Topic Analysis: Rewilding
Overview
The 2025 November/December LD resolution is “Resolved: The United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land.”
What Is Rewilding?
Explanation
Rewilding is an environmental approach that restores ecosystems by allowing natural processes to reclaim land, often through habitat restoration, species reintroduction, and reduced human intervention. In the U.S., this could include restoring native grasslands, reconnecting wildlife corridors, or reintroducing keystone species like wolves or bison.
The phrase “substantial tracts of land” is intentionally vague, creating key ground for debates over scale, feasibility, and impact.
What Does “Ought” Mean?
Explanation
Because the resolution uses “ought,” most debates will be framed in moral or ethical terms. Common frameworks include:
Utilitarianism, emphasizing climate mitigation and ecosystem services
Environmental ethics, including intrinsic value of nature
Intergenerational justice, focusing on obligations to future generations
Rights-based frameworks, weighing human rights against ecological preservation
AFF Arguments
Advantages
Biodiversity: Affirmatives often argue that rewilding is necessary to halt biodiversity loss. Ecosystem degradation threatens food systems, climate stability, and species survival. Rewilding restores ecological balance, making it a morally required response to environmental crisis.
Climate Change: Rewilded lands act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO₂ through forests, wetlands, and grasslands. From a consequentialist perspective, rewilding reduces long-term climate harms and prevents catastrophic future impacts, outweighing short-term disruptions.
NEG Arguments
Disadvantages
Displacement: Large-scale rewilding can displace rural, Indigenous, or agricultural communities. Negatives argue that environmental goals should not override human livelihoods or cultural ties to land, especially without consent.
Food Security: Rewilding substantial tracts of land may reduce agricultural output, raise food prices, or harm local economies. Critics argue that justice requires balancing environmental protection with economic stability.
Points of Clash
This topic often turns on competing visions of justice:
Anthropocentric vs. ecocentric ethics
Whether collective environmental goods outweigh localized harms
If moral obligations to nature can justify limiting human land use
Strategic Angles
Tips
Affirmatives should specify safeguards to prevent displacement and injustice
Negatives should avoid sounding anti-environment and focus on human-centered justice claims
Clarify what “substantial” means to control scope and impacts
Weigh short-term harms against long-term existential risks
