Five Topics Selected for 2007-2008 Ballot

Africa, Trade, Water, Pandemics and Central Asia and The Caucasus
are five suggested debate topics for 2007-2008

Thirty-six delegates from 20 states, the National Catholic Forensic League, National Debate Coaches Association and the National Forensic League attended the NFHS-sponsored Topic Selection Meeting August 4-6 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Seven topic reports were presented by authors who over 11 months researched each topic area. State delegates and participants deliberated for three days to determine the final five topic areas.

Serving on the 2006 Wording Committee were: W.E. Schuetz, Texas (Chairperson); Mike Wallmark, Oregon; Frank Sferra, Colorado; David Glass, New York; Teresa Sparkman, Missouri and Ruth Kay, Michigan.

The Arkansas Speech Communication Association (ASCA) hosted the annual meeting. Angela Wooley served as the local coordinator. The ASCA and Arkansas Activities Association hosted a dinner and entertainment at the Clinton Presidential Library the first night of the meeting for attendees and spouses.

Balloting for the 2007-2008 national high school debate topic will take place in a two-fold process. During the months of September and October, coaches and students will have the opportunity to discuss the five selected problem areas. The first ballot will narrow the topics to two. A second ballot will be distributed to determine the final topic. Each state, the NFL and the NCFL will conduct voting in November and December to determine the favored topic area. In January the NFHS will announce the 2007-2008 national high school debate topic and resolution. It will be posted on the NFHS Web page at www.nfhs.org and sent to state associations and affiliate members.

SYNOPSIS OF THE PROBLEM AREAS FOR 2007-2008

PROBLEM AREA I: AFRICA

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.

There is perhaps no issue more timely and critical than the status of people living in poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. While world attention has once again focused on this crisis, attention has not translated to sufficient action. Despite the promise of the G-8 to end African poverty, the World Development Movement calls the current solutions "a disaster for the world's poor." The public health problem in Africa is an essential topic, with current research and a wide array of potential solutions for both affirmatives and negatives to consider. Potential affirmatives on this topic include access to education and pharmaceuticals for AIDS, public health education of women and direct aid, and nutritional information — since it relates to public health. Negative ground will be preserved with a strong array of specific and broadly applicable arguments, including whether the United States is the best agent to engage with Sub-Saharan Africa as opposed to, for example, other African nations or the European Union or Asia. There are critique-based arguments of development, and the idea of colonialism. And there are a myriad of economic and international cooperation arguments and disadvantages. The resolution is confined by public health initiatives, since that encompasses much of the education and nutrition ground on which last year's potential topic was focused. Given the important dimension of this problem for this and generations to come, there is no better topic for the brightest of our students to tackle. Debating this topic would provide students a unique opportunity to advocate solutions for people too often ignored in our policy discussions and debates, and give Africa the significance it deserves. Author: Don Pogreba, Montana

PROBLEM AREA II: TRADE

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy increasing trade with one or more of the following countries: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria.

Perhaps no topic energizes debate more than the use of trade to reward or punish other countries. The United States uses trade to assure compliance with international norms related to human rights, weapons proliferation, and the war on terror. This resolution deals with establishing trade relationships in four countries with which the United States currently has almost no trade: Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. The United States is deliberately trying to isolate these countries through trade restrictions. Affirmative teams under this resolution will extend trade benefits to these countries not only to reduce poverty and promote economic development, but also to promote engagement with these countries for the purpose of reducing the development of weapons of mass destruction and the support of terrorism. Other cases will focus on facilitating trade on types of products that are currently banned. Since these countries are currently isolated, negative teams will have strong, unique disadvantages related to the problems of free trade, globalization and westernization. Negative teams will also have strong international leadership and terrorism disadvantages related to the need to keep these countries isolated. Republican opposition to engagement with these countries will also facilitate strong political debates. Given the current lack of trade between the United States and these countries, even the smallest affirmative plan will have tremendous symbolic significance, protecting negative ground. Authors: Stefan Bauschard, New York and Rich Edwards, Texas

PROBLEM AREA III: WATER

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support for water resources management in Africa and/or the Middle East.

Of all the resources on Earth, none is more precious than water. While the media draws our attention to oil, we ignore what will become the most serious resource issue in this century – the international water shortage. The UN reports that nearly a third of the world's population lacks clean water for personal daily use and estimates that by 2025 that number will grow to half of the world's population. A number of world leaders have suggested that the next world war could be sparked by water disputes. Affirmatives would have a myriad of options, including the improvement of existing infrastructure, the construction of new facilities or infrastructure, the development of diplomacy and water-sharing agreements, stakeholder and end user education, and addressing corruption. Negatives have just as many options. Many organizations are attempting to address these issues. Disadvantages will include politics, spending, economy, soft power, democracy promotion, rights promotion, terrorism, hegemony, the species debate, the warming debate, aid to human rights violators, and humanitarianism, among others. Countries such as Japan and regional organizations may be better suited to solve these problems, and negatives could exclude things such as warlords and certain technologies. Topic-specific criticisms would include the debate over water as a commodity or a human right, and the role that a water-rich country such as the United States should play in a water-poor world. Author: Matthew Murrell, Texas

PROBLEM AREA IV: PANDEMICS

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing public health services for pandemic disease prevention.

Pandemics, epidemics that cover a large geographic area, have the ability to change society radically. HIV/AIDS has strained social and economic resources to the point of breaking throughout the world. SARS [Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome] has caused panic in Asia. Presently, the harbinger of a worldwide avian-influenza outbreak has refocused attention on causes and solutions to these dilemmas. A pandemic disease would wreak havoc on economic activity, including travel and trade practices. Case areas may focus on decreasing harms of specific diseases or may broaden to include strategies to combat bacterial, parasitic, viral, airborne, and waterborne diseases. Examples include: malaria, cholera, Ebola, anthrax, botulism, and tuberculosis. Specific public health services could include supporting early warning systems, health workers/health organizations, bio-terrorism safeguards, import restrictions, prevention and protection supplies, international agreements, and vector control (bats, birds, ticks). Possible negative positions could include alternative causality arguments and specific solvency issues such as whether increasing funding for vaccinations would solve problems inherent in the system. Negative positions could show that increased protection against pandemics increases the prevalence of drug resistant strains of disease. Disadvantages may include spending, personnel and material tradeoffs, international and domestic politics, the media, and plenary power. Counterplans may include private actors such as Doctors Without Borders and international actors such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Authors: Russell Kirkscey and Zane Schwarzlose, Texas

PROBLEM AREA V: CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more of the following countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

Economic instability, oil wars, nuclear terrorism, cultural conflict, and superpower intervention are examples of debate critical to Central Asia and the Caucasus. Unlike the Middle East, which has been embroiled in conflict for thousands of years, this critical region of the world has remained dormant under the forceful rule of now fallen empires. At this critical impasse, the nations of Central Asia and the Caucasus find themselves inheritors of the world's largest untapped oil reserve and the possessors of new-found freedom, projecting them onto the global forefront. This untapped potential for economic prosperity and democratic liberalism is threatened by growing cultural and ethnic conflict, the pull of geopolitical posturing by the United States, China, and Russia, and an increase in democracy that is untested, fragile and quickly regressing toward despotism. Yet these troubles remain correctable should appropriate policy be implemented. As we struggle to solve terrorism, manage the looming oil crisis and promote democracy, this region presents opportunity for unparallel success or perilous loss. Unknown to most Americans Central Asia and the Caucasus are playing an immeasurable role in our economic and foreign policy future. Balanced affirmative and negative ground exist in the debate of Central Asia and the Caucuses. Possible affirmatives include democracy promotion, reduction of oil dependence on Russia, economic and infrastructure development, counter-terrorism, election monitoring, and other assistance programs. Negatives could explore problems with expanded U.S. presence in the region, oil dependence arguments and relations with regional actors such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran. Other positions include counterplans such as the United Nations, Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs], regional actors, and a host of critical arguments against imperialism, power promotion and capitalism.

Associated File