There are three basic things that a resolution must do:
- It must provide an equitable playing field for aff and neg. This means avoiding bias and putting forward cases that offer good clash. Cases that are good, but not invincible.
- It must be interesting. No one wants to sit through a year of boring debate. Plain and simple.
- The resolution must be educational. This means a reasonable research burden (not too many cases possibilities) and a deep topic that promotes critical thinking.
This resolution is impossibly broad. When people think of revenue generation, they think of taxes. So right away you can increase or decrease taxes, or overhaul through a flat tax, fair tax, etc. But taxes aren't the only form of revenue. Here are other places the government gains revenue:
- Government aid: This can be from other countries or from intra-government transfers.
- Selling treasury bonds: Sometimes simplified to government debt. When the government sells bonds to other nations or US investors, it generates revenue.
- Royalties: The government generates revenue when companies pay royalties on natural resources. An affirmative could increase or decrease these royalties.
- Fees: The government assesses fees on all sorts of things: vehicle licenses, hunting licenses, watercraft licenses, visa fees, etc.
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP is the UN's global development network on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges]: "Fiscal Policy in Relation to Overall Development Policy" Published no earlier than 2002
There are two objectives why government raises revenues. One is to increase or raise revenue collections and second for regulatory purposes."
According to this definition, raising taxes for regulation is still revenue generation. This means the affirmative could create new or increase existing regulatory taxes. Examples:
- Carbon tax
- Legalize marijauna and assess a tax
- Fat tax (extra tax on obese people - melike)
- Gas tax
- Pollution fees
- Cigarette tax
- Federal funds rate
- Discount rate
- Abortion tax
2. Equitable Competition
This resolution would be very very difficult to win on negative unless the affirmative is simply incompetent, for a rew reasons.
Bias will dominate the RFD
Pretty much everyone from every political leaning and social class has a strong bias here. Rich people want lower taxes, poor people want higher taxes, the middle class range on both ends. Given our judge pool, cases like debt limits, fair taxes, and reducing regulatory taxes would have great appeal. You can try to run deficit/debt da's to counteract (people hate debt as much as they hate taxes), but it's a long shot at best.
The status quo is indefensible
Pure and simple. Current revenue generation policy is failing on both ends: our government doesn't have enough money, and taxpayers are unhappy. So on a government and taxpayer end, there is dissatisfaction with the status quo. This basically makes inherency and significance instant wins for the affirmative. As long as the aff is smart with plan text writing and doesn't get too ambitous, they will breeze through with easy wins.
Counterplans will always be topical or non-competitive
Here's why: If the affirmative wants to change to fix some problem with our revenue generation, you can't solve without a topical plan. Only a revenue generation policy can fix our revenue issues. The definition of revenue generation makes all solvent plans topical.
If the aff plan is to regulate using taxes, you can regulate through another mechanism, but it will almost certainly be noncompetitive with the regulatory tax. In essence, you will always have either a messy parametrics debate, a noncompetitive CP, or you are forced to defend a terrible status quo. This leaves very little hope for negatives.
While this resolution is certainly intriguing, I believe that ultimately it will stretch negative teams thin and leave the wins heavily scewed towards the affirmative.