Adrienne Wang — June 9, 2026
Following the release of the new Public Forum topic, “Resolved: The United States is justified in using force to remove authoritarian leaders from power,” for the 2026 National Speech and Debate Tournament, debaters ought to focus on how to frame the resolution, as well as the empirical record of foreign intervention. The arguments across both sides center around international relations, delving into war ethics, laws, and more.
To begin, it is important to examine the terms and wording of the topic. “The United States” refers to the nation’s federal government, and its use of force would be practically guaranteed to be military force according to common consensus in international law. “Authoritarian leaders” is also fairly straightforward, denoting leadership that holds as much control and power as possible, often at the expense of others in order to enforce compliance. On the other hand, the word “justified” can be significant for how rounds play out depending on how it is used. If following legal baselines, Article 2(4) of the U.N. charter substantiates that it is prohibited for states to deploy armed forces against another state. However, there are exceptions to this when noting Article 51, which establishes that force is allowed in the case of self defense. This means that the U.S. is only warranted to act against authoritarians when it meets these requirements. Conversely, if debaters were to look at lexical definitions, “justified” would simply mean to show reasonable and acceptable basis. As a result, debates can be expected to be far more vague and shift into what kind of values should be upheld for the U.S.
On the Affirmative, there is a lot of argumentative freedom. Hypothetically, debaters might even take the stance that the use of force against a domestic leader is justified, considering that there is a lack of specification in the resolution. Nonetheless, this would be unstrategic considering the “United States” as an actor would technically not be acting on someone else, and judges may view it untopical. The strongest cases should be built upon a conditional use of force, lying on the idea that there is a moral imperative to protect people if they face harm and the military is necessary to achieve this goal. Examples of this include Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain. Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, was known for violently suppressing protests and funding terrorist organizations, and Hussain was a dictator in Iraq, who committed the genocide of the country’s Kurdish population and various other crimes against humanity. In both of these cases, the pro team should argue that intervention is acceptable when human rights are explicitly being violated, emphasizing the United States has exceptional capabilities to combat these atrocities. This can also tie into the notion of reconstruction in order to promote democracy for states. Debaters can defend that democratic regimes would arise with the correct conditions, which would cause less armed conflict and war under the democratic peace theory. Absent these peaceful environments, there posits potential for existential threats. The “axis of authoritarian states,” known as the nations of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, all pose dangers to the United States with their nuclear weapon programs and their intention to shape the liberal international order.
The Negative should combat the affirmative through leveraging historical records relating to foreign-imposed regime change. Military force employed by the U.S. has often been found to be unsuccessful, and even increased repression and conflict. Notably, out of 28 cases of attempted regime change in the past, only 3 succeeded in democracy prevailing. There were very particular preconditions for the accomplished cases, such as democracy being used previously in the countries, as well as robust economic conditions. Thus, more often than not, American intervention can lead to a power vacuum, where the absence of a leader triggers domestic in-fighting through rebel groups and protests by local populations. This pattern indicates that the use of force by the U.S. may actually do more harm than good, with empirical evidence to back it up. Accordingly, the con teams should turn the pro’s arguments. They should weigh that although the country’s military can remove authoritarian leaders, they do not produce institutional stability and instead create more ruthless outcomes. Along with this, there would also be the possibility of war, high costs, and more deaths. Afghanistan is a prime instance of this. The U.S. intervened with the hopes of nation building and eradicating terrorism, namely Taliban leadership, but it ended up costing them $2.261 trillion, and tens of thousands of lives. The negative has an advantage in terms of data historically, and debaters must press on the idea that when force is used, democracy will fail and blowback is sure to happen.
Overall, the resolution takes into account the role of the U.S. in foreign policy, considering what the nation ought to do, or ought not to do. It is crucial for debaters to focus on weighing impacts and what values should be prioritized in the status quo. Uniquely, because this topic is for the national tournament, assessing studies relating to diplomatic relations and empirical cases of military force is especially beneficial. Acknowledging arguments in order to bring up your own is the best strategy in this case, and with the abundance of evidence encompassing international affairs, each debate can be different.
Read more here:
