Post-Debate Analyses

(Preliminary Rounds)

Motion 1: As left-wing progressive political parties, THW prioritize pushing for reduced voting
age, at the expense of pushing for reform of race-based voter suppression (including
discrimination against immigrants)

Possible setup in OG: left wing progressive political parties are dominant in more
western/developed states, especially parties that can gain votes. This looks like Democrats in the
US (disputable), Australian labor party, Canada’s new democratic party; exclusions could
include examples like the CCP, which is technically left but don’t necessarily fit the parameter of
‘progressive,’ as well as leftist advocacy groups like Antifa who don’t utilize democratic systems
to obtain elected seats (these exclusions are not rigid; which means any team can dispute that
they should/should not be part of the debate given enough reasoning). Given this, the majority of
discussion is likely to center around the context of western/developing states.

Gov:
1. Justification: a lot of the people who vote under 18 are some of the most politically
active individuals i.e. they volunteer at campaigns/political organizations, have vivid
social media presence, etc. These politically active individual don’t have the ability to
practice freedom of speech via voting – one of the highest fulfillment of civic duty and
utmost privilege of democratic societies. To campaign and fight for the rights of
individuals who are otherwise incredibly politically active is only justified. This is not to
say that progressive left parties don’t have a duty to immigrants/racial minority, simply
that the voices of young voters are rarely ever heard and recognized by the state. It’s
justified that the state offers them this freedom of speech after all their political
activism/contribution to the state.
2. Voter volume: numerically, under 18 groups are a larger voter base for progressive
parties in comparison to any other group. In the US, the student population in most
college campuses are left-leaning (the individuals most likely to vote if they were granted
the right). They also do a lot of activism via organizations like college democrats, which
means that not only will you be able to get their votes, they’re also likely more
incentivized to campaign for you more and encourage other students to vote. When
talking about prioritization of campaigns, progressive left parties ought to prioritize the
largest potential voter base in order to first and foremost get elected since obtaining seats
are a prerequisite to every policy. In order to get more progressive policies that would
also later lead to better conditions for immigrants/racial minorities, it’s important to first
and foremost prioritize votes and elected seats.
3. Possibility of a successful campaign: this is a bipartisan issue that could be more easily
be agreed upon by multiple parties. The comparative of campaigning to reform race-
based voter suppression is a harder and more polarizing agenda since the issue is often
insidious and unrecognized as legitimate ‘voter suppression,’ especially in more robust
democracies (relevant if the setup indicates that the vast majority of discussion will be
geared to more western states). This often looks like not having ballot boxes in rural
areas, which many consider an economic issue more so than a racial one, or missing
numbers of mail-in ballots from regions with higher numbers of racial minorities; which
 many would consider an administrative issue and not so much racial voter suppression.
Furthermore, the insistence of immigrants not being able to vote is also a very left-
leaning issue, since centrist/right parties believe in the rigidity of citizenship, and don’t
see the refusal to grant votes to immigrants as a form of racism. A lack of racial minority
voters are also a result of mostly disdain towards non-representative candidates as
opposed to explicit/outright voter suppression. In comparison, advocating to lower the
voting age is likely to be more successful since it’s a more bipartisan issue that a majority
of lawmakers are likely more able to agree on.
4. Urgency: there’s a lack of urgency in pushing for race-based voter suppression. Over
time, numerous movements have lead to the granting of votes and reformation of
neighborhoods. Racial minorities with a citizenship already have a right to vote, although
some might lack access. A number of immigrants, given valid citizenship, are also able to
vote. The urgency to race-based voter suppression is mostly to do with accessing voting
booths, having candidates that cater to their needs, etc., all of which are comparatively
less urgent than potential younger voters, who outright don’t have the right to vote at all.
5. Candidates championing enhancement in education: The efforts to push for lowering
the voting age could lead to better policies for the country as well. To the extent that the
campaign is successful and there are younger voters; specifically those in high school or
maybe even middle school, there will be extraneous effects to pushing for reduced voting
age. Candidates are more likely to care about enhancing civic education in primary public
schools, they’re also more likely to campaign in high schools and middle schools and
cater to the needs of pre-college youths, enhancing education. There will likely also be
more government funding to enhancing schools in both rural and urban areas. One of the
public goods greatly neglected in predominantly black/immigrant neighborhoods is good
and sustained education. With campaigning for lowered voting age, racial minorities can
also equally benefit from better welfare. Even if the campaign becomes unsuccessful in
the end, shining light on how politically active young people would still increase
likelihood of candidates/politicians to care more about public education.
6. Neutralizing argument: kickout the issue of ‘awareness’ or political knowledge or
influence because that’s largely non-unique; a lot of adults are also gravely unaware of
politics and/or have outdated politics, and therefore awareness cannot be measured
objectively.

Opp:
 Opp could adopt the strategy of whether or not under 18 voters are going to have as much
awareness; but this argument would be harder to prove and largely marginal since it’s not easy to
convince a judge that 17 year old’s are that much more unaware than 18 year old’s. It’s best to
opt for the strategy of establishing urgency to race based voter oppression and how that might
materialize for left wing progressive parties.
1. Voter volume: race-based voter suppression is likely to result to more votes for left wing
progressive parties. Although numerically there are more individuals who would be
eligible to vote when the voting age is lowered, this does not automatically translate to
voters for left wing progressive parties. Since they’re still in school, a majority of them
might subscribe to their parents’ agenda, most of whom are likely more centrist or right-
wing. Furthermore, even if they would be left-leaning voters, they’re far less likely to
exercise their right to vote in comparison to immigrants and racial minorities. This is
 because under 18 voters are still in school and focus most of their time on
schooling/assignments, whereas adults with jobs are more likely to carve time out of their
day to be able to vote. Immigrants and racial minorities are also likely to have more
incentive since they have greater stake in voting; it would impact their salaries, inflation,
working hours, mortgage, etc. and are likely to care more about which candidate wins.
Although young voters might be aware and educated, having less stakes in which
candidate wins means they’re less incentivized to vote.
2. Party consistency and policies: this correlates more with the agenda of progressive
parties. Assuming worst case of both sides that this campaign is just a campaign and
therefore might not even materialize into anything, it becomes a discussion of which
issue is more important to address and spotlight. Race-based voter suppression and the
robbing of freedom of speech from immigrants who work, pay taxes, and contribute to
the country as much as anyone else, is far more dire to address. Addressing the idea that
there are often missing ballot boxes or heightened difficulty to access voting booths
amongst racial minorities and immigrants means also addressing this idea that their
interests are often not catered to and will likely address linked issues such as hiring
discrimination, non-representative political seats, etc. This is also consistent with the
long-standing platform of left-wing parties in catering first and foremost to oppressed
minorities.
3. Urgency: this is a far more urgent issue; given that under 18 voters will at some point
turn 18, the issue is different for lowering voting age. These individuals have the right to
vote, albeit that right is delayed, whereas a lot of racial minorities and immigrants are
given no right to vote no matter how far down into the future. The difference is also that
when it comes to voter suppression of racial minorities, they’re not just silenced in being
deprived of their democratic right to vote, they’re also silenced in many other ways in the
status quo (in comparison, under 18 voters largely are vastly politically active)
4. Justification: Those who exercise right to vote in under 18 group are likely the most
privileged. Campaigning for under 18 votes and neglecting that racial minorities are still
experiencing widespread voter suppression means you only get very few under 18 voters,
most of whom probably comes from the most privileged groups. (Note that this argument
is contingent on you proving that race-based voter suppression is still a massive issue in
many democratic states with progressive parties, which means that low income voter
suppression also vastly exists). Not only will more privileged voices perhaps sway more
right (given more corporatist agendas of the right), this is also not justified for left wing
progressive parties to campaign for.
5. Possibility of success: Given that this campaign’s existed for far longer, there’s already
some progress being done here, and therefore a prioritization of this campaign will more
easily lead to successful completion in comparison to campaigning for a lowered voting
age; which is a relatively new issue. There’s been some concessions made by both parties
such as ensuring low income communities are receiving better access, making voting day
a public holiday so that work places cannot mandate their workers to come in in the
morning, etc. There isn’t a far way to go, and it’s also likely going to be a more bipartisan
issue given past efforts
Motion 2: THBT Robinhood should abandon the ‘payment for order flow’ practice and charge
direct trade commissions instead

Ideal setup: this is a normative debate, so a prioritization of interests are needed (i.e. it’s not just
what’s best for Robinhood or big hedge funds, but also for the overall stock market, private
investors, the government, etc.). You can either advocate for one group and tell the judge why
that group matters most, or you can try to win that your side is better for all groups.

Gov: (yes to DTC, no to PFOF)

1. Normatively:
a. Investors have the right to know exactly who’s executing their orders and how.
PFOF takes away information from investors. In the status quo, the reason why
things like insider trading is made illegal is because that would result to massive
asymmetry of information amongst buyers and sellers. The same occurs here;
although PFOF is not explicitly made illegal, it borderlines illegal activity since
there’s massive asymmetry of information; individuals don’t know where their
orders are being routed to or who’s taking care of half their monthly paychecks.
b. More easily monitored by the government (i.e. bodies like the SEC) when there
are direct trade commissions, because PFOF constitutes an internal business
practice and decisions to route orders are made by individuals inside Robinhood,
which is not public knowledge/something the government is unable to regulate.
2. Good for investors:
a. There’s a conflict of interest for Robinhood. Robinhood receives profit from these
third parties/hedge funds, but are technically meant to provide the best service for
these investors. This means that Robinhood has a greater interest to route trade
orders to the highest bidding hedge fund instead of the hedge fund that would be
able to make the most profit for those investors. This is to keep those hedge funds
in business and therefore continue monthly flow of payments into Robinhood. As
a result, investors can never receive the best stock deals under PFOF. This trend is
consistent with how your stocks are likely to decrease a few dollars right after
purchasing it on Robinhood.
b. DTC are often based on stock profitability, so there’s an interest from third parties
to execute well and ensure profitability (ensuring profitability can be done
through strategies like bundling strategic securities, picking more promising
mutual funds, consulting financial advisors, etc.). When the stock broker could
potentially make money from the profitability of your investment, it’s far better.
3. Good for Robinhood
a. Robinhood is currently under investigation of the SEC because of sudden
blockage of Gamestop stocks. To abandon this practice and restructure the
company means Robinhood is winning back client trust (since previously their
PFOF practice was not known to the public), and are far more likely to maintain
their clients rather than have everyone liquidate and utilize other brokerage firms.
b. Individual investors are often unpredictable in their investments and trading
patterns (i.e. Gamestop bulk purchases came from reddit speculations); when this
unpredictability happens Robinhood has to act in ways that delegitimize them as a
company; this is a far more sustainable business model. If Robinhood allowed for
 minor reddit speculations to determine the placement of billions of dollars for
large companies, it’s likely they’ll lose more clients going forward (both
individual investors but also large hedge funds). This also makes the stock market
far more unstable. Blocking PFOF means reducing access for individual buyers to
massively buy in bulk and let independent stocks fluctuate thousands of dollars
because now individuals have to be a lot more calculated when they have to pay
direct commissions.
4. Good for third parties/hedge funds
a. The orders hedge funds receive will ultimately come from big
companies/individual investors who have enough to pay commissions rather than
those who are starting out in trading. This is a lot better because the stocks being
traded have a lot more potential to flourish in the stock market, but at the same
time large companies almost never lose money through direct trade commissions.
If a stock loses money, the investor gets no returns but hedge funds lose nothing
(unless they charge a flat commission, in which case funds gain money no matter
what). If the stock makes money, the hedge funds make a fine percentage of this
good decision.
b. Although these third parties work with Robinhood, they also often compete with
other hedge funds for customers; Robinhood simply routes these customers to
different places. The PFOF system means that Robinhood is also concealing some
orders from these hedge funds and routing them to potentially larger/higher-
paying firms. This means the mid-sized funds lose out on competition when
Robinhood utilizes PFOF.

Opp: (no to DTC, yes to PFOF)

1. Normatively
a. Robinhood has to be the most important actor in this round since individuals can
access any other brokerage house if they wanted to. Investors’ interest matters,
but they at least have the choice of where to direct their money, whereas
Robinhood don’t have access to ‘any customer’ they want, and therefore must
utilize a strategy that works best for them.
2. Good for Robinhood
a. In order to charge direct trade commissions, Robinhood would have to first and
foremost have an incredibly large investment base to purchase large numbers of
stocks to hold and trade out. They don’t have this nor would they be able to in the
near future, but even if they did that would be like investing the entirety of their
liquid funds into easily fluctuating stocks just to trade out. Switching strategies
means establishing an entirely new company.
b. The amount of money received from several hedge funds/third parties are far
larger than the profit Robinhood would receive from individual investors paying
direct commissions. For one, the volume of stocks purchased by these individual
investors aren’t normally that high and therefore the profit will only rise by a few
percent. DTC normally charges a profit percentage of about 1% or less (and has to
be kept that way for Robinhood to keep getting customers), which means
Robinhood’s profits from these investors would be very little. Trading patterns are
also often inconsistent among individuals, and no one really allows for long term
 maturity of assets otherwise they’d invest in mutual funds/bonds rather than
stocks that they plan on liquidating within a short period.
c. The volume of orders would decrease charging DTC, since individuals are less
incentivized to split profits with brokerage house.
3. Good for Markets
a. Stock prices are likely far more stable when the market makers will continue to be
market makers; the reason why Robinhood had to halt the purchase of Gamestop
stocks is because the bid price rose far too high above the ask price of these
Hedge funds – sometimes stocks will fluctuate and that’s how the stock market
works, but it’s best to keep it stable and keep it from spiraling; direct trade
commission means there is no middle-man that can help regulate these purchases.
DTC is also still prone to the same fluctuations, since brokerage houses are made
available to individuals. Individuals won’t mind splitting a small percentage of
their stock profits (either way they’re still making profit), and are therefore still
likely to make the same reckless decisions as they would otherwise; the difference
is that there won’t be a middle-man to help regulate and stabilize the market.
4. Good for investors
a. PFOF makes possible 0-trade commissions, opening up stock trading to everyday
investors who don’t have their whole life savings to invest. Even individuals who
are aware of the PFOF practice, they still prefer paying a little bit more in the
asking price of stocks rather than needing to split profits once their stock value
increases.
b. PFOF allows for quick liquidation if and when the funds are needed; this is not
possible with DTC because liquidating means executing another trade; and the
brokerage house would have to find another buyer that would agree to the price
the investor is selling at, whereas PFOF makes it possible for quick liquidation,
since Robinhood has access to – this is especially important in times of crises
when people experience wage cuts/late rents/higher interests and would have to
liquidate some of their savings in a timely manner
5. Good for publicly traded companies
a. PFOF allows for larger market access, which means profitability for individual
investors but also recently public businesses. Because hedge funds and third
parties have an extremely wide reach to numerous markets, which means a lot of
newly publicly traded companies could have access to a larger market of
investors.
b. PFOF increases the demand for stock trade; instead of putting savings into
conventional assets like bonds or property, individuals are far more incentivized
to put their money into stocks and securities; which is only possible when you
don’t have to pay commission every time you receive your paycheck. This is
because every other saving method (i.e. bonds, property, etc.) most likely has
some form of commission (i.e. taxes), so an alternative that don’t have
commission is likely made a more preferable option.
Motion 3: As environmentalists, TH supports the Earth Liberation Front

Possible setup: What connotes support? Support could be done in a variety of ways such as
funding Earth Liberation Front, directly giving financial aid to the individuals who conduct these
attacks, publicly campaigning/proclaiming for the agenda of ELF movement, etc.

Gov:
1. Green terrorism is justified and proportional: Individuals who fall victim to
environmental degradation often receive detrimental health complications that shorten
life spans. In addition, this also has a permanent long-run harm impact on future
generations that would have adverse effects on their quality of life. Given this, the actions
done by ELF, which includes property destruction and even injuring some individuals, is
a proportional response to the health impacts they’ve suffered and the long run harms.
Given that environmental degradation is also a collective effort done by large
organizations throughout generations, the only proportional response would be a
collective one; and environmentalists should not stand against individuals who are angry
against these same harms and working towards the same cause, despite differing
strategies.
2. The autonomous individuals who participate in ELF efforts are often the most
environmentally oppressed (i.e. indigenous groups whose homes are ruined because of
companies’ neglect). Whether or not it leads to change you ought to support the groups
you fight for who did not have any other platform to convey their grievances. This also
means that whether or not the attacks were carefully targeted, the simple fact that a
number of individuals are willing to put their social standing/lives at risk simply to
express their grievances means that they’re probably one of the biggest sufferers of
environmental degradation and environmentalists would have to back them no matter
what.
3. This is effective in gaining traction through media portrayal and therefore can garner
collective action. Seeing how angry people can be from a cause that many neglects will
bring far more urgency and realness to the issue. This also provides the types of stories
and to an extent, sensationalizes and otherwise seemingly mild issue that people will be
vastly more interested in viewing. Given that ELF efforts are conducted by autonomous
individuals, this also means you spotlight the biggest victims alongside the biggest
perpetrators of environmental damage. Gaining media traction is incredibly helpful,
because it raises awareness for things like living conditions of certain groups/individuals,
and allows for you to be able to identify the companies committing the most heinous acts.
This could garner collective action for communities/victims which includes fundraising
efforts, but also collective action against perpetrators/companies committing extreme
environmental degradation from things like public demands and boycotts. These are
actions that cannot be done individually, and therefore requires for there to be media
portrayal.
4. The targets of these acts of ‘terrorism’ are intentional and careful: the individuals who get
injured in the process are likely the same individuals who work for those companies and
are actively profiting off of their efforts, profit off of things like CO2 emissions,
destruction of wildlife, etc. Supporting ELF and their efforts means also supporting the
damage that are carefully targeted and therefore knowing the companies to heavily tax,
 the types of regulations to set, etc. Although often times their targets might seem
somewhat misplaced (i.e. tree spiking), this is more often than not done nearby areas
where their communities/certain habitats are most harmed, and the media spotlight will
be able to direct viewers to the root intentions of those participating in ELF.
5. Even in the worst case that there are no policy changes or no changes at all to save the
environment, the earth might be ruined far beyond repair: sea levels are rising, cities are
sinking, Antarctica is melting away – predictably the world might be so damaged beyond
any hope of repair in the next few years that it’s only justified people are lashing out
against acts of environmental degradation. This is therefore the last means of release and
catharsis for individuals participating in ELF efforts, and whether or not that leads to
change does not matter since they have the right to express a sense of anger and
vengeance against groups and institutions who’s condemned not only their livelihoods,
but also the earth to a grim future.

Opp:
1. Supporting connotes a political platform wherein this is a non-consolidated/guerilla body
that could have multiply competing agendas you’re unlikely to be aware of. Although the
general gist of green terrorism is defensible, the ELF specifically is an act that the
government wanted to deem a terrorist group, which means some efforts could be
deemed unjustified (i.e. whether it’s misdirected, done disproportionately to the crimes
committed, or might even be targeting organizations that are likely to be helping out with
environmental causes). Furthermore, in order to pass policies and receive the help of the
government (which is far more effective rather than acts of terrorism or even boycott),
you must be a group that don’t contradict governments’ agendas. To the extent that the
ELF’s actions are deemed terrorism instead of a legitimate outcry/grievances, supporting
this group would delegitimize the platform of environmentalists and your demands are
unlikely to be heard by the government. This might also create the illusion that you’re
going to target big companies anyway, and gives less incentives for the government to
further fine them for environmental crimes because of the illusion that they’ve essentially
already paid.
2. The ELF’s targets are often misdirected and disproportional. Often times the ELF is
injuring individuals that were not responsible for the degree of environmental
degradation that groups are so angry about. The individuals employed by big companies
are merely trying to make a living and are likely not in the higher up positions where they
have the power to change company policies (the higher up individuals are unlikely to be
the ones targeted by ELF efforts, since they likely have more security surrounding their
physical well-being). This is then disproportional in the sense that even though the harms
are magnified, they’re also accumulated and primarily caused by past generations, but
even if we concede that these companies alone in the past few years have massively
exacerbated environmental degradation, it would mostly be those making policies/in
positions of power, not the subordinates being told what to do every single day and are at
risk of losing their jobs and their livelihoods.
3. ELF already receives a bad name and therefore is bad for media traction. There will be
less support for environmental causes the extent to which environmentalists actively
support controversial groups (this happened with numerous movements such as the
feminist movement, where the initial goal is good and people are able to concede it’s
 good, but the moment it becomes slightly radical anti-groups arose). Given that policies
require good amount of support, which is garnered via positive media traction, negative
traction and being labeled as violent groups is likely to shift people’s views to an already
failing movement. Environmental causes are already difficult enough to fight for as is and
highly under covered by political candidates since individuals don’t want to give up
living comforts for future generations they’re likely to never meet without taking upon
the label of ‘terrorists’
4. There are legal and peaceful methods to combat environmental degradation and the status
quo is already moving in that direction. For instance, the Green new deal was able to
receive votes even though it failed massively a few years ago. The Paris Peace Treaty is
able to obtain large numbers of signatories. A lot of countries are already massively
taxing companies for CO2 emissions and many regions are already banning plastic
straws. Individuals are also becoming increasingly more aware and have made the
independent choice to for instance go vegan, reduce personal plastic waste, etc.
Therefore, there’s promising progress being made and a prospect for better future.
Candidates are also increasingly more willing to address climate change.
a. (Note: this idea might be difficult to defend with the previous argument which
says that environmental causes are extremely difficult to fight for, but it could be
justified together by saying that although it’s difficult, people are increasingly
aware but supporting the ELF will backtrack on this progress).
5. Fixing the environment requires a collective effort that cannot be achieved by
antagonizing anyone. You can only achieve collective effort by also coopting big
companies who have the capital to make these changes and conduct more
environmentally friendly practices, or individuals/politicians associated with these
companies. This collective action cannot be done by destruction and antagonization of
powerful actors who have massive government lobbying power.
Motion 4: As Biden's Administration, THW abide by the US-Taliban Peace Deal

Possible setup: Since this is an actor debate, it’s important to first and foremost characterize the
Biden administration’s interests – preferably why the Biden administration is unique in
comparison to that of Trump’s or Obama’s
- The Biden administration is largely centrist and his voter base was a mix of leftist groups
attempting to get rid of Trump, but also some right-leaning centrists who believe in
American institutions like the military and establishing a hard line on security. Biden also
received Obama’s endorsement, which means some level of consistency and carry over
from Obama’s foreign policy is somewhat needed.
- Characterization of Taliban as a group; quite distinct from other terrorist groups like ISIS
that operate independently, the Taliban has governmental ties and are therefore linked to
things like national militaries and involved in Afghanistan’s international relations (even
if some teams don’t know this, this is a fact that can be assumed based on context slide
and motion). The goal of the Taliban is ultimately to obtain control over Afghanistan. If
this happens, the group is able to have more of a say in things like international
agreements and could potentially be recognized as a government.
- In short, the US-Taliban peace deal just means a complete militaristic and physical
presence separation between US and Afghanistan

Gov:
1. Voter groups for Biden’s reelection: there’s increasingly popular demand among voters
for democratic party to be anti-war. A large reason why Hillary Clinton failed to be
elected was because of her involvement in Benghazi. The decreasing support of Obama
could also be largely attributed to his massive numbers of drone strikes. Therefore,
there’s an increasing demand for America, especially the democratic party, to be anti-
interventionist. You can extend this argument to different voter groups i.e. left wing
groups who’s been protesting war, pacifists who often abstain from presidential voting,
etc. These groups account for a large voter base that helped Biden win, and therefore in
an effort to get reelected, it’s increasingly important for Biden to establish an anti-
interventionist stance and signing on to this agreement could be one of those ways.
Although leftist groups are not very likely to vote Republican in any election, they’re at
risk of abstaining from voting when they no longer see a viable candidate they can
confidently vote for, which could be equally detrimental to the Biden administration.
2. Abiding to this deal is strategic from a security standpoint: the radicalization of the
Taliban and other groups were primarily perpetrated by American involvement, so this is
a method of deradicalization. This is true for most Islamic radical groups such as ISIS or
Al Qaeda (i.e. 9/11 happened because of anger towards American military intervention in
the middle east). The US have been radically involved in Afghanistan. Even if the
military don’t directly attack (which they have done in the past), the very presence of
American military in the region is already a huge threat and a huge cause of instability
because it encourages mobilization from opposing parties and more likelihood of
militaristic skirmishes. The presence of American troops is also heavily disliked by these
radical Islamic groups, especially the Taliban and have been a huge factor in the Taliban
increasing threats towards the US and an incentive to continue to militarize. The signing
of the US-Taliban peace deal might not completely prevent the Taliban from obtaining
 power in Afghanistan, but would certainly deradicalize them and at the very least lessen
the direct threat to the US.
3. This is an economically sound move: currently, thousands of troops are placed in
Afghanistan. Signing the deal and retracting the deal will not only be economically sound
since thee USs is saving millions of dollars to fund placement of troops, it will also save
and not threaten the lives of American soldiers by mandating that they’re physically
present in Afghanistan.
4. Taliban is just as likely if not more likely to abide by the deal: if the US is no longer
involved in
5. Obligation to American lives and soldiers placed in Afghanistan; the war in Afghanistan
is not a necessary war for Americans: the only instance in which it’s justified for the
American government to sacrifice or put American lives at risk are wars that are
necessary. For instance, world war 2 was a necessary war to fight since there was direct
invasion to American allies, and was done as a defensive measure. The extent to which
either there is no direct threat to American lives or if there is an agreement on the table
for a ceasefire, it is never justified for the US to sacrifice American soldiers in the name
of ‘American security’ when the threat to security no longer exists.

Opp:
 Opp is in a unique position wherein if even one aspect of the peace deal is unacceptable, Opp
gets to double down on that and make a case on why that’s a reason to not abide by the deal; this
is strategic because if there’s an aspect gov undercovers; Opp is technically able to concede to
everything and simply oppose that aspect. Of course this would make for a more narrow debate,
but a usable strategy nonetheless. Alas, the following are some possible/broader arguments for
opp:
1. Deradicalization is far more likely if there’s continued military presence: If the US
retracts from Afghanistan, the Taliban is far more likely to take over the Afghani
government. This is because US military presence is meant to serve as a counterbalance
to the militaristic strength of the Taliban. If and when the Taliban obtains control of the
government (which they’re already more than halfway in doing). Full Taliban control
means rigid imposition of the Sharia law and would have greater political clout and
militaristic capital to conduct international insurgencies as they’ve done in the past. To
this end, even if this does not directly threaten American lives, it threatens the lives of
Afghani citizens alongside other regions of the middle east; which the US should have
the interest of protecting as well given that the US has the most robust military in the
world and should be used for global defense. But we’d argue that the Taliban obtaining
complete control would actually result to a greater threat of American lives since this
means that obtaining governmental rights and sovereignty is also being able to oppose
international militaristic efforts conducted by organizations like NATO. Although the
agreement mandates that the Taliban will not directly set foot on American soil, they
might still conduct hostile efforts in other countries that are allied with the US.
Furthermore, full Taliban control will likely condemn Afghanistan even further into a
war-torn state and result to higher numbers of Afghani refugees fleeing the state,
potentially into American land.
2. Prioritizing American security is prioritizing American civilian lives: there is a
vested interest in deradicalizing the Taliban exactly because the US should put the lives
 of its citizens first. Since 9/11, despite having no link to the Taliban, a lot of Americans
feel personally threatened by the rise of radical Islam in the world. Whether or not direct
threat is presented by the Taliban (thre previous argument proves why there is a threat),
Americans live in fear of these groups and demands that the government expend efforts
in resources – albeit preemptive ones – to prevent attacks from happening again in the
future.
3. Not signing the deal is politically sound: (pertaining to the last argument as well) Most
past democratic administrations, including the Obama administration, relied heavily on
tightening American security and not neglecting the power that American forces can do
abroad. Although there is a large shift to supporting non-interventionist policies, de-
radicalizing the Taliban and protecting lives of the people affected is still largely a
popular platform among Americans and most Americans are likely to support continued
intervention if this means curbing Taliban power. Retracting troops and abiding to the
peace deal would give the illusion that the Biden administration is ‘negotiating with
terrorists,’ which will lose him a good chunk of his right-leaning centrist voters who
wholly believe in the legitimacy of the American military.
4. Retaliation would be less proportional: A lot of continued American action abroad
could also be interpreted as violating the deal. For instance, continued American alliance
with middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia could be interpreted as a violation of the
treaty, since it’s still being militaristically involved in the region. A drone launch that
goes over Afghanistan but does not land there could also be considered a violation of the
treaty and therefore mandate disproportional retaliation. This retaliation would be
disproportional because to the extent that the Taliban feels as though they’re already
expending efforts to abide by this peace treaty and feel as though the US is violating it
(intentional or not), they’re likely to retaliate at a higher degree.
5. American security is highly fragile and contingent on regime: If Biden abides by the
deal and it falls apart in any future administration, this will lead to a far more detrimental
effect for the country. Even if we assume that complete abidance if possible if not likely
under the Biden administration, there’s no predicting what future presidents might do.
Because the US is so polarized and to an extent politically fragile, it’s likely that any
future presidents might retract that ceasefire/agreement, which will lead to the retaliation
outlined in the previous argument.
Motion 5: TH prefers a tolerant religious society over an atheist one

Possible setup: this is a normative debate that takes the perspective of an individual (not a
religious leader, not an individual having been born to a strictly religious family, not a scientist)
- Characterization of tolerant religious society: filled with diverse but hierarchal structures
(i.e. in most religious there are leaders and people you answer to; some structures like
Catholicism is more strict with the pope and priests needing to adhere to strict rules and
therefore having powers like excommunication, repentance, etc.). There are beliefs that
certain actions are sins (i.e. most religions believe being LGBTQ+ is a sin; tolerant does
not translate to progressive), but the difference is that they don’t manifest these beliefs in
ways that infringe on people’s rights (whether or not a tolerant religious society would
legalize gay marriage is up for debate, but they certainly would not stone gay people nor
make gay sex illegal).
- Characterization of atheist society: no religion or religious structures. The belief of
atheism is the belief in no god, which means the reliance on science, but that’s not to say
that spirituality will not exist at all in atheist societies. There can still be practices of
pseudo science (no matter how invalidated they are; as they are in the status quo) i.e.
practices like astrology, belief in supernatural things like luck, personal spirituality like
believing in your ancestors and a guardian angel, or erring towards agnosticism where
there is a belief in a higher power, but not a distinct god. This can be up to any team to
defend/prefer.

Gov:
1. Provision of hope: religion provides a way for individuals to have hope. Given that the
finality of death is something that almost everyone fears and that individuals have to not
only deal with the horrors of the world that are structural (i.e. inequality, oppression,
capitalism and needing to work), they have to deal also with a huge amount of emotional
distress from things like grief and loss. Religion provides an escape mechanism and hope
in teachings that says ‘everything happens according to god’s plan,’ or ideas about how
those who die are happy in heaven and healed from all pain – these are inherently
religious in nature. These teachings cannot just be individually believed, they have to be
taught to people and reiterated consistently in order for people to believe it and fully
internalize it (this is why religion becomes uniquely different from spirituality, even if
you buy the idea that spirituality might still exist in atheist societies). In order for it to
become consistent teachings, religious structures are needed (including hierarchies,
teachings, indoctrination, etc.)
2. Religion provides a sense of community: human beings require constant interactions
and a reliant community to continue operating. In order to provide comfort and healing in
certain instances, as well as in order to provide and gain support when you experience
life’s downfalls (i.e. recently lost your job/a loved one, etc.), you require this sense of
community and the ability to feel like you’re not bearing these burdens alone. This sense
of community is available in religion, and is uniquely different from other communities
(i.e. schools/groups/social gathering) because these communities are far more familial in
nature and far more morally consistent. You’re likely to be part of your religious
community since birth from being introduced to them by your parents. If there are
different religions and you choose to detach from the community you grew up in, you’re
 still likely to find a religious community that pertains more heavily to your moral
standards and teachings you resonate with. With other communities, you won’t be able to
find the same degree of moral consistency but also the same degree of comradery in
comparison to religious communities.
3. Limitations to science as a way of knowing: increasingly, human beings are working
towards pushing the limitations of science; in attempting to discover extraterrestrial life,
space travel, but also attempts to manipulate consciousness such as preserving someone’s
brain in computers or heavily extending people’s lifespans or building new planets, etc.
The pushing of boundaries have lead to a lot of good innovation and discoveries for
society, but have also lead to a lot of detrimental impacts. For one, individuals will never
really be fully satisfied with their lives as they currently live it and would always think
there’s a need to expand human knowledge. Other pragmatic detrimental impacts include
wanting to dedicate your entire life to discovering and pushing the boundaries of science,
without really living it. Religion provides the boundary to science as a way of knowing;
and concedes that some things aren’t within human’s rights to know; which would
provide a lot more closure for humans.
4. Consistent moral compass: The pushing of scientific limitations means there’s also this
continuous push in moral and philosophical standards. For instance, nihilism was not as
prevalent 50 years ago as it is now with the decline of religiosity. A consistent moral
compass in the belief of virtues like love and forgiveness means that individuals are more
able have a clearer view of their life trajectories and more able to center their lives around
these morals. This isn’t to say that certain moralities are better or worse, rather more
consistent morals make for more comfortable living because individuals are less likely to
experience moral dilemmas in their lifetime.
5. How might this materialize in social structures like charity: In religious societies,
there’s likely an injection of religious morals into society. The existence of churches for
instance, also means the existence of a lot of NGOs and charity efforts such as soup
kitchens. Because a majority of religions believe in virtues like charity and equality, a lot
of religious organizations utilize donations and things like tithe money to setup
organizations that help the poor. Especially in tolerant religious societies, these
organizations are far more likely to not practice things like indoctrination or things like
gay conversion therapy, and would not hold charity to the condition that individuals
convert. Although NGOs and charity organizations might still exist in atheist societies,
religious organizations simply have more conviction in doing good and religious
individuals are more likely to want to dedicate their lives to these causes and religion is
something individuals adhere their entire livelihoods (and afterlife) to.

Opp:
1. Science is the utmost legitimate way of knowing; but pseudo sciences like philosophy
can also be entertained in atheist societies: although opp can concede that there will
likely be no discrimination in religiously tolerant societies, the subscription of religion is
antithesis to the acceptance of science as the utmost objective way of knowing. For
instance, the belief in god has no scientific basis. The reliance on science is a
comparatively preferable way of knowing since this is far more objective. On the
individual scale, individuals are likely to have far less doubt. However, on the macro
scale, this translates to things like policies more likely to be centered around equality and
 economic growth; things that could be objectively measured. The reliance on science also
means that individuals are more willing to push the boundaries of innovation and not let
religion limit desires like space travel, seeking of extraterrestrial life, etc. – all aspects to
which could greatly enhance human beings’ quality of life.
2. Hierarchy is inevitable in religion and is almost always bad: hierarchy that exists in
society is different. For instance, in democratic societies the people who lead are those
elected/chosen by the people. This is different in religion wherein a) individuals who hold
power are mostly chosen or self appointed and b) there are often restrictions i.e. gay
people/women cannot become popes. Given that religious leaders hold massive powers
(in some religions they have the power to translate texts and therefore everything the
community knows and base their lives around are centered around this one leader), in
Catholicism leaders have the ability to excommunicate or forgive your sins, etc.
Therefore, a hierarchy that is often discriminatory should not be able to determine the
livelihoods and moral compass of an entire community of people.
3. Tolerant can still be oppressive: Although these religious societies are tolerant and will
not discriminate against racial minorities/women/gay people, their texts are still
predominantly interpreted as they are; that god created individuals straight or that women
are to bow to their husbands. Although this might not materialize into explicitly bad
things in society, this still will entrench a degree of guilt and inferiority complex within
individuals that grew up with this religion or are taught this religion. For those part of this
religion, they can never escape the internalized guilt of being gay despite being loved by
their parents and their religious communities when their very identity contradicts a
religious text/religious teachings. When women are being told they have to stay a virgin
before marriage, even if you’re not punished for having premarital sex, you still
experience a degree of guilt. In a sense, when you subscribe to a religion you have to
compromise doing certain things. But even living in a community where you don’t
subscribe to this religion, your identity is still viewed as somewhat inferior by your peers.
Although you might not be explicitly harmed, they might feel a degree of pity towards
you for living the life you live.
4. Imposition of an arbitrary sense of fear with afterlife indoctrination: although for
some people, the prospect of an afterlife is comforting, but it’s predominantly fearful. For
starters, an afterlife is almost always conditionally reached; which is to say that even
though there’s the belief of going to heaven, there’s also this sense of fear imposed to
individuals that not living with enough virtues or making some mistakes might condemn
you to hell. This means that people do good deeds out of fear of going to hell instead of
genuine love and care for each other. But at the same time, the prospect of heaven or any
other form of afterlife (i.e. purgatory), alongside this idea that there’s a higher power
continuously watching over you/keeping tabs on you makes most people feel uneasy and
violated.
5. How might this materialize in law and society: the extent to which society is driven by
religious communities, inevitably welfare will have unequal distribution. This means that
in some communities/neighborhood that has predominantly Christians, for instance,
inevitable Christians will receive most of the benefits of things like charity. This also
means that a lot of goods might be conditional; i.e. the ability to benefit from
communities is conditional on you being able to attend church services and to an extent
subscribe to those beliefs, whereas you can still get the benefits of religion internally (i.e.
hope, virtues, etc.) through practicing personal spirituality. This might also materialize in
law because law will be centered around protecting religious rights i.e. the right to refuse
to officiate a gay couple’s wedding, or the right to refuse to appoint female leaders, will
ultimately be protected under law in order to cater to these different religions.