By Charis Baker

Summary of Rankings (in order from favorite to least favorite)

#1 Resolved: In regulating emerging technologies, governments ought to prioritize caution over innovation. (Option 4)

#2 Resolved: Liberty ought to be prioritized over order. (Option 5)

#3 Resolved: In governance, efficiency ought to be prioritized over deliberation. (Option 1)

#4 Resolved: Preserving the character of a community justifies limiting individual behavior. (Option 3)

#5 Resolved: The power of clemency is essential to a just governance system. (Option 2)

Two or Three LD Resolutions?: Two.

Read on for our warrants and reasoning! 

Primary Criteria

There are several criteria that ought to go into analyzing these resolutions.

Philosophical Depth
Does the topic engage and encourage a meaningful discussion with potential for development overtime? Is there a potential to discuss enduring questions regarding moral, political, or even economic philosophy?

Balance and Clash
Is there room for viable argumentation on both side Affirmative and side Negative? Are there a variety of defensible arguments that will be likely to produce a high-quality debate? Will there be room for legitimate value clash between ideas?

Potential for Impact Calculus
Somewhat similar to the philosophical depth, is there room for students to discuss the impacts and consequences of their argumentation? Will a topic challenge a student in how they make their arguments matter to the judge, or will they be left with months of a surface level discussion?

Clarity of Framing
Is the resolution phrased in a way that is clear? Or will the topic require substantial clarification to make it debatable and remove ambiguity? Even a good topic can make for a poor debate if the framing is unclear or neglects to provide legitimate clash.

Secondary Criteria

While these criteria are not necessarily make or break requirements, they can be helpful to keep under consideration.

Real World Applicability
Does this topic actually matter in the real world? This helps provide clash, depth, and impact.

Educational value
Will this debate challenge debaters to dig deeper into ideas and develop strong argumentation? Is there clash within the framing of the resolution that will allow for a clear academic debate?

Originality
Is this resolution one that simply repeats the clash of a prior topic? Is it an overused conflict? Is the wording too similar?

Accessibility
Does the topic allow for a wide range of experience levels to engage in meaningful discussion? Will it challenge both new and experienced debaters without being so far out of reach that argumentation cannot develop?
Note: This should not deter you away from more challenging topics, debate should be stretching students to think critically and engage with new and unique ideas.

#1 Resolved: In regulating emerging technologies, governments ought to prioritize caution over innovation. (Option 4)

#2 Resolved: Liberty ought to be prioritized over order. (Option 5)

This may be my hot take for the year, but it is a hot take that I feel strongly on. I would have loved debating this resolution in Stoa and I hope I get to coach it. Great resolution.

This wording gives a very clean debate on a big topic. It is a classic, deeply philosophical, strong debate. It's easy to understand, but still allows for development of argumentation. There will be a strong clash and lots of room for various applications to explain your philosophy. Argumentation can touch on criminal justice, free speech, national security, surveillance, public safety, political theory, governance, and more. Plus, neither side is inherently weak. There is room for strong argumentation on both sides.

The main objection I've heard to this resolution is that order signifies a police state and would make Negative very difficult. Philosophically and definitionally, I think this is false. The philosophical and political theory meaning of order is very different from absolute control/dictatorship. It has much more to do with the right structuring of society than it does with authoritarian control. If this resolution is selected, I would highly highly encourage students to read at least portions (if not the whole book!) of Russell Kirk's Roots of American Order. Kirk does a phenomenal job of discussing this exact clash with great philosophical depth (and political theory as a whole).

The philosophical depth will lend itself to discussion of Mill, Locke, Hobbes, and others, as well as the vast majority of political theory remaining fair game. All in all, this topic is accessible, grants academic value, and has lots of room for strong clash and depth.

#3 Resolved: In governance, efficiency ought to be prioritized over deliberation. (Option 1)

Perhaps my favorite thing about this resolution is that it doesn't specify political governance. It leaves the debate open to corporate governance as well which I think could make for an intriguing debate. Political governance will likely remain the primary interpretation, but it won't be exclusive.

At its core, it addresses a fundamental institutional question: is the purpose of governance to act quickly and effectively, or to ensure cautious and thoughtful decision-making? This offers both theoretical and practical clash. The affirmative can point to bureaucratic inefficiency, legislative gridlock, and slow responses to crises as evidence that deliberation often undermines good outcomes. The negative can counter that deliberation is essential for legitimacy, preventing abuse of power, and ensuring that decisions reflect the will of the people.

It also has strong real-world grounding. There is a large potential for applications comparing the necessity of speed vs. the dangers of overreach. Speed may be needed to save lives but risk enabling tyranny, whereas slow legislative processes can be frustrating, but they often serve as safeguards against rash or harmful policies.

One of the resolution's strengths is that it encourages structural thinking. Rather than focusing solely on values, students must analyze how systems operate—how institutions balance competing priorities and what tradeoffs are built into governance itself.

However, the resolution is somewhat abstract in its framing. Terms like "efficiency" and "deliberation" can be interpreted in multiple ways, which may lead to definitional debates rather than substantive engagement. This slightly reduces clarity and accessibility compared to higher-ranked topics. I also think that while this topic allows for more application, there is slightly less depth. And it risks creating excessive application debates. In a way, it redirects the emerging technologies resolution towards governance, but limits the clash to one area of focus. While there is potential, I think this topic is comparatively too narrow to create the ideal clash, however, it is still a solid option coming in at third place.

#4 Resolved: Preserving the character of a community justifies limiting individual behavior. (Option 3)

In theory, I like the idea of this topic. However, I 1) would not want to debate it and liberty v. order in the same year and 2) don't think that the resolution will actually go the direction that some may expect it to; it's too ambiguous and leans towards a potential for utilitarianism vs. individual rights.

This resolution is philosophically rich but less precise in the framework, which affects its overall strength. On the positive side, it engages deeply with the tension between individual rights and collective identity, a central question in political philosophy. Argumentation would likely explore communitarian arguments about shared values and social cohesion vs arguments emphasizing individual autonomy.

However, that does point out a positive which is the fact that debates might touch on zoning laws, cultural preservation, public morality, or regulations on behavior that communities deem harmful to their identity. These applications make the topic tangible. Although not necessarily the most ideal.

There is a strong normative/value based clash here. The affirmative can argue that communities have legitimate interests in maintaining traditions and social norms, while the negative can highlight the dangers of majoritarian control and the suppression of minority viewpoints.

However, the resolution's biggest weakness is vagueness. The phrase "character of a community" is inherently ambiguous. Different debaters may define it in radically different ways, leading to confusion or shallow debates focused on definitions rather than substance. My biggest concern is that in our league, due to the vagueness and ambiguity, this would quickly become a very weighted topic. Are we talking about general welfare or strengthening wisdom, prudence, patience, self-control and the like within society? And can the line there get blurred? Do we end up with a debate surrounding moral legislation where we should federally limit any form of immoral behavior? I find this an intriguing topic, but having watched eight years of Stoa LD, I don't know that it will make for the most clear resolution.

There is also a risk of imbalance in practice. Arguments defending individual liberty often feel more intuitive and broadly appealing, which may make it harder for affirmative teams to consistently generate persuasive cases without careful preparation. Overall, the topic has strong philosophical potential but requires more work to produce consistently high-quality debates.

#5 Resolved: The power of clemency is essential to a just governance system. (Option 2)

From a theory and framework perspective, this is definitely my least favorite. Clemency specifically isn't ideal for the framing. The biggest issue is that clemency is generally defined as mercy, mildness, or leniency. Definitionally, these things are counter to the principle of justice, giving each his or her due/what they deserve. However, Affirmative has to defend that giving less than what someone is due, being lenient, is essential to a just governance system. It's antithetical.

In order to make this argumentation work, side Affirmative has to argue that 1) in some cases, justice will be miscarried and 2) That an executive will fix injustice more often then he/she abuses the power of clemency. The second premise I find it difficult to make a case for, especially when you accept the legitimacy of the first claim. Because it is so narrow and it will be difficult to generate sustained clash, there's also a higher risk of repetitive argumentation. It is likely that debates would simply collapse into mercy vs. abuse of power, without much deviation. All in all, I think this resolution will be severely Neg weighted and simply doesn't provide the most clear clash when compared to the other topics.

"Currently, Stoa uses three Lincoln-Douglas resolutions per competitive season. Members will weigh in on whether to continue with three resolutions or move to two, beginning in the 2026-2027 season."

Vote two resolutions.

More Accessible 

While making debate "easy" shouldn't be our goal, there is something to be said for accessibility. Especially for debaters in their first or second year, three resolutions makes LD substantially more difficult. There is less time for students to grasp a new topic and often, when they are just starting to get a strong understanding of the topic, the resolution has ended and they are on to the next one. Plus, for newer debate students, they are tasked with rapidly learning the topic that they are required to debate on while they are trying to learn the fundamentals of debate. This leads to a lower understanding both of the resolution and of basic debate ideas. Both of which are detrimental to the purpose of academic debate. Having coached clubs and individual students across the country, I've been witness to this first hand. In order for students to reach their full potential, they need to have a strong understanding of the fundaments of debate and a solid grasp on the resolution. Both high quality skills that take time to develop. Comparatively, two resolutions would allow more time for students to focus on strengthening their argumentation, developing their understanding of debate, and becoming more well rounded competitors.

Shifted Judging Criteria

Even with experienced debaters, it has becoming increasingly more common for in-round decisions to be based more off of speaks or persuasive delivery than actual argumentation. I've found that this is largely due to the fact that on resolutions, especially the first and second resolution, debaters simply don't have the same level of motivation to pour hours of preparation into writing, researching, and rewriting their cases, arguments, and responses. In turn, this decreases the overall quality of debate, something that has had an impact even deep into NITOC outrounds.

Tournament Schedules

While this is not necessarily the biggest issue from an academic perspective, a lot of debaters have simply not been going to tournaments or at least not competing in LD on resolution 2. Often, they are ready to start preparing for the NITOC res by mid-January, two months before the resolution will even be debated. For most of my clubs, I started coaching on this topic by the third week of January, long before resolution 2 tournaments were over, simply because that is what the debaters were ready for and the more time they had to prepare for NITOC, the better. This decreases the predictability of tournaments and makes it more difficult for tournament directors in January - March. With two resolutions, especially students who are already qualified would have a greater incentive to stay engaged through the spring because the argumentation they are developing would be relevant and impact their success at NITOC and throughout the rest of the season.

Development of Argumentation & Critical Thinking 

This is by far the greatest warrant for two resolutions. Usually it takes 3-4 tournaments before students really start getting a handle on the best strategies and high level argumentation on a topic. Obviously that will vary somewhat by experience level and dedication, but the best arguments always take time to develop. However, with three resolutions, most students only get 1-2 tournaments per resolution, maybe 3. Having only a few tournaments and 2-3 months to debate a resolution tends to allow argumentation to stagnate and doesn't have the same incentive for debaters to apply themselves to the full process of developing argumentation and forcing the metagame to develop. Along a similar vein, having three resolutions has also made debaters much more reliant on sourcebooks and outside material that they did not personally develop. While this may help push argumentation along faster, it doesn't give students the same academic value or depth of understanding that sitting and grappling with a topic for various months does. The more writing and discussion that students do on a topic, the greater their understanding of that topic will be. I believe that whatever option best increases the academic value of debate is the one that we should vote for. Two resolutions give students an increased opportunity to engage in critical thinking and develop their argumentation throughout the season, reaping the benefits of editing, revision, and executing the highest level argumentation possible.