In which we provide our annual analysis of the potential LD topics, from the perspective of having nothing whatsoever to do with LD or its topics

It really doesn’t matter what I think. I’m so out of LD that if they dangled the Holy Grail of Resolutions in front of me, I’d ask for a better mug. To be honest, I think this is a great batch of subjects, and that once again the committee has done an excellent job in a short time. Of course, since no one will actually argue the resolutions when they come around, you’ve also got to commend them on their ability to address the futile with the grimmest of determination.

Resolved: States ought to prohibit the production of nuclear energy.
This will be read by many as meaning states in general as compared to states United in America, thus rendering it impossible.

Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.
Sure. I saw someone comment that Middle East is too fluid a term, but, well, even arguing that is fairly interesting. 

Resolved: Jurors ought to nullify in the face of perceived injustice.
This is vagueness served on a Ritz cracker. I can appreciate the attempt to clarify a reason for nullification, but injustice and perceived are, well, perceived by me as justly too wide open for any specificity.

Resolved: In the United States, campaigns that support candidates for public office ought to be financed exclusively by public funds.
While I would be happy if the bazillions of dollars wasted on political campaigns were spent on something more useful (and what isn't more useful than a political campaign in 2015?), I can't see this one working out well in action.

Resolved: Immigration ought to be recognized as a human right.
This is quite interesting. And only nine words. And a hot topic.

Resolved: Democracies ought to incorporate provisions for legal secession into their national constitutions.
I can’t imagine much of interest to be said on this, but maybe that’s just me and my American prejudices: I’ve read too much history.

Resolved: The United States ought to set a price on carbon emissions.
A policy topic when argued, probably, but interesting. 

Resolved: Corporations ought to value their responsibility to shareholders over the public interest.
I like this, even though it’s terribly Aff biased. Still, everyone always complains about a native Neg bias, so maybe that evens things out. 

Resolved: The privatization of civil services undermines democracy.
Way too vague. It will take a couple of months of debate just for people to figure out what it is they’re supposed to be debating.

Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
My only problem with this is that there are so many people who have such strong beliefs (on both sides). You start to drift into that dark area where you’re not convincing a judge that you’re right, but you’re trying to convince a judge to change his or her mind. Beats there a heart that tabula rasa?