One effect of requiring Expert Solvency Advocates for any legislation (which couldn't ever be a rule but should be a custom throughout the activity, esp. for coaches, summer camp staff, and--oh my God, please--tournament organizers) is to limit debate from "the US should implement my daydream" legislation to the thousands of actual real-world policy options the US must choose from at home and abroad.
Some people might find the "No ESA=No Way" limit too constricting, but there's an unjustifiably neglected area of debate that features ESAs:
Debates about people.
A few years ago, before it was cool, then (post-11/9) deeply, deeply uncool again, one of my debaters wrote a resolution urging that Edward Snowden be granted clemency. This was the stated position of the New York Times editors, so we had our Expert Solvency Advocate covered.
Congress kids treated this as radioactive, however, and I don't think it ever made the agenda, but I think it would have been a really interesting debate if it had been given a chance, touching on both larger issues and potential crimes--the kind of courtroom drama a lot of debaters would enjoy.
There's a constitutional basis for this, too, which will be a headline issue through February: the confirmation process.
We tried something like this last year with our "Confirm Merrick Garland" resolution. Again, no luck. Seemed too political, I guess.
Resolutions of impeachment--hey, they're coming--are also debates about people. I'm hoping that one of my debaters will be the first in America to run this for our new president, but someone surely will.
(Here's my suggested intro: I want to begin by putting my cards on the table. I'm a committed partisan, a Democrat since way back in high school, and I believe that it is to my party's advantage to retain Donald Trump as president because that makes him the face of the Republican party. But I think parties and partisans ought to set aside their own narrow interests and do what's right for the country. And that's why the President's violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause justify this resolution to impeach.)
One could also use resolutions to remove lower-rung people from the executive branch. (Cough--Bannon.)
Anyway, Congress kids are a deeply conservative bunch in terms of the activity. To some extent that's a good thing. We're still comparatively light on jargon, though I heard the word "counterplan" three or four times recently.
My squad's push to use real legislation as their legislation has gained some national traction over the years, but things like Glenbrooks Finals 2016 still happen: three bills to choose from, all from the NSDA November packet, but none with an Expert Solvency Advocate, meaning that all anyone had to do to win for the negative (from my paleo-policy perspective) was to ask, as the 2nd place finisher on my parli ballot did, "Notice how no one proposing that we pass this legislation can point to a single outside source saying we should do it?"
So if Debates about People are going to be a thing, it'll have to come from tournament-provided out-round legislation. If anyone's listening at Sunvitational, Emory, or Harvard, I wouldn't mind you running with this idea.
If anyone knows those folks, and they happen to ask you for ideas, maybe steer them here?
________________________________
I'd take this even further, honestly. We could have really interesting debates about naming or renaming post offices after certain important, controversial figures. Or national holidays.
I guess I can admit that this is going too far, but can everyone else admit that it's better than many of the debates we have? And a debate designating the month of May as National Funk Heritage Month would be educational, worthwhile, and fun.
And I'm sure we can find an Expert Solvency Advocate for it somewhere. :)
