2025-2026 Policy Topic Rundown (Arctic)

The Resolution for the 2025-2026 Policy Debate season: "The United States federal government should significantly increase its exploration and/or development of the Arctic."

So, why the Arctic matters now

The Arctic is quickly becoming one of the most important regions on the planet. In recent years, this region has become a quick route to natural resource development, shipping, and foreign competition. With many other countries competing for the Arctic, the United States now asks itself a question:

Should exploration or development be increased in the Arctic?

This question will be answered through this post by covering the economy, security, and environment in respect to the Arctic.

What is the Arctic?

When looking at a globe, the arctic may be pretty easy to spot. However, the boundaries of the regions vary by the person or country you ask. With respect to the debate, here are some ways that you can define what the Arctic is if the issue ever comes up or if you just need clarification:

1) The Arctic Circle. This is the scientific way of defining the Arctic. With a latitude line of around 66 34 N, the arctic is considered to sit in the North area of the Arctic circle

2) Political Definition -- the U.S. outlines a definition through their laws such as the Arctic Research and Policy Act.

Affirmative arguments to Expansion/Development

Economic reasons --

The Arctic may hold around 30% of the world's undiscovered natural gas. This simply means that this region is rich in the natural resources that countries want, like the United States. You could have an economy advantage within your aff that has a few key warrants:

1) Revenue -- Taking control of the natural resources would possibly add to total federal government revenue and the states. You could argue that this increase could solve some harms currently seen in the status quo.

2) Jobs -- If you want to expand or develop, you need people. This means jobs need to be created and filled if you want something to get done. You could have a significant impact on the communities, especially in the Arctic, that currently face unemployment.

3) Trade -- Development could include the United States investing infrastructure to cut down on travel time between countries. If the U.S. could trade faster and more efficiently with Europe and Asia, the U.S. would gain power in world trade.

Energy --

While the U.S. can gain profit from the arctic, another idea is energy security.

1) Foreign Oil -- If the United States were to utilize the resources within the Arctic, the need to rely on other countries would decrease. National resilience would increase as being controlled by enemy countries would no longer be the strategy to obtain energy.

2) Renewable options -- Arctic wind and other forms of energy could easily be explored with expansion. This quick and early investment would allow the United States to continue to learn about energy, especially renewable options, when it comes to cold climates.

Military --

The Arctic's benefits and location can create some tensions between other nations. The Arctic has been a geopolitical hot zone for all competing countries.

1) Missiles -- The United States could development radar defense systems to detect any attacks, probably from Russia, a lot quicker than they could now. I suspect that this sort of aff will be run a lot.

2) Presence -- Russia and China are both putting themselves and their technologies within the Arctic. The United States cannot fall behind to these countries or really anyone else. An aff could argue that expansion could just be investment to keep up with enemy countries.

Negative Arguments to Expansion/Development

Environment --

Due to the Arctic's unique setup, the region is very very fragile. It could be argued that any aff plan would absolutely ruin the Arctic and its nature.

1) Oil -- Any technology that would be used within the aff could risk an oil spill. The neg should argue that even one spill could ruin everything and kill the humans and other animals in the area.

2) Wildlife -- There are many animals known for being in the Arctic. It is also known that these wildlife species are already living in harsh conditions, and the aff makes it worse. Polar bears and birds could lose their ecosystem and die if there is any new infrastructure.

Military Tensions --

Again, the Arctic is a sought after place with many countries going after its benefits. A neg could argue that doing anything would be seen as U.S. aggression and hurt relations.

1) Russia -- The country that completely dominates the Arctic right now is Russia. They continue to invest in bases and other technology designed to be only in the Arctic. Russia may see any aff plan as an "anti-russia" plan and retaliate. This risks nuclear war.

2) China -- Russia has befriended China when it comes to Arctic exploration. So the same situation from Russia applies here. Neg says: "Aff plan makes Russia/China made and then they will kill everyone"

Indigenous Communities --

For anything meaningful to happen, the United States most likely will have to go through the people living in the Arctic.

1) Erosion -- Any U.S. involvement at all could lead to a significant disruption of life to the indigenous people. A takeover may destroy lifestyles and traditions native to those communities.

2) Health -- If the aff plan involves drilling, you could argue that health risks will be put onto the natives. You should say that this involvement completely contaminates food and water sources which would harm the people.

3) Won't include -- The main argument from these communities is that they always get little say into what actually happens to there space. A plan to further develop in the arctic could further set the precedent that the country does not care about the people. You should also say that if the aff plan decides that compensation will be given out, development does not actually happen.

Thoughts

Next season will definitely be an interesting one. It makes the teams why opportunity and responsibility. On one hand, the resolution could lead to some serious benefits such as economic growth and national security. While on the other hand, we can expect to see arguments shine a light on the environment, military tensions, and communities in the Arctic.

Any questions can be asked in the comments! Thanks so much for reading.