I think that the argument is probably that the body modification/queer/manipulation arguments would be able to be better fleshed out in a round versus the "traditional" arguments that you metnion Antonucci in Biopower. Those debates often become about abstract things totally unrelated to the arguments in the original K. ie with your example of biopower it often becomes about heg or realism, and probably not in the community now like it was a few years ago. The arguments made against Nietzsche, butler, heidegger are much more nuanced arguments and curtailed against the specific argument. I tend to think that Johns interpretation of what kind of resolution a K team might like is dependent on the K team. I think that there are teams that are more down the middle that would love the policy resolution because they are rolling generic big IR K's or generic Nuke K's but the teams like OU CJ, Wayne FM, NW BM were reading very specific K's that would have been read at either end of the spectrum. My interpretation of specific is in regards to the resolution and ideas being debate as opposed to the specific case. Maybe Gabe and Matt are a bad example because they were reading a lot of generic Zizek arguments but Gabe on the courts topic was reading some pretty specific arguments. However a more straight up team that is reading the K like Dartmouth CS was probably were enjoying a more right leaning resolution. Either way the statements that you are making are true Antonucci no matter which way the resolution leans K teams will read the K. Resolutions are not generally crafted for exlcusion purposes and I dont think that is the case here. I do think that the crafters of the "taboo" topic probably think that they wrote in some inclusion for their specific squads but exclusion was probably not anything that they had in mind.
On the question of the topic;
I think that Chris is right the nuclear topic that JYeates sub is by far and away the best. Working in a framework where your preference of papers is decided based on persuasion of arguments presented in the paper for what would create the best resolution, this is true. The arguments made in the paper are by far the most persuasive. The arguments about the timing of the resolution, the longevity of the impact of the resolution, and the "living" factor with the resolution changing throughout the year are great. To call bring greater attention to one argument that the resolution would change throughout the year is probably the most convincing. The topic is formed, framed, and picked to ensure the best education for the community, in theory. By the time the NDT rolls around the topics are generally pretty stale save a few teams breaking new at the NDT or districts in rare cases. This makes for a great change from first semester to second which would exponentially increase the educational breadth of the topic, I would think.