Team Policy - Voting Guide for the 2025-2026 Resolutions

By Hudson Kubiak

Following the release of the potential TP resolutions for next season, there has been substantial debate over the quality of all three resolutions and their ability to produce meaningful argumentation. In this article, I aim to provide a balanced analysis of these resolutions to determine which offers the highest potential for compelling debates. We hope you will take these perspectives into consideration when voting.

Resolution 1 - Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its criminal justice policy.

A key strength of this resolution is its well-balanced topic scope. Affirmatives could address policing, sentencing, incarceration, reentry, or rehabilitation, each with multiple subcategories. Cases that reduce mandatory minimums, end cash bail for low-risk defendants, establish rehabilitative prison programs, or focus on decreasing incarceration all fall under this resolution. This breadth stems from the extensive literature on criminal justice. The Department of Justice and related agencies publish numerous reports annually, every state has institutions analyzing criminal justice issues, and countless think tanks propose policies, critique the status quo, and evaluate reforms on a continual basis. The Vera Institute of Justice, The Brennan Center for Justice, The Prison Policy Initiative, The Brookings Institution, and many others publish extensively on criminal justice policy and are reliable sources of advocacy and information. This means affirmatives can select empirically supported cases, while negatives have ample literature with which to challenge them.

Moreover, this topic is new to Stoa's policy debate history. Given that roughly 1% of the U.S. population is currently incarcerated, criminal justice is a policy arena that directly impacts the lives of tens of millions of Americans. The knowledge gained from debating this resolution could prove valuable in future conversations, jobs, internships, and more—especially for those pursuing law, government, politics, or related fields after high school.

This topic area resembles an LD resolution from three years ago, but I view that as a strength rather than a weakness. That LD resolution—Resolved: Criminal justice ought to prioritize rehabilitation over retribution, restitution, or deterrence—was highly policy-centric, trending towards an analysis of statistics and pragmatics in most rounds. The LD debaters I knew that season generally liked the topic but disliked how policy-heavy it felt compared to traditional LD resolutions. Just because Resolution 1 involves justice does not make it value-centric. Every policy debate rests on fundamental assumptions—whether it's the ethical use of robots (from an AI resolution four years ago) or the ethical treatment of workers at our ports (a frequent issue in Europe year). Criminal justice has an ethical foundation but requires pragmatic, policy-driven solutions. Imagine if Congress avoided criminal justice entirely because it overlapped with ethics. That would create a glaring gap in the system, injustice would prevail, and crime would surge. Team Policy debaters, as emulators of real-world policymakers, should not overlook the chance to engage in robust legislative debate over well-researched issues simply because it overlaps with the ethical. Additionally, criminal justice may carry less emotional weight than topics like healthcare or other past resolutions.

Overall Rating - 9/10

Resolution 2 - Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policy regarding one or more of the following organizations: the UN, NATO, WHO or the IMF.

This is by far the weakest of the three resolutions. The problem with policies toward organizations is that most cases will produce symbolic, political impacts rather than empirical, measurable ones. For instance, an affirmative might argue that the WHO is corrupt, so the U.S. should withdraw (though the U.S. recently did this under the Trump Administration). Alternatively, they could claim the UN fails to promote American values globally, so the U.S. should exit. These cases rely on soft impacts that are difficult to quantify. The worst part is that these flawed cases are likely the strongest options under the resolution. An affirmative could get squirrely, identifying a niche referendum passed by Turkey that conflicts with American values or harms a U.S.-aligned country, then argue the U.S. should pass a counter-referendum to support or oppose that policy. This still qualifies as policymaking and fits the resolution. However, affirmatives could apply this approach to the 190 countries involved in any one of these four organizations, each with distinct topic areas. The combination of overly broad case topics and shallow impacts makes this resolution a pragmatically undesirable option.

And as if this were not enough, it is also worth mentioning that abbreviations in resolutions are never beneficial. They allow for ambiguity and abuse at the hands of the affirmative. What if the affirmative defined the WHO as the "White House Office" or the "World Honda Organization" and ran a case about limiting the presidential power to pardon or about changing helmet laws for motorcyclists? Technically, these cases would be reforming the United States' policy regarding "the WHO." Put simply, this resolution allows for a classic case of "WHO's on first."

Overall Rating - 3/10

Resolution 3 - Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policy toward one or more countries in Central/South America.

Crafting a truly strong case for resolutions like this is often challenging. During Europe year, solid cases were scarce, despite the fact that Europe had deeper U.S. foreign policy ties than Central or South America do. The affirmative literature base was far stronger for the energy or healthcare policy resolutions in the 23-24 and 24-25 competition seasons respectively. However, this does not inherently make this third resolution weak; it simply means affirmatives will have to work harder to develop compelling, evidence-based cases than they otherwise would.

On one hand, understanding foreign policy is valuable, and debating geopolitics can be engaging. On the other hand, much of the knowledge you gain is unlikely to meaningfully impact your life unless you pursue a career directly related to this field. Even then, policies toward Central and South America typically take a backseat to Asia and Europe in foreign policy discussions. This also means that most policies will tend to feel abstract to judges. Impacting will therefore be difficult.

Speaking of Asia and Europe, they are the primary powers, alongside the U.S., competing for influence in this region. Many cases will focus on Chinese influence and/or U.S. hegemony. Another common topic will be rescinding U.S. support for corrupt governments. Sanctions, tariffs, embargoes, and trade agreements will be debated in the context of the morality of Central and South American governments and leaders. Cases will fall into diplomatic, economic, and geopolitical policy categories. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to be aware of if this resolution gets selected. With that said, however, this resolution is still better than many that have been debated in prior years of Stoa Team Policy Debate.

Overall Rating - 7/10

Conclusion - 1>3>2

Regardless of which resolution is selected, we would love to help you hone your skills in the coming competition season. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any questions, comments, or thoughts that you would like to discuss.

Thank you for reading.

-Coach Hudson