I was recently chatting with the child of a friend about how school was going. I learned this young person was in the debate club, which excited me. I debated in high school, and enjoyed it a lot. I asked what the current debate topic is, and was interested to find what was being debated:
Resolved: The state of North Carolina should offer targeted tax incentives to businesses that relocate major parts of their operations to North Carolina.
I was, of course, happy to see such a topic (whereas my friend’s child was not terribly excited, but thought the question was boring). It has made me think not only about this particular question, but about why it is a good debate question. An excellent debate topic has no correct answer. Rather, it forces the contestants to set up a framework for judging the statement. It requires contestants to explicitly state different objectives that society may value, and explain how trade-offs are made. How do we trade-off the (potential) help to the unemployed in North Carolina and the existing land owners, to the (potential) costs to some current employers and future land purchasers? It also requires participants to see the deeper questions in what seem like technical and empirical questions. Yes, it matters whether economics research has determined that tax incentives can bring new businesses, at what cost, and so on. But, it also matters what one believes the role of the state is, what the objective of tax law should be, what are the fundamental limitations of a democracy where money can translate to votes, who the state is designed to benefit, etc. It is a good debate question because it requires some technical knowledge in a very applied economics sense, but layered on top are broader philosophical and political questions. Like most tax-related issues, it is much more interesting, nuanced, and exciting than at first meets the eye (despite what my friend’s child thinks).
