Agricultural subsidies - cash payments to food and fiber producers or their market equivalent - affect every person in the United States. Globalization assures that these subsidies affect the economies of virtually every nation of the world. The U.S. spends $8 billion per year on these payments to farmers, and this money exponentially distorts the world food market. In the wake of Congress' attempted renewal of the Farm Bill in 2007, an abundance of congressional testimony, media coverage, and scholarly analysis has been published. Affirmative case areas may include generally decreasing subsidies to all crops, such as federally-supported crop insurance, or reforming all farm payments. Students may also advocate limiting subsidies for specific crops such as sugar or corn. Advantages may be completely domestic by decreasing the tax burden on consumers or improving nutritional values of foods. International scenarios may include decreasing the risk of famine, and the regional instability that often ensues, in developing nations. Environmental issues include pollution and loss of genetic diversity as well as the risks of genetically-modified crops. Negative ground may include economic arguments including the market capitalization of land prices and shifting planting decisions of farmers, employment, productivity, and food security of domestic producers. Negative teams would have access to politics scenarios as well as counterplans such as WTO executive action. The topic lends itself to a variety of critical arguments including the Maoism versus capitalism debate or the importance of an agrarian society. Authors: Russell Kirkscey and Zane Schwarzlose, Texas.

PROBLEM AREA III: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

The demand for energy worldwide is expected to grow over 50 percent by 2030, and most economies are fundamentally fossil-fuel based. International competition for these fossil fuels is growing intense and access to oil especially is often located in places that are geographically hard to reach and geopolitically challenging. The United States federal government needs to articulate a sound and sustainable energy policy that pursues alternative energy resources, so that it has access to available, sustainable, and secure sources that move the country away from its addiction to fossil fuels.

Affirmative plans would require the use of incentives to promote alternative energy sources, including but not limited to solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear power, as well as, biofuels, hydrogen fuels, new technologies, and conservation measures. Negative approaches to the topic would include a number of case specific solvency debates, the problems and impacts of using government incentives, and many different disadvantage scenarios such as foreign policy implications of decreasing oil imports, collapse of economies such as those of the Middle East and Russia, and relations disadvantages, as well as, a good number of disadvantages specific to particular affirmative solutions. Counterplan ground might include states/private industry, as well as, international solutions, and critical argumentation might include capitalism and the environment. Current federal policy tends to support big oil and other fossil fuel companies; ultimately, our very civilization will pay a high price for our lack of oversight and action on the issue of energy. Authors: Pam McComas and Cindy Burgett, Kansas.

PROBLEM AREA IV: CENTRAL ASIA

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its foreign assistance to one or more countries in Central Asia.

Economic instability, oil wars, nuclear terrorism, cultural conflict, and superpower intervention are examples of debate critical to Central Asia. 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 countries of Central Asia 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 US, China, and Russia, and a fledgling democracy that is untested, fragile and quickly regressing toward despotism. Yet these troubles remain correctable should progressive 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 is playing an immeasurable role in our economic and foreign policy future. Balanced affirmative and negative ground exist in the debate of Central Asia. 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, relations with regional actors (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran to name a few), counterplans such as UN, NGO's, regional actors, and a host of critical arguments against imperialism, power promotion, and capitalism. Central Asia is like a young Middle East. Although we don't have a chance to go back and change what has happened to the Middle East, this topic can allow productive discussion about how not to let that same fate befall Central Asia. Authors: Tom Lietz and Ruth Kay, Michigan.

PROBLEM AREA V: IMMIGRATION

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States.

In a myriad of post-9/11 political issues, none has been at the forefront of more controversy than United States immigration policy. In the wake of the major defeat of President Bush's recent immigration proposal, we stand at a crossroads in determining the future of foreign citizens who wish to immigrate to the United States. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimates over 35.2 million immigrants are currently living in the United States with another 2.9 million citizenship applications submitted per year. Affirmatives would be able to alter existing policies including the PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, create new policies or organizations to process immigration related issues, grant amnesty, increase asylum in one or more areas, and increase approved visa applications, among others. Disadvantages would include terrorism, crime, politics, economy, disease, drugs, social fragmentation, social services, cultural dilution, and hegemony, among others. The negative could also argue that the states or other nations are better suited to address immigration issues. Nongovernmental organizations like the UN or Amnesty International could be better suited to address global issues like refugee crises. Never far from the headlines, immigration offers an incredibly rich area for discussion. Authors: Matthew Murrell and Heather Hayes, Texas.