List of some serious cases Dan has run, or been faced with at tournaments.

Opp/choice budget/econ cases: 

• opp/choice, you have to defend either farm subsides or the electoral college, we'll have to defend the other

• Bring back Gramm-Rudman

• Bring back the line item veto (one opp: there’s been a big flap about this being unconstitutional)

• Implement “pay-go” budget rules, requiring that new tax cuts or new spending increases either (a) pass Congress with a supermajority 60% vote, or (b) be offset by other revenue increases, such that the total package is revenue-neutral. 

• Give the president unrestricted power to impound money (i.e., refuse to spend money authorized by Congress – the funds in question revert back to the general treasury)

• Use zero-based budgeting, so the baseline is the previous years’ budget, instead of incorporating “automatic” increases

• Sunset clause on new federal programs… they automatically disband every 10 years unless Congress votes to renew them (the side proposing this would probably say it would best be implemented by using a commission to assess the merits of each program)

• Each year, the final federal budget must be approved by national referendum. (If the budget’s voted down, then federal spending continues at previous years’ levels until a budget is ultimately approved. New referenda will be held every three months until the budget passes.)

• Eliminate earmarks

• Eliminate farm subsidies

• Eliminate all corporate subsidies, unless the U.S. is in a formal state of war

• Eliminate all tariffs, with the exception of allowing corrective tariffs to be imposed in specific sectors, against specific countries, where the WTO has found these other countries to be engaging in unfair trade practices

• Eliminate tolls on roads

• Introduce a value-added tax

• Bring back the estate tax

• Introduce a new income tax bracket that covers everyone from the lowest existing bracket downwards, something like 0.01% with a minimum income tax level of $1. (The rationale for this is that it makes everyone recognize that government money doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, make everyone share in the experience of taxpaying even if only a nominal amount, everyone’s part of the social contract and philosophically should give as well as receive. Narrative of the American experience, baby.) (main opps: (a) This is inefficient inasmuch as the bureaucratic costs will exceed the revenues collected. (b) For the very poor, the government will just be getting back some of the money it gave them in the first place, making the whole exercise fundamentally silly.)(quasi-tight case): 

• Redo the 1986 tax reform, through a new round of closing loopholes, while cutting corporate income taxes to the same extent, for a revenue-neutral piece of legislation.

• Introduce private accounts as part of the existing Social Security system

• Opp/choice, eliminate the penny?- Tradition vs. utility  

• Opp/choice, if the holder of an active patent refuses to grant a license, the rejected would-be licensee should be allowed to appeal to a commission that assesses the situation and has the power to force the patent holder to grant a license at a fair price (percentage of profits). The benefit to this would be that it prevents people from irrationally just sitting on their patents, preventing some good idea from being utilized for 17 years. This isn’t like eminent domain, where there’s the problem of forced buyouts at unfairly low prices. Since it’s a license, with a percent of profits, the patent holder can’t be ripped off. Dad says that The SCOTUS is hearing oral argument on effectively that issue on March 29. Question of: whether an injunction is mandatory in patent cases (if it's not, there would be a forced license) http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/03/ebay_v_mercexch.html  

• Opp/choice, criminalize the theft of MMORPG objects (and related unethical behavior)?  

• Opp/choice, you’re Blizzard (a company running a MMORPG). Should you allow players to purchase in-game items and upgrades for real-world money? (currently not allowed)- key issue: If you allow this, you’d have to limit the supply of in-game money to prevent rampant inflation- this is obviously unhealthy, it encourages people to spend money they need for real items on fake stuff. Dystopia: future society that’s virtual, no human interaction, no real relationships, birthrate collapses, etc.- response: as long as it provides happiness, so what?- It’s a Pareto-optimal exchange. Everyone’s happy, both the customer and Blizzard.- Response: no, the “honest” gamers are made unhappy.- Obvious pro: Blizzard makes more money- Response: no, “honest” gamers quit in frustration. All their time and effort is nullified the cheap way with a few mouse clicks.- Low-impact pro: Decreases incentive for hackers to try to crack Blizzard’s system and pump up their characters (currently the only way for that to happen).- If you do this, you’ll then be effectively imposing a flat tax on your customers’ income (in the form of the monthly fee).  A related issue would be, should Blizzard fix the total money supply, or allow it to gradually expand (status quo) through repeatable quests, etc.  

• Opp/choice, the situation’s like the one in Alien where there’s a dangerous alien loose on a spaceship adrift in deep space. Eight people are aboard the ship. We’ll take turns drafting them until each of us has a team of 4, and the case will be which team has the better chance of surviving. (similar to the basketball case… there’s the MO and MG, plus six others… only I’m inclined to say that the six others should be really pathetic, underpowered people who don’t have a chance in hell of surviving, like Winnie the Pooh. Maybe put in two strong people so each team has a leader.)  

• Opp/choice time/space, the mayor of NYC should have intervened to block the Venezuelan heating oil deal.- It’s only $4 million in savings, can make it up ourselves  

• Opp/choice, Saddam’s son Uday used to brutalize his country’s soccer team, threatening them with torture or death in the event of a loss. You’re the coach of the British national soccer team that’s due to play the Iraqi soccer team, in a 1998 match that will determine which team advances to the World Cup. You know that if the Iraqi team loses, Uday will torture and kill some of them. You know that your team is slightly better and will probably win the game if left to its own devices. Opp/choice, should you throw the game and let the Iraqi team win? THROW THE GAME
  - You will save lives.- You will stop people from being tortured.- Both of these things, a moral obligation to your fellow man, are much, much more important than a soccer game.- If you openly declare that you’re throwing the game and explain why, not only will your players and fans understand, but you’ll have struck a public blow against the evil Iraqi regime, and by shining a spotlight on Uday’s abuses, will hopefully lead human rights abuses to be checked in future.DON’T THROW THE GAME
  - “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” You have a duty to your fans!- You also have a duty to society. British soccer hooligans feel very, very, strongly about this. If you throw the game, they’ll probably riot and torch cities.- You also have a duty to your country (and not only to save its cities from being torched). You’re representing Britain , and responsible for her international prestige, which is in your hands.- And you have a duty to your financial backers. You’re under contract! Save the free market!- And you have a duty to your players.  Your players might not execute your orders even if you give them.- And you have a duty to the sanctity of sporting.- And you have a duty not to appease wrongdoers… it will only incentivize this sort of behavior, on the part of Uday and on the part of other dictatorial regimes.- And you have a duty to yourself. You’re you, and you really want to win this game… the World Cup only comes along every four years, and you might not have another chance. Subpoint: British soccer hooligans! They’ll threaten your personal safety if you lose. At the very least, they’ll have your head / get you sacked from your job, and you’ll never have another chance.- Our positive alternative: There’s always the possibility that we’ll honestly lose the game. That’s clearly the best possible outcome. Why not preserve that possibility? And even if not, life expectancy in Iraq is very low anyway… so there’s a small loss…- Alternative: Launch a commando-style raid to free the athletes, kind of a reverse Munich .  

• Forcibly liposuction an 800-lb Bob, against his protests, as the only way to physically get him out of his house to receive life-saving medical treatment

• For the purposes of drawing legislative districts, prisoners should be counted as residents of their most recent place of residence, instead of the status quo of residents of their prison.- Electoral College already helps out rural regions, this is just another way of doing that- This is where the people actually are… slippery slope to tourists.  

• Give like 5 names of individuals (like the basketball case) and let side opp pick one, I pick another. Who can best escape from the Death Star? (As soon as one escapes, the Death Star explodes, so the stakes are high.)  

• Nonconformism: be an individual, don’t give in to herd behavior  A plane crashes on the U.S./Mexico border. Opp/choice, where should you bury the survivors? Ha ha!! We say, don’t bury the survivors!  

• You’re Ronald Reagan in 1980. The time has come for you to pick a running mate. You’ve narrowed it down to two finalists, both of whom you know would agree to be your veep if asked: George H.W. Bush, your opponent in the primaries; and former President Gerald Ford. Opp/choice, which one do you pick?- Carter’s from the South, you need GHWB to counterbalance his Southernness, Ford’s from Michigan - Ford has baggage – he failed to combat inflation, the #1 problem, he pardoned Nixon, and he’s widely stereotyped as clumsy/stupid- Get the youth vote: “Reagan/Ford” bumper stickers and campaign buttons… with any luck people will think your running mate is Harrison Ford, and then they’ll vote for you for sure (since Star Wars is so awesome)- More gravitas- It’s something new and different- More experience: you’re an actor, need to be viewed as experienced- (People regret their vote against Ford in 1976, he’s well-liked)  

• You’re King Louis XVI of France . It’s late 1777, the American colonists have just defeated Great Britain at Saratoga . You’re facing pressure to enter the war, it’s now or never. Opp/choice, do you enter the war, formally signing a treaty of alliance with the colonists? Or do you continue giving the colonists only very-low-level smuggling assistance?  

• Opp/choice, should the U.S. declare war on Great Britain in 1812?  

• Opp/choice, you’re an average British voter with an open mind, open to persuasion, you could see yourself voting for either Conservative or Labour… vote for Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee in 1945?  

• Opp/choice, should Great Britain attack Gallipoli in 1915? - Even if you accept this is a good strategy, consider the troops that would be carrying it out. Australians. Never won a war, never even fought a war, and they’re all descended from criminals. Are you really going to entrust this campaign to these criminals? We say, leave these hardened ex-cons to their kangaroos and their koalas and their kookaburras and their wallabies and their wombats and their opera houses and their billabongs and their waltzing matildas. Are these the people you trust to fight a crucial military campaign? Oh wait, maybe they’ll be saved by their fellow warriors, the New Zealanders. Don’t even get me started on them. Their national bird is a turd with legs.  

• Opp/choice, you’re Italy in 1915 and have decided to enter WWI. Which side?- reclaim Dalmatia or Nice/Savoy- preexisting treaty commitments

• Opp/choice, you’re Turkey in 1915. Enter WWI on side of Germans, or stay neutral?- German investment, Berlin-to-Baghdad , need German financiers- Stability of regime vs. “Young Turks”  

• Opp/choice, you’re Germany in 1914. Assume that you’ve got two battle plans equally well mapped-out: to attack France first (Schlieffen Plan) or attack Russia first (the elder von Moltke’s plan). Which one do you use?  

• Opp/choice, you’re Germany in 1917. Adopt unrestricted submarine warfare vs. neutral shipping? (i.e., subs fire at any ship they know to be carrying munitions)- achieve war goals vs. bring U.S. into war- U.S. might not enter anyway: Wilson ran as a peace candidate in 1916, and large ethnic German-American population- Even if the U.S. does enter the war, it isn’t really that powerful

• Opp/choice, it’s 1847 or thereabouts. Is it in the U.S. interest to annex Texas ?- Would strengthen slavery, which is morally wrong. Texas is big slave state and will only grow larger.  

• Opp/choice, it’s late 1941, you’re the Japanese leadership. Attack Pearl Harbor ?- Really need oil and resources, can only get them from SE Asia, to conquer SE Asia need to neutralize US fleet- Without oil, would have to end dreams of empire and just content yourself with Korea . Military fact that you can’t continue the China war w/o a new source of oil.  

• Opp/choice, it’s early 1945, you’re General Dwight Eisenhower. Use U.S. troops to capture Berlin/East Germany /western Czechoslovakia , or let the Soviets do it for you?- War weariness: lower casualties are appealing- You’re a general and have an obligation to your soldiers, especially non-American soldiers- Obligation to Commander-in-Chief to win this war, not the next one. Civilian control of the military, remember, and FDR’s shown no interest in this. Look at Yalta .- Also, having a politically divided Germany is probably a good idea given recent history. Why not let the Soviets have a piece.- Weighed against all this is (a) moral imperative: (i) freeing millions of people from the boot of Communist oppression, (ii) staving off the inevitable rapes and brutality by vengeance-crazed Soviet troops against German civilians; (b) giving the U.S. a strategic advantage in the imminent and very foreseeable Cold War.  

• Opp/choice, it’s 1803, you’re Napoleon. Sell the Louisiana Territory ?- On the one hand, you could really use the cash.- On the other hand, the long-term value of this land is quite high. Will be worth even more later.- Yet, you may not be in power for very long, not long enough to accrue those benefits.- Yet, you’re you, a megalomaniac, so of course you think you’ll be in power for a long time. Your son is the “King of Rome ” and so forth.

• Opp/choice, should the intelligence-related line items in the U.S. military budget remain classified and/or hidden?- Secrecy is good- Transparency with public money is also good- Might help reduce waste by allowing us to increase oversight/accountability- On the other hand, most knowledgeable people already know the numbers anyway (or have a good approximation) by ferreting them out. So declassifying would only inform people who aren’t experts.

• Opp/choice, is it in the U.S. interest to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?  

• Time/space to September 2005, right after Hurricane Katrina. Opp/choice, should the residential districts of New Orleans be rebuilt in roughly the same place?

• Opp/choice, should the U.S. sign a U.N. treaty banning the weaponization of space?