Reed hosts the first tournament on our schedule in mid-September. It announces topic areas a few weeks in advance and this year’s are:

  • US Policy toward Pakistan
  • Increasing Monitoring to Reduce Crime
  • Supporting Kosovo Independence
  • ¬†Impeachment of United States Executive Officials
  • Strengthening Animal Protection Laws

On the one hand, topic areas definitely tend increase the quality of debate since when you know what’s coming you prepare for it. The bad side is that when topic areas are vague, as these are, you end up doing a lot of useless research. For example, I could spend hours researching how and why the US should support independence for Kosovo, but the resolution might come down “the EU should support independence for Kosovo.”

These topic areas promise at least two debates that fit our style perfectly. The Pakistan and Kosovo debates both link easily to nuke war and genocide and global destruction, which is always fun. The other three are interesting topics, but the impact scenarios tend to be fluffy and intangible. This almost invariably favors the opposition, since well researched internal links can get you to almost any impact while the government is stuck crying out for “democracy.” To balance our government strategy I’m going to try to research a couple of politics advantages.

Anyway, debate season is on it’s way. I’m looking forward to finding a partner.