Another debate season is coming up! This time, it’s on a larger scale – schools from different places all over California are coming to debate for this topic. This is not your typical debate competition, in which schools from the diocese come; in fact debaters are coming from all over the state to compete. Teams will need to prepare a pro and con side detailing each side of the topic.

A new debate topic has been introduced recently to us – it is the official National Debate Forensics League topic – for teams to debate during the month of April and May. In fact, St. Philip themselves participate in this program.

The resolution is: whether or not US should publicize infrastructure over means-tested welfare in order to alleviate income inequality.

Now this debate topic seems intimidating at first due to the extensive vocabulary, but let’s break it down. In simpler terms, the topic is whether the United States should spend money over infrastructure (examples include roads, bridges, airports) instead of for public services (examples include food stamps, public housing, Medicaid).

The debateable part of the topic is if investing in infrastructure would help to solve the income gap between the rich and the poor. Income inequality is when income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. The income gap has been growing for many years now, which is bad for the economy and needs to be stopped. This is because large income gaps stops economic growth and could potentially harm the people themselves.

So what do you think? Should we spend more on fixing the roads and buildings, for a more modernized, sturdy, and safe America? Or should we focus on the people and respond to their needs first with means-tested welfare?

Even if you do have a response to these questions, how would your choice (to invest in infrastructure or welfare) help solve the problems between the rich and poor?