Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate I think I had a few solid points in my first article. I still think one of the best neg argument is that a focus on democracy misdiagnoses the problem, and in doing so whitewashes democracy. It creates the idea that anything that is bad is anti-democratic, which leads us to ignore the very real violence that happens in and because of democracy. It also makes it harder to form solutions: if we decide intergenerational accumulation of wealth (IGAW) is bad because it’s anti-democratic, we might stop trying to fix the problem when we believe basic principles of democracy have been satisfied (leaving wealth inequality still in place). Keep reading below the fold for my thoughts on answering this and to see my new takes on the topic. Perhaps the best affirmative pushback against this take is that a government doesn’t have to be an authoritarian regime to stop being democratic. The study referenced here, for example, makes a powerful case that the US is now an oligarchy, not a democracy, because of the influence of wealth on politics. A plutocracy would also be a powerful way to paint governments that allow excessive IGAW.
I heard a few examples of this pointed out during the WDN practice debates. My favorite was gun control, specifically background checks. Background checks have massive popular support, but still get voted down. Lobbying by the NRA is a very good argument as to why that’s happening. That argument makes enough sense and is intuitive enough that everyone should have a block ready to answer it. Still, I like examples that are on subjects that everyone understands but use an example so specific it would be very unlikely your opponent has answers prepared. For example, making a similar argument about popular but yet-to-be-enacted clean-up efforts in the Chesapeake Bay (VA). Everyone understands the issue because it’s a microcosm of an easy to understand environment debate, but no one will be ready to retort your specific example about the Chesapeake Bay. I think the best negative argument, though, is about choice. The neg needs to go for people want IGAW. “How can IGAW be anti-democratic if people want it?” is another powerful framing question. Think about the aff gun control example. Even if it’s true that people want background checks, they keep choosing to vote for politicians that vote against background checks. Combining an argument about choice with an argument about reform is maybe the best negative argument I’ve heard. Think about estate taxes. Estate taxes could mitigates the extremes of IGAW. You don’t have to reject all IGAW, but you can mitigate the massive wealth of the Besos’s of the world through an estate tax. This argument is a powerful one-two punch: estate tax could be a reform that mitigates the worst of IGAW without eliminating it (proving IGAW itself wasn’t anti-democratic, just its extremes), but a severe estate tax could also eliminate IGAW. This proves IGAW isn’t incompatible with democracy, because people could choose to vote for a severe estate tax. That they don’t is evidence they want IGAW. That means the only democratic frame (free choice!) supports IGAW. People want the American dream of a white picket fence 2.5 kids that they pass their wealth on to. They may or may not achieve that dream, but it’s democratic to allow them to choose that dream. It’s anti-democratic to say society can’t choose to allow IGAW. The status quo is people voting for IGAW by not voting for a severe estate tax You might think they make a bad choice, but choice is the essential element of democracy. That’s the best negative argument I’ve thought of. On a defensive note, if you can demonstrate that another policy can solve the bad things your opponent talks about, than you’ve demonstrated that IGAW wasn’t antidemocratic. For example, lobbying. Your opponents on the aff will likely talk about why money in politics is bad, and IGAW leads to money in politics. What if you banned lobbying? Or overturned Citizens United? Or amped up McCain-Feingold? These measures would solve or mitigate the harms of lobbying, but leave IGAW intact. That’s demonstrative that IGAW wasn’t the problem: IGAW wasn’t anti-democratic, lobbying was. Regulating lobbying while leaving IGAW intact fixes the problem. This logic can be applied to almost every aff example. They talk about the racial implications of IGAW? A massive reparations program would fix that, and would not require eliminating IGAW (and the Black billionaires argument – mentioned in the other article on this subject and below – would be a net benefit to this). If you can fix the problem without changing or abolishing IGAW, then IGAW wasn’t the problem. I’m usually a skeptic about how much the value/criterion debate matters, and think debaters over-invest time in definitions. I suggested before this topic might be the exception. The WDN practice debates definitely confirmed that for me: the criterion and definitions matter (for me, this probably doesn’t mean spend more time on these things, because I thought too much time was being spent on them before). So what does that mean? I think a base controversy might be between democracy means meaningful participation (aff), and democracy means one person, one vote (neg). Participation vs meaningful participation. If everyone gets an equal say in government decisions (one person, one vote), is that sufficient for democracy? Or does economic power, having more opportunities for speech and persuasion, does that corrupt democracy? Does it stymie meaningful participation? The aff needs to say “one person, on vote” is simplistic, that participation alone is a bad metric for democracy because it leads to a hollow, shallow vision of democracy. On the other hand, there is a decent defense of thinking about democracy as one person, one vote. IGAW being unethical doesn’t make it anti-democratic. I think the NC needs to make this argument, and the NR needs to have a big ethos moment on it. The NR needs to tell the judge “the topic isn’t intergenerational accumulation of wealth is bad, it’s is it incompatible with democracy. If my opponent convinces you that intergenerational accumulation of wealth is unethical, that it’s terrible, that it perpetuates inequality, that it’s violent- none of that is a reason to vote aff, because the burden of the topic is proving that intergenerational accumulation of wealth is antithetical to democracy- not ethics.” This frame helps the judge make an easy decision. You want to write their ballot for them so they can say, “look, you won IGAW is bad, but, you didn’t win that it was antithetical to democracy.” This frame is highly compatible with the arguments about defining democracy at the top of this note. How would I answer that argument? I’d start with the line that “IGAW is the reason we’ll never actually get lobbying banned.” During WDN I heard a few negative arguments I think will be common at NSDA: private property good and natural rights good. There is a very classic capitalism good argument on this topic. The neg team that makes that argument should talk about how the idea of leaving a legacy (to your children) is a key motivator for capitalist activities- that people pursue wealth because they want to leave it to their children, and that pursuit of wealth has benefits for society. Not my cup of tea, but you do you. You’re going to have to have a big debate about wealth inequality, but you’ll be having that either way. Natural rights I think are a weaker position. I’m not deep in the natural rights lit, but, I’m inherently skeptical of positions that rely on a priori reasoning. Deliberation is good, and the concept of natural rights seems to cut against that. In the previous article, I maybe trashed the argument about Black billionaires too hard. It shouldn’t be a core of your offense, but if your opponent starts the race debate, I think the Black billionaires argument is worth making. I didn’t hear an in-depth argument about social mobility- I think this will be a common argument, but my thoughts on it aren’t terribly developed. If you want to start a thread on this in the comments, I’d be happy to weigh in! I’m surprised I haven’t heard more about Rawl’s veil of ignorance. That seems like an appropriate theory to be bringing up.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|