarks. Increasing investment without reforming these structural inefficiencies risks scaling dysfunction rather than solving it. In this view, the core problem is not insufficient rail funding but institutional incapacity. Until the U.S. can build at reasonable cost and speed, pouring capital into high-speed rail may entrench waste rather than deliver transformation.
A further opposition layer is technological realism. The transportation sector is already undergoing rapid change through electric vehicles, autonomous driving, and aviation efficiency improvements. If EV adoption accelerates, the emissions advantage of rail narrows. A flexible, decentralized decarbonization strategy may outperform a centralized megaproject. Rather than committing to a single infrastructure vision, opposition argues for technological pluralism, improving highways, electrifying cars, enhancing buses, and modernizing aviation simultaneously. In this frame, resilience comes from diversity of solutions rather than reliance on one system.
Strategically, both sides will fight to define what “significant investment” means. Proposition should avoid the strawman of a coast-to-coast network and instead emphasize targeted corridors with clear density and economic logic. Opposition should challenge cost realism and execution capacity. Both sides will also contest the metric of success. Proposition measures success in structural decarbonization, long-term productivity, and global competitiveness. Opposition measures it in fiscal efficiency, immediate emission reduction per dollar, and geographic fairness. Stakeholder prioritization matters as well. Proposition can prioritize future generations and national competitiveness. Opposition can prioritize taxpayers and regions unlikely to benefit from rail corridors.
Ultimately, the judge is choosing between two visions of modernization. One treats high-speed rail as nation-building infrastructure that redefines how Americans move and how cities grow. The other treats it as an overconcentration of resources in a country whose geography and institutions may not support it efficiently. This is not a debate about trains. It is a debate about whether the United States should attempt structural transportation transformation or pursue incremental optimization within its existing system.
Proposition
1. Structural Decarbonization and Systemic Efficiency
The strongest prop case is that high speed rail is not a transportation add on but a structural climate intervention. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and the current model relies on two carbon intensive pillars, private automobiles and short haul aviation. Electrifying cars improves the emissions profile per vehicle, but it does not change the underlying structure of movement. High speed rail does. It directly substitutes for short distance flights and long highway trips between dense metropolitan corridors. When rail is competitive in time and price, travelers shift. That shift reduces aggregate emissions, congestion, and oil dependence simultaneously.
More importantly, rail changes land use patterns. Car dependent systems incentivize sprawl, long commutes, and infrastructure heavy development. High speed rail encourages station centered growth and integration with local transit systems. That reduces vehicle miles traveled beyond the train trip itself. Electrified rail becomes cleaner as the grid decarbonizes, meaning its emissions profile improves over time without behavioral change. In contrast, a system built primarily around cars requires constant road expansion, maintenance, and energy input. The proposition can frame this as structural decarbonization versus marginal optimization. If climate policy is about long term risk management and reshaping incentives rather than incremental efficiency gains, high speed rail is foundational infrastructure, not symbolic policy.
This argument is also about system stability. A transportation system dependent on oil markets and aviation logistics is vulnerable to price shocks, extreme weather, and systemic disruption. Electrified rail diversifies the national mobility portfolio and reduces exposure to fuel volatility. A diversified system is more robust in the face of crisis. The claim is not that rail replaces every other mode, but that it becomes a critical backbone that stabilizes the entire system.
2. Economic Modernization and National Competitiveness
High speed rail compresses geography and reorganizes economic interaction. When travel time between major cities drops from several hours by car to under two hours by train, labor markets integrate and firms gain access to broader talent pools. Secondary cities become economically
viable without forcing further concentration into a handful of coastal megacities. This has direct implications for housing affordability, regional inequality, and productivity growth. Infrastructure shapes economic destiny. The interstate highway system transformed American commerce in the twentieth century. High speed rail can serve a comparable role in the twenty-first century.
There is also a competitiveness dimension. Peer economies have treated high speed rail as core infrastructure for decades. The absence of a comparable network in the United States reflects not geography alone but policy choice. Large scale rail investment rebuilds engineering capacity, strengthens domestic manufacturing supply chains, and demonstrates the ability to execute complex national projects. In an era defined by competition over infrastructure, technology, and decarbonization, failure to modernize transport signals institutional stagnation.
The cost objection must be weighed against lifecycle value. Highways and airports are also publicly subsidized and require continual expansion. Congestion, pollution, and climate damage impose long term economic costs that are rarely counted upfront. Rail investment should be evaluated across generational time horizons. Infrastructure that lasts decades cannot be judged solely by short term budget figures. The proposition argues that significant investment is fiscally rational when measured against avoided congestion, lower emissions, and sustained regional productivity.
Opposition
Cost, Capacity, and Opportunity Cost
The core opposition case is that ambition does not equal feasibility. High speed rail is not simply expensive in the abstract. It is uniquely expensive in the American political and regulatory context. Land acquisition, environmental review, fragmented federal and state authority, labor rules, and litigation risk drive per mile construction costs far above those in Europe or East Asia. Large scale rail projects in the United States routinely face delays, budget overruns, and scope reductions. The issue is not whether high speed rail can work somewhere in the world. The issue is whether the United States can build it efficiently at scale.
Significantly increasing investment without reforming institutional bottlenecks risks scaling dysfunction rather than solving it. If each corridor absorbs tens of billions beyond initial projections, the system becomes a fiscal sink rather than a productivity engine. Infrastructure must be evaluated on return per dollar spent. Rail competes with alternative investments such as urban transit upgrades, bus rapid transit, grid modernization, road repair, aviation efficiency improvements, and electric vehicle infrastructure. These alternatives may deliver greater emissions reductions or mobility gains at lower cost and faster timelines.
Opportunity cost is the central metric. Every dollar allocated to high speed rail is a dollar not spent elsewhere in climate mitigation or economic development. If electrifying vehicles and expanding charging infrastructure reduce transportation emissions more cheaply and broadly, then rail becomes a high visibility but suboptimal strategy. The opposition position is not anti infrastructure. It is pro efficiency. The question is whether high speed rail is the highest yield use of limited public capital in the American context.
2. Geographic Mismatch and Demand Realism
High speed rail succeeds in countries with dense urban clusters and strong public transit integration. The United States is structurally different. It has lower population density, widespread suburbanization, and a deeply entrenched car culture supported by vast highway infrastructure. Outside a handful of corridors such as the Northeast and parts of California and Texas, many regions lack the density and ridership base required to justify the cost of true high speed systems.
Transportation infrastructure must align with spatial reality. If ridership projections fall short, rail becomes a heavily subsidized service concentrated in limited metropolitan corridors while taxpayers nationwide bear the cost. This raises distributional concerns. Rural and less dense regions may see little direct benefit from rail investment but still contribute to its funding. A national high-speed rail strategy risks concentrating infrastructure resources in already prosperous corridors rather than addressing broader mobility needs.
There is also a technological realism argument. The transportation sector is evolving rapidly. Electric vehicles, autonomous driving systems, and aviation efficiency improvements are advancing in parallel. If electric vehicles dominate personal travel and reduce per mile emissions substantially, the relative climate advantage of rail narrows. A flexible, decentralized approach that improves existing systems may be more adaptable than committing to a capital intensive, centralized network. Infrastructure decisions lock in behavior for decades. The opposition argues that locking into rail may crowd out more agile solutions in a rapidly changing technological landscape.
Poorvi is a first year student at The University of Chicago double-majoring in Business Economics and (as of recent) Creative Writing with a minor in Spanish. She was a two time TFA state champ, two time member of Team Texas and placed 3rd at NSDA Nationals.
This House, as a water-stressed region, would restrict water-intensive industries, even at the cost of economic growth.
Context
Definitions
There are three important words/phrases in the motion that should be defined before entering the debate.
Water-Stressed Region - a geographical area where the demand for water exceeds the available amount during a specific period, or where poor quality restricts its use
Water-Intensive Industries - sectors that require exceptionally large volumes of freshwater for operations—such as cooling, processing, cleaning, or ingredient inclusion—relative to their economic output
Framing & Characterizations:
This motion leaves a lot up to teams to frame and decide limits for. I will try to organize this in order of importance, but as a top-level note, many of the things either team will try to assert in this debate will likely be justified even if they are opposed or misaligned with one another. That is to say, there are multiple correct interpretations of what things like economic growth, water-intensive industries, etc., look like, and it is then up to you to provide a robust justification for why the interpretation that best benefits your side is reasonable. Push these explanations out in the first speech instead of having to backtrack down the bench and re-explain things that could give you a leg up in the debate.
What does economic growth look like?
I think this is the most ambiguous term in this motion, so it is imperative that right out of the gate, you provide an interpretation of economic growth that is helpful for your side. Before that characterization, though, accept what your side has to bite. Opposition has to admit that economic growth is sacrificed, and Proposition has to defend that they are not willing to compromise economic growth. Beyond that is where you can begin framing the debate in a way that gives you an advantage. In my opinion, there are two interpretations of economic growth.
First, and what I believe is the most widely accepted standard, is that it is the growth of private industry that primarily manifests in business expansion, GDP growth, and increased production. This framing helps Opp to paint economic growth as a practice that disproportionately benefits C-Suite executives and Fortune 500 companies while leaving the average worker exactly the same, if not worse off.
The second and less reasonable definition is that economic growth primarily looks like increased government tax revenue, lowered unemployment, and higher GDP. This framing is beneficial to Prop, as it allows you to hijack impacts about humanitarianism, public good, and preserving lives and humanity from the Opp, and overall gives your side a little bit of a better narrative to portray. I will note that this interpretation is very hard to convince certain judges of, given that it is not the commonly associated implications of economic growth.
The likely debate that both sides will enter is on which side can characterize economic growth in a positive light. Here, I think both sides can gain ground by arguing that even if big business and private industry benefit the most from economic growth, two things happen as a sort of ripple effect when economic growth either grows or declines.
When it grows, Prop can argue that business naturally expands even if it is for the purpose of raising the value of the bottom line, but along with this expansion comes increased jobs which lowers unemployment, a higher demand for workers that allows them greater bargaining power for competitive wages, and increased competition in the economy that drives up competition and derails monopolistic, price-controlling corporations by diluting their market share.
When it declines, Opp can actually bite into the prop framework that corporations are greedy and self-centric, using it as a turn to argue that when growth declines, workers are the first to face the effects of it, and the ones that will likely suffer the most, given the disregard for humanitarianism the other side likely concedes that corporations have.
This is all to say, there is a highly nuanced debate to have here about what economic growth looks like, and the bottom line is to make sure your interpretation is grounded by reality to some extent, although you can make it a bit skewed to your side. Beyond that, please diversify your framing arguments from “I think this is what economic growth is, so this is what it is”. Really try to buy your opponent's framework and find a way to use it to uplift what you believe to be a more favorable world for your side (similar to what I explained in part b).
What does it mean to restrict an industry/What does restriction look like?
This is fighting a tough battle for the first spot in terms of importance because while I feel it really isn’t the most important to have a quality debate, I have a feeling this is going to be the most hotly contested framework issue in most of these Quarterfinal rounds. In short, most judges will not be happy about a weird, vague, abstract framework debate that nebulizes what restriction means, where the Opp paints it as a complete shutdown of industry, and the Prop treats it as a magic want to give them the best of both worlds. Neither side gets access to that, so just start off with a well-justified, reasonable framework.
For the Proposition Model on Restriction: I recommend modeling this restriction along the lines of similar industry regulation or restriction that has taken place when public health, natural resource, or conflict-based crises have occurred. A few examples you might look into:
The Clean Air Act (United States): enacted major restrictions on manufacturing industries, specifically on coal-burning and automobile exhaust
Covid-19 Lockdowns (China) - imposed strict controls on factory operations, retail, hospitality, and transportation, but remained economically dominant
1991 Economic Crisis Reforms (India) - restricted imports, imposed currency controls, and temporarily nationalized industries
Cont. Proposition Model on Restriction: Examples alone are not a substitute for directly applicable analysis. I recommend looking into specific industries and accounting for some major precautions in your restriction models of what you would allow to operate and why that can reasonably occur, while still cutting off major sources of water usage. The specificity and comprehensivity of your model are going to be key, but there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Moreover, the most important part of your model should be three questions that you answer after the explanation of what the actual model for restriction is: why is it reasonable (feasibility)? Why is it likely (incentive of actors)? Why is it effective (efficiency)?
For the Opp Pushback: While I stated earlier that it is immensely unfair to treat this as a ban, it is still.
How does this being an actor motion influence the debate?
This motion is an actor motion! That means that the debate takes place as if both teams assume the role of the actor, which in his case is the water-stressed region. That being said, there have been many debates lost by teams that very effectively and persuasively argued about a greater good, because the motion asked them to assume the role of an actor that did not really care about the greater good. You must address that this is an actor motion, and then describe a reasonable interpretation of how you think that influences the debate. Based on your round strategy, a couple of factors to consider when describing this actor.
First, water-stressed regions are ones that likely have weak governance, meaning that governments could be painted as weak and ineffective actors. Under this interpretation, the actor's main priority is control and stability.
Second, many leaders in these nations were instated by military force or emerged after conflict, meaning there is the potential that these nations have a large disregard for their own citizens. Under this inteprreation the actor’s main priority is power.
Third, it is very possible that these regions are highly corrupt, given that governance is weak and infrastructure is poor, meaning there are regimes whose sole priority is to insulate themselves. Under this interpretation, the actor’s main priority is profit.
Fourth, these are growing actors who want respect on the global stage, which means they are looking to insulate their image and prove that they are an ethical, trustworthy ally. Under this interpretation, the actor’s main priority is morality.
Fifth, it is very likely that this is as simple as a surface level. A government wants to address an immediate natural resource crisis that is affecting its people. Under this interpretation, the actor’s main priority is the people.
All of these are fair interpretations, and all interact with one another. The biggest priority is sifting through each one and justifying them in a way that can construct an advantage for you in the round, and such that your arguments can fulfill the needs of the actor.
What do water-intensive industries look like?
Honestly, less contentious definition debate here; there are certain, generally agreed-upon industries that are water-intensive, and certain ones that are not. A quick Google search (that a judge will probably do to gut check your interpretation) will list these ascommon industries: Agriculture, Fashion and Textiles, Energy and Power Generation, Mining and Quarrying, Food and Beverage Processing, Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, and Manufacturing.
In research, make sure on both sides you understand the importance these industries so you (on the Prop) can make sure that you can have a diversity of ways that you can soften the blow of restricting these industries and ways you can argue that their core functions can be preserved, and (on the Opp) can have hard-hitting impacts that connect each of these industries to a direct cost to human life.
Characterizations:
For characterization, I think I touched a lot on what this should look like implicitly in framing, but the primary characterization to do here is of stakeholders. There are two big ones, I believe are important in this debate.
Water-Scare Region: These nations are likely ones that are in a lower stage of economic development. The primary stage (based on Rostow’s model) is one where countries are heavily focused on agriculture (which is where most LDCs are in the status quo), and the secondary stage is one where the economy is dominated by manufacturing. Most water-scarce nations will fall into these two categories, with the vast majority being in the former. The most common examples of such nations are Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. There are several factors to consider here when characterizing these nations.
First, that governance is weak if present at all, making infrastructure construction largely difficult.
Second, these nations are some of the least powerful and dominant on the global stage, making them uniquely susceptible to economic exploitation.
Third, a majority of these countries are currently, or have in the last few decades, had to deal with serious, destabilizing civil, ethnic, and religious conflicts.
The People: This stakeholder can be phrased as anything from constituent, to citizen, to worker, to pretty muchanything else that describes someone at the bottom of the economic and political food chain. For these people, their needs are what must be focused on, and I think they can be broken down into a few parts.
Immediate Needs: this looks like food, water, safety, shelter, and the basic provisions individuals need to survive. This is the most important consideration for this stakeholder and likely for the entire round. This is the impact that will win rounds because it is the easiest to paint as the most important.
Stability: Individuals desire political and economic stability because it is what provides them a bridge to advance and live a desirable life. Stability is what underlies the bulk of a good quality of life or the potential to achieve that, given that basic needs are granted.
Finally, two key examples in this debate are likely going to be Taiwan’s semiconductor industry regulation on water usage and the Colorado River Basin’s restriction on agricultural irrigation systems, as it portrays the most similar, direct tradeoff between immediate water access and economic growth.
On top of all of that, consider the fact that both stakeholders and implications to them overlap, weak governments cause instability and suffering, unfilled needs and unsatisfied constituencies cause political upheaval. Further, make sure to note what I wrote in the framing about the fact that this is an actor motion, meaning that there is an additional characterization of what the incentives of water-stressed regions are that hinges upon how you describe them in this section of your case.
Characterizing these stakeholders is absolutely key to giving a good characterization of worlds. This is a debate about geopolitics and economics, but ultimately, the teams that will be successful debating these motions are the ones that are able to use these characterizations to create a clear, cohesive, and convincing narrative.
Proposition
These arguments are going to get a bit complicated because this is a difficult topic that is going to be debated in a high-stakes, competitive round, so I will work to break down the structure as simply as I can.
First argument on protecting human life. A few parts to this argument, but note before we start that it is immensely stock and the most basic argument. That doesn’t mean you should toss it, but that you have to articulate it in a very convincing way and push beyond the surface level of argumentation. A few things I think are important to this argument.
First, on establishing why the actor cares about the impact. Here, you need to explain why governments desire to protect human life and ensure individuals are safe. I think this must contend with these governments being either good or bad actors.
If they are good actors, this argument definitively holds weight because obviously good governments care about making their people happy and providing for them, and if Prop is better able to do that for the majority of people, then they ought to win the round. I think this argument can kind of hint at scope weighing by insinuating that economic growth affects a small minority, while access to drinking water affects the majority in the middle and at the bottom, and governments are looking to help the greatest number of people.
If governments are bad actors, though, you can still win this clash by connecting it to stability, power, and regime control. Historically, the most powerful and dictatorial regimes have been overthrown because citizens became unsatisfied with their government failing to provide basic tenets of life (look up an example, there are quite a few). In this case, even bad governments have an incentive to keep their people at a baseline of being provided for, given that it ensures their regime stays in control.
Second, I think an argument about immediacy is also important. A lot of this case does come down to weighing why the short-term preservation of human life is more important than the potential for economic growth. In my opinion, the best way to argue for this is to break it down into a difference of risk: there is an absolute guarantee of a loss of life of those that will die exist if they are not given access to water, but there is not a similar guarantee that devastating economic outcomes are to occur, especially if your model is dynamic enough to mitigate some risk that an economic crisis happens.
Third, make sure you do not get lost in the weeds here and make the actual argument. This means that you have to mention your model and how it makes sure that water usage actually does go down, and how that water actually gets back to the people. If you do not do the legwork here to prove how you access your impact of saving lives by providing more water, you are going to give yourself a really unnecessary headache trying to build a link chain later in the round.
Second argument on long-term development. This argument is basically just an argument under the inevitable clash about the economy that will happen. Here is where you establish how your side can also benefit the economic welfare of a country. I think this is also reasonably under the incentive of what a water-scarce region would want, given that they are likely fighting to be more economically and politically dominant on the global stage by virtue of their current status. At an overall level, the World Bank predicts water scarcity in the MENA (Middle East North Africa) Region could shave up to 6–12% off regional GDP by 2050 if mismanaged, providing grounds for an argument that claims positive economic impacts.
Diversification. First, if there are government-imposed restrictions on certain industries, that serves as a signal for investors that the industry is shrinking or that it is unstable, prompting a larger diversification away from water-intensive industries. This is very helpful for underdeveloped nations that are stuck in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy, given that they are forced to diversify their economies from just manufacturing and agriculture when restriction begins on these industries.
This is also effective in combating the opposition argument about economic contraction, job loss, and overall GDP decline. However, it is important to note that this argument is somewhat speculative, and relies in the typical patterns of investment, but fails to take into account the fact that a) these nations likely lack the employee base and education for certain industries b) that distribution channels, infrastructure, and institutions are not suited to different types of industries and c) that if this growth was possible, countries would have simply done it anyways and they do not need restriction as a strategy to do it.
Less Effective Labor Force. Second, argue that a labor force underlies economic strength and growth. When individuals are not given the basic necessities of life, it makes them functionally less effective providers to the labor force.
Be careful making this argument, given that it almost pushes over into doing prerequisite weighing of the first argument about what you believe the best Opposition argument is about economic growth. This is strictly a claim that a well-nourished population is a necessity for a functioning economy, and this side of the house better secures that.
Also, this argument can become very contentious because it relies on you proving that you are actually able to get more water to citizens, which rests on you winning your characterization that governments are good actors and that they are effective.
Independence. Third and finally, when governments are suffering from natural resource deficits, they are the most susceptible to exploitation from more powerful, well-insulated actors. This is the primary reason that the Belt and Road Initiative and other predatory geopolitical efforts have been successful globally. Bigger countries take advantage of resource deficits, and use their abundance of that resource to functionally cut off certain weak nations from the rest of the globe, forcing them into a position where they have little power to resist or consent to conditions on the provision of that natural resource because it is an immediate need for their survival.
Political Stability
Constituencies that are not being provided basic needs are likely to revolt orhave regional conflict with one another over resources. When this happens, it creates a devastating economic, social, and humanitarian crisis in these nations, causing more lives to be lost and a restriction on overall development. \
Opposition
First argument about economic decline.
Here, I think you need to paint the judge a picture of two things. 1) why it is, beyond a reasonable doubt, likely that a major economic event occurs as a result of this policy, and 2) why that event leads to such a catastrophic event for the everyday citizen that is arguably worse than having no access to water. I’ll discuss my ideas on both
Like I mentioned many times above, these regions are ones that are very heavily focused on the primary and secondary sectors. Those sectors are some of the most water-intensive. Textile production, agriculture, and manufacturing all make up a bulk of the water usage, and these are the industries that these regions absolutely rely on. No matter how the Prop frames this debate in this part of the argument, you need to make it clear that this is going to require immense economic action. The best way to do that is to place the Prop into a double bind that they have to explain their way out of. Once you have proved that these regions rely almost exclusively on water-intensive industries, then Prop, no matter what their model is, is left with two worlds.
One, aworld where their restriction is tame enough that the economy does not take a major hit, and if that is thecase, then their side is functionally unable to have a large impact in terms of water conservation because their regulation simply isn’t extreme enough to save that much water.
Two, a world where water conservation actually happens, but only at the cost of putting thousands of companies under and obliterating several, if not all, of the region’s most profitable industries
That being said, the economic event likely has a few implications you can describe
One, when businesses undergo mass restrictions, they are forced to cut back to preserve what remains of their profit margins, leading to massive layoffs in these regions, leaving thousands without an income to provide for themselves.
Two, companies want to maintain top-line revenue, and to make up for the severe restrictions that are placed on them, they are likely to raise prices significantly for consumers with no warning.
Third, that massive shifts in government action disincentivize domestic and foreign investment, further contributing to unstable interest rates and economic decline.
Fourth and finally, while this is extreme, such sweeping, sudden changes can often trigger recessions and other major economic meltdowns, which are catastrophic for smaller, weaker nations.
Second argument about gaining strength and addressing root causes.
Here, you want to really contextualize water scarcity in a more nuanced way to break yourselves out of the very surface-level (and honestly very untrue) notion I am sure the Prop will push of “water scarcity is caused by a lack of available water”. The real answer is much more complex. Water scarcity is caused by a network of interconnected problems in these regions, admittedly, one of which is the fact that there isn’t all that much water available. However, the most pressing and more solvable issues are things like poor infrastructure that leads to water leakage, the absence of desalination facilities to make seawater drinkable, recycling infrastructure not being readily available, sparse usage of effective irrigation systems, and so much more. The first part of this argument, simply put, describes the multiplicity of problems that exist with water infrastructure in water-stressed regions, which all lead to the conclusion: more water cannot fix this issue.
Past that, describe the fact that more capital and a stronger government are the only ways to accomplish these changes. Your side reasonably gets access to a greater degree of economic growth, so use that to build a case for why you can better solve for water scarcity.
When economic growth comes an increase in income for members of the population, which provides the government with more tax revenue, they can spend on creating better, more effective, and more long-lasting infrastructure to ensure water leakage is less prominent and distribution networks are more effective.
When real GDP grows, it means that the government is likely to be able to trade more effectively with other nations, potentially securing better infrastructure and also access to water if they are able to produce in a niche that other nations cannot access.
Finally, when these governments grow economically stronger, they are able to maintain stability and provide insulation for key industries, such that they can, in the future, if necessary, potentially pause industries or redirect funding to immediately redistribute water.
This argument is a bit more precarious because it borders on crossing the house, but I believe it is within the means of Opp’s argumentation to argue that economic strength for these regions needs to be built so in the future they have the option to react to crises in a way that does not detroy their economy, relying on the assumption that it would destroy it now, necessitating the prioritization of growth.
General notes for Opp: It is very important to be comparative here; it isn’t enough to rattle off reasons why restrictions are harmful. You need to be prepared to defend and characterize a world that looks similar to the status quo, or with a countermodel (highly highly recommend to give yourself more ground). Be very comparative and be prepared to die on the hil that, at your lowest ground, a bad solution is worse than no solution at all and explain why that is.
This debate is asking a core question about whether immediate deficits in a certain necessity for citizens are more important than potential economic stability and development. Much of the content I provided is fairly basic and intuitive because this debate is going to be won in effective framing and convincing, well-thought-out weighing of which is more important. More than most debates, this has such immense overlap, so focus on identifying stakeholders and working to prove you best benefit them in a dynamic, layered manner. This debate is not as simple as economic growth vs. water access; it requires you to truly understand the intersection of the two and the duality of ways that economic regulation and growth can impact a region.
Further Reading
The Global Water Crisis: What is the Response?
United Nations - Water Scarcity Facts
Addressing a Growing Water Crisis in the US
Exploring the Most Effective Solutions to Water Scarcity
World Enters Global Era of "Water Bankruptcy"
As Shortages Mount, Countries Hunt for More Novel Sources of Water
Arjun Patil is a student at the McCombs School of Business majoring in MIS and minoring in government. He was a two-time TFA State Champion and a member of Team Texas.
This House prefers minilateral security groups over multilateral institutions for Indo-Pacific security.
Context
Definitions
The Indo-Pacific Security defines the stability, maritime freedom, and geopolitical order across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, containing nations in both Oceania and Asia. Minilateral security groups are a small select group of countries that come together to address specific security initiatives (typically 3 - 4 countries). The Quad includes the US, India, Japan, Australia. They focus on maritime security and regional stability. JAROKUS includes Korea, US, Japan. They focus on military cooperation. Multilateral institutions are large groups of countries that aim to maintain regional order. For example, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Countries) and APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).
Proposition
A principle could be sovereignty. For context, The Indo-Pacific region is one with marked disparities from military hard power and economic development to soft power and cultural value (ie: power asymmetry). Minilateral security groups protect individual state interests as opposed to subjecting them to the whims of more influential actors, which is essential in the development of marginalized nations such as Thailand, Philippines, Bangladesh, etc. The undermining of state sovereignty only further enables Indo-Pacific dependency, which places smaller states at the losing end of security, economic, and social guarantees
On the practical, we have stronger deterrence. Minilateral security groups in large part currently maintain functional focuses (such as The Quad’s focus on maritime security via submarines) as well as have less-moving parts. The presence of fewer moving parts and more robust capabilities enables more efficient decision making and deterrence as countries operate as a block that amplifies limited soft and hard power. With deterrence, regional stability is further enhanced and sets the groundwork for further cooperation between nations on an economic and social level, whereas multilateral groups enable free-riding and suppression of small states
Opposition
Legitimacy can be a principle argument. Smaller states with limited soft and hard power often lack both international and regional legitimacy in the midst of conflict. Multilateral institutions set the precedent for unity on numerous fronts, including economies, security, and social organization, enabling for increased international legitimacy and increased symmetry in influence. Smaller states that are structurally subjugated now have an increased platform to garner benefits to their constituencies, while larger states have the capacity to inform coordinated operations, guaranteeing Indo-Pacific sovereignty
On the practical level, it also prevents proliferation. Note, the typical argument here would in large part look like the prevention of block formation or increased efficacy, though armament is an interesting and spicy argument to add to the opposition. Nations in the Indo-Pacific region such as China, Japan, India, Pakistan, etc. are investing in armament en mass—such investments increase escalation risk and establish a slippery slope. Multilateral integration within the Indo-Pacific would promote regional cooperation as opposed to individual deterrence, ensuring norms are emphasized as opposed to proliferation. You do not have to establish that particular states would join such institutions, but rather than any state joining and investing in multilateral agreements as opposed to individual militaries promotes the de-escalation of regional conflict. Escalation of regional conflict or lack of organization in international conflict could lead to trigger-happy harms that hurt innocent civilians—this is an impact that ought to always be avoided
Further readings
Shrayes Gunna is a junior at Cornell University, navigating the fields of Asian Studies and Information Science. When not exploring various artistic mediums or crafting a new commentary, he can be found diving into vast pop culture rabbit holes. In the future, Shrayes hopes to combine his numerous interests in emerging markets, consulting, and law.
