Debate Topic: the Employee Free Choice Act

Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interest of the American people.

This is the April Public Forum Topic that the Hunter team will be debating at the State Championship. I can be of little help to them on this topic since I know nothing abut the Employee Free Choice Act. What’s worse, the Act has been made into law yet, it’s still only a bill working it’s still only a lonely bill. It’s too bad whoever wrote this resolution hadn’t remembered their Schoolhouse Rock! The topic would be better had it been worded something like: “Resolved that the proposed Employee Choice Act off 2009 should be made into law.” But, anyway, griping about whoever writes these topics doesn’t get us very far.

The Act is meant to make it easier for worked to organize into unions or join existing unions. So, obviously, if you think unions are a good thing for the American people and you think this Act work as it is intended, you’d probably want to be on the “pro” side of this debate. If you’re not a fan of unions or think there’s something in this bill that misses the mark, then you’d want to go “con.” My prejudice is in favor of unions, but it’s obvious that unions haven’t always best served the interest of American workers let along the general public. I know very little about the specifics of this particular bill, nor am I likely to have enough time to learn about them, but for the sake of argument, I am going to assume the bill really would make it easier for workers to join unions.

One of the Hunter debaters found a commentator who suggested the following:

“Specific to the resolution, the pro team cannot argue that the Employee Free Choice Act is good; this is not an “on balance” topic in which one must automatically use a cost-benefit analysis.  The burden is on the pro to prove that EFCA is the most effective legislation possible in regards to achieving their intentions; it cannot just have a benefit on balance but must be the best possible.  While I wouldn’t come out and say up front that the pro must prove that every part of the bill is effective, I would definitely hold them to that throughout the round.  With this in mind, if you can trap your opponents into admitting that a particular part of the bill is not beneficial or you efficiently prove that then EFCA does not serve in the best interest of the American people.  If your opponents try to contend this, then just ask them if they think the that interest of the American people is to pass the most advantageous legislation not just something that would (arguably) work.  Debating through this framework gives the con a little leeway so they can win rounds through many different ways.  Legitimate con wins consist of proving that each individual part of EFCA doesn’t work or is not in the best interests of the American people and that one part of the bill is either detrimental or not the most beneficial.  While I will never suggest conceding a point, if it comes down to it and you are losing a point, it will not be that bad to admit it.  Even if said point is beneficial, the pro team must show benefits of all portions of the bill and they haven’t when looking to con argument x.”

Someone was likely paid to write that and some unsuspecting debaters probably even paid to read it, though I hope none of the Hunter kids would spend their money so unwisely.   How this commentator reached these conclusions is beyond me.

Here are some of the things wrong with what this commentator has said:

1. The topic asks whether the EFCA “serves the best interest of the American people, not whether it “best serves the interest of the American people.”  It’s important to look where the superlative was placed in this sentence.  The commentor claims that the topic puts on pro the burden of  showing the EFCA “is the most effective legislation possible in regards to achieving their intentions.”   Since in the topic  “best” is being used as an adjective to modify “interest” and not as an adverb to modify “serve,” our commentator is simply wrong.   The pro simply need to prove that the act serves the best interest of the people, not that it is the mos effective legislation Congress might have come up with to reach its goals.
2. Even if accepted our commentator’s dyslexic reading of the topic, though, his claim that pro would have to prove the EFCA must be the “best possible” legislation.  The pro side can’t possibly be under a burden of knowing all the other potential laws that might have been passed.  This is particularly true given how hard it would be to prove, given that the law hasn’t even been passed, whether some other law would have been able to get the support of Congress, the President and survived eventual scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
3. Our commentator goes on to claim that: “While I wouldn’t come out and say up front that the pro must prove that every part of the bill is effective, I would definitely hold them to that throughout the round.”  How’s that?  Our commentator won’t come right out say that the pro must prove every part of the law effective, but will nonetheless would hold them to that standard throughout the round?  At least our commentator is half right: the con should not come right out and say that “the pro must prove that every part of the bill is effective.”   However, if know that this is something the con shouldn’t say, then it would be silly to go on and debate as if you’d said it.  Unless the con can find a provision in the EFCA that would make the law, on balance,  harmful to the best interest of the American people, the pro can win the debate despite admitting that every clause in the bill that will eventually be passed will necessrily be perfect.
4. Our commentator also says that he or she “will never suggest conceding a point,” which is unfortunate since in many debates there are numerous points that both sides ought to concede to one another.

There are more problems with what our commentator has to say, but the most important thing to note is that this is a topic that can be debates using traditional cost benefit analysis.