Conch: Competitive Debate Analysis via Visualizing Clash Points and Hierarchical Strategies
Affirmative Side: This House Believes That Housing Is a Guaranteed Right
Negative Side: This House Does not Believe That Housing Is a Guaranteed Right
Interpretation of the motion
Debate framing
They argue about how to set the debate's boundaries.
(Aff) broad: interpretation is inclusive.
(Neg) strict: interpretation is literal.
Motion scope
They debate how far the motion should extend.
(Aff) ideal: focuses on what ought to be.
(Neg) actual: insists on present reality.
Moral lens
They argue whether moral perspective supersedes factual constraints.
(Aff) essential: sees guaranteed housing as crucial.
(Neg) fake: sees the moral claim as unreal in practice.
Pragmatism vs. Principle
Human dignity
They discuss housing as a core human right.
(Aff) mandatory: sees it as absolutely required.
(Neg) hollow: sees it as an empty promise.
Realism
They debate the feasibility of guaranteeing housing.
(Aff) tangible: claims concrete benefits can happen.
(Neg) false: sees these guarantees as untrue.
Implementation
They weigh moral declarations against real enforcement.
(Aff) uplift: expects it to improve lives.
(Neg) stall: fears it halts real progress.
Burden of proof
Proof standard
They argue what must be shown to affirm the motion.
(Aff) affirm: tries to confirm moral correctness.
(Neg) deny: requires disproof of the real status.
Reality check
They question if the statement matches today's world.
(Aff) expand: broadens the scope beyond present times.
(Neg) dismiss: rejects idea not seen in reality.
Role of government policies
Policy influence
They debate if beliefs drive policy shifts.
(Aff) push: claims such beliefs spur action.
(Neg) fail: says outcomes often fall short.
Government reach
They examine how states can support or hurt housing rights.
(Aff) enable: sees government as a facilitator.
(Neg) abuse: sees government forcibly removing homes.
Nature of a 'moral society'
Moral baseline
They define moral imperatives about housing.
(Aff) dignify: affirms upholding dignity.
(Neg) ignore: insists real needs go overlooked.
Ethical identity
They discuss if a moral society prioritizes guaranteed housing.
(Aff) unite: says it brings people together.
(Neg) doubt: doubts uniform moral consensus.
Benefits to the unhoused
Homeless support
They highlight immediate help for unhoused individuals.
(Aff) safety: sees stable protection.
(Neg) danger: warns of failings in reality.
Refugee crisis
They examine forced displacement and global housing issues.
(Aff) care: calls for compassionate acceptance.
(Neg) block: points out states' refusal.
Session 1
DEBATER A1
Benefits to the unhoused
Okay, is everybody ready? Awesome. When Americans think of January 6th, they think of the insurrection in our nation's capital. But for millions of individuals in Los Angeles, that date has an entirely different meaning. On January 6th of this year, our home of Los Angeles implemented an anti-camping ordinance that prevents the unhoused from sleeping, camping, and functionally existing in public spaces. It is because we on Team West Los Angeles Violet have firsthand seen the devastating impacts of not having housing as a guaranteed right that we are so proud to stand on the proposition of this motion. This house believes that housing is a guaranteed right.
DEBATER A1
Interpretation of the motion
Debate framing:broad
Role of government policies
Policy influence:push
Just two things in this speech. First, some framing observations to contextualize this debate for you, and then second, introducing our first two substantive arguments, my partner Sanju will introduce the third. But before that, a couple of key clarifications on framing just down the bench here. Firstly, we would define this house as a moral society. Second, given this is a belief motion, this isn't a debate on the specific policy action. It's a debate on whether or not we believe taking policy action broadly in the first place is a good belief. Third, if we're talking about guaranteeing housing, we're talking about guaranteeing adequate housing. Obviously, if the motion were this house believes that food is a guaranteed right, we would be defending guaranteeing adequate food and not just leftovers out of a trash bin. Fourth, beliefs have consequences. We're willing to concede that this house as a belief that housing is a guaranteed right isn't going to automatically solve the global housing crisis, but what we do think stems from this societal belief is twofold. First, there's a galvanization of increased capital, resources, and support for the organizations doing the on-the-ground work to solve the housing crisis in the status quo when society adopts this belief. But second, policymakers are realists in nature. That is to say, they are responsible and responsive to what society believes. Thus, in the long term, the dispersion of beliefs that in broader society we are able to think of these people as humans spurs political, economic, ideological, and even practical change.
DEBATER A1
Pragmatism vs. Principle
Human dignity:mandatory
Nature of a 'moral society'
Moral baseline:dignify
Substantive one, then, is the principle of human dignity. The thesis of this argument is that housing is fundamentally a human right and we therefore believe that it is a guaranteed one. Why is that necessarily true? Firstly, we think that basic necessities are key tenets of well-being and life and are definitively also human rights. It's the same reason why things like food, water, basic autonomy, and free thought, and so on and so forth, are principally core standards that constitute human life as opposed to inanimate or wildlife. Secondly, the social definition of human has always concerned communal relationships. That is to say, in order to have safety and dignity, one must not be ostracized and coercively isolated by the rest of society. It's morally repugnant and inhumane to banish certain people as outcasts simply because they don't live in a decent manner enough as society would like them to. Thirdly, housing is instrumental to human self-dignity and self-concept. Our homes are primary aspects of our identity and they serve as a materialization of our place in society. At that point, we predicate much of our perceptive value on them. Fourthly, though, the material disparities between unhoused people and the rest of society. Housing is central and foundational to the things that we have like education, health care, food, water, and sanitation, so on and so forth. That is to say, the sheer level of injustice and discrimination that unequal access to housing upholds is a form of structural violence against human beings. Why then does something being a human right necessarily mean that we think it should be a guaranteed one? We think this is fairly straightforward. Firstly, given we have just mechanized housing as a human right, that means this house believes that every human should pragmatically have access to a home. There's no other way to facilitate that than by guaranteeing it. Secondly, we would say on a basic definitional level, a human right is largely synonymous with a guaranteed one at the point at which each describes a set of standards and protections applicable to all humans simply because of their existence as humans. What are the impacts here? The principal mechanization operates on a higher plane, a priori, to the practical. That is to say, it doesn't matter what you end up believing about the pragmatic feasibility of this motion. The declaration of housing as a guaranteed right is principally good in and of itself, and at the point at which housing propagates inhumane structural disparities and deprives many of self-concept and worth, we are very proud of that, but you seem to disagree.
DEBATER A1
Burden of proof
Proof standard:affirm
Okay, is there a difference between acknowledging a right and guaranteeing a right? Okay, here's what we're going to tell you. We're going to tell you that first of all, when society writ large acknowledges a right, that makes it easier practically to guarantee that right because society influences policymakers. That leads to a whole slew of practical impacts, but that being said, let's go ahead and talk about those impacts.
DEBATER A1
Benefits to the unhoused
Homeless support:safety
Substantive two is benefits to the unhoused. The thesis of this argument is simple but incredibly important. Lacking shelter threatens the immediate safety but also the long-term livelihood of all of those who are unhoused. Four key layers of analysis under this argument. The first layer here is safety and health. We would characterize that on a very intuitive level, not having the protection of four walls around you makes you physically vulnerable to compromised health and bodily safety due to things like harsh weather conditions. We think that looks like an increased risk of dehydration due to excessive heat, of hypothermia due to paralyzing cold, and severe illness due to a lack of sanitary protection. We'd ask you to imagine Chicago, the coldest winter ever, without a home to seek warmth in. The second layer here is about abuse of households. In a domestically violent relationship, the abuser isolates their victims from their support network, their family, their friends, and essentially anyone who can give them the resources to escape. Insofar as the abuser typically has complete financial control of their victims and requires those finances, victims of domestic violence who leave the abusive relationship often end up unhoused. However, the status of how we treat the unhoused in the status quo is so unlivable that we see individuals being deterred from escaping those situations and being forced to stay in those abusive relationships. We fundamentally believe that in cases like these, accessibility to housing is a necessary mechanism for escaping abusive households. Our side of the house would guarantee these survivors a form of safe escape, but before I move on to our third layer here, I'll go ahead and take a point.
DEBATER A1
Interpretation of the motion
Burden of proof
Reality check:expand
If all of these issues exist in the status quo, how can we say that housing is right now a guaranteed right? Okay, we think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of motion. We're going to get into this later. I think Sonja is actually frontlining those responses, but the key issue here is this motion is not whether or not housing is guaranteed in the status quo. Obviously, we're not arguing that as a truism given that it isn't guaranteed in the status quo. What we're arguing is if we believe it would be a good thing for it to be guaranteed, that's really what this round is about. That's going to be key as we go down the bench.
DEBATER A1
Benefits to the unhoused
Homeless support:safety
Third layer of a substantive here is the unhoused to jail pipeline. Firstly, unhoused people are disproportionately antagonized as a result of governments criminalizing actions that are necessary for unhoused individuals to survive day-to-day life. That looks like city ordinances against loitering if someone sleeps in a park or trespassing. That looks like law enforcement over-policing the unhoused. That looks like 25% of the unhoused being subject to this state sanctioned violence. Secondly, this also implicates socioeconomic mobility at the point at which jail time is the most automatic turnoff for employers when hiring.
DEBATER A1
Benefits to the unhoused
Homeless support:safety
The fourth and final layer here concerns socioeconomic mobility. A lack of housing often makes it impossible for the unhoused people to forge their own lives and they permanently become entrenched in socioeconomic immobility. Why is that necessarily true? Firstly, note that the massively widespread social stigma against unhoused people means that society runs rampant with negative perceptions, commonly including things like uncleanliness, inhumanity, laziness, and many horrendous biases. That's why roughly half of Americans attribute homelessness to people who have a lack of will or why there have been nearly 2,000 violent attacks against them by people who are housed in the past two decades. But even if not everyone shares those beliefs to such extremes, these implicit biases largely blanket society and fester between the cracks of the foundation.
DEBATER A1
Pragmatism vs. Principle
Realism:tangible
Role of government policies
What exactly is our comparative then? On our side of the house, we broadly get society to declare housing as a guaranteed right. Now ultimately, panel, all of West Los Angeles violent would love to live in opposition's perfect world where we fly back to LA and suddenly have no issues with the housing crisis. But because we don't ameliorate themselves without the type of societal paradigm shifts that our side of the house fosters, we are so incredibly proud to propose.
DEBATER A1
The chair thanks the proposition for their perspective on this issue and now invites the first opposition speaker to present their viewpoint.