Info: For this motion, assume that we are unaware of the intention and motive of said extraterrestrials to come to Earth; however, we are aware that they possess technology that is incomprehensibly advanced for humans. Also, assume that only the governments of the mentioned leading countries have confirmed knowledge of the presence of this extraterrestrial life.

Info: This is a general motion and applies to all democratic countries that don’t already have strict caps on maximum electoral spending, including the USA, Pakistan, and many others. Teams are advised to contextualize what a significant cap on maximum electoral spending looks like and analyze the impact of uncontrolled, undisclosed, and opaque political finance on democracies against the beneficial outcomes of increased political spending, which include increased interest and awareness of political issues.

Info: Electric vehicles are often criticized for having an extremely large carbon footprint due to the environmentally polluting mining process used to make electric batteries. However, they do on average produce lower emissions over their driven life when compared to a traditional internal combustion engine. This debate explores whether the promise of EVs as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional cars is worth subsidizing by governments all around the world. (Note: Google what ‘Subsidy’ means)

Info: Enhanced Games are a set of proposed international sporting events where athletes are not tested for performance-enhancing drugs. These games are scheduled to take place annually, with the first edition planned for 2025. Teams are encouraged to explore possible benefits of sporting events that push the envelope of what is physically and mentally possible and weigh those benefits with the risk of both the use and abuse of performance-enhancing drugs. For this debate assume that the Enhanced Games do not do any sort of drug screenings or checks on participating athletes.

Info: This debate requires teams to examine the benefits of adjudicators (who have a background in parliamentary debates) vs an average well-informed audience member being responsible for deciding the winner. Teams are encouraged to examine how this motion may impact all aspects of debating, such as operational difficulty, improved outreach, and feedback for current debaters, among many other things. Proposition teams are encouraged to propose one concrete policy. They are welcome to explore many options including a simple majority audience vote, or a % change in voting preferences that requires a vote on the motion at the start of each match and once again after each match. Each policy has its own merits and demits - However, the key objective for both teams is to ensure the best possible outcomes for debates as a whole and participating debaters.