The topic selec­tion process for LD and CX is well-documented, but the topic selec­tion process for Pub­lic Forum has been a mys­tery to most of us. In Octo­ber, PFde­bate approached NFL Execuive-Secretary Scott Wunn for an inter­view about the topic selec­tion process and learned that changes were in the works. Mr. Wunn answered ques­tions via email from PFdebate’s Bob Jor­dan. From the inter­view, we gleaned some insight into the exist­ing process and learned a lit­tle bit about the new topic selec­tion process that is fully explained in the Decem­ber 2005 issue of The Ros­trum.

PFde­bate would like to thank Mr. Wunn for tak­ing time from his busy sched­ule to grant us this interview.

PFde­bate: How are Pub­lic Forum Debate top­ics cur­rently chosen?

Scott Wunn: Two years ago, a national topic rec­om­men­da­tion com­mit­tee of 7 was appointed by Pres­i­dent Tate to assist the Exec­u­tive Sec­re­tary in writ­ing and select­ing the Pub­lic Forum top­ics. Ulti­mately, the National Office deter­mined all top­ics, but took into con­sid­er­a­tion the rec­om­men­da­tions of the committee.

PFde­bate: We have been told that a new topic selec­tion process for Pub­lic Forum Debate is being imple­mented. Can you describe the new procedure?

Scott Wunn: Pres­i­dent Tate will select a com­mit­tee of 6 and 1 chair to write and rec­om­mend res­o­lu­tions on a monthly basis. The NFL will solicit topic ideas through its web­site that the com­mit­tee will use as a guide for pos­si­ble areas. Once the com­mit­tee has agreed on a rec­om­mended res­o­lu­tion for the next month. The chair of the com­mit­tee will bring the topic for each month for­ward to the Exec­u­tive Sec­re­tary for approval. The Exec­u­tive Sec­re­tary can approve the res­o­lu­tion or send it back for revi­sion. This first year, 3 mem­bers will serve 1½ year terms on the com­mit­tee, and 3 will serve 2½ year terms as this process will begin for the 2006 Feb­ru­ary Topic. The Chair will serve for 2½ years. This will allow a solid rota­tion of old and new mem­bers. The Pub­lic Forum Rec­om­men­da­tion Com­mit­tee that met at the National Tour­na­ment (dif­fer­ent than word­ing rec­om­men­da­tion com­mit­tee) also rec­om­mended a series of topic areas. These topic areas will serve as a guide for the future.

PFde­bate: Are any Pub­lic Forum top­ics or topic areas selected because of NFL sponsorships?

Scott Wunn: There has been no spe­cific spon­sor­ship of a spe­cific topic on any spe­cific month. How­ever, since the top­ics for Pub­lic Forum are to be “ripped from the head­lines” so to speak, some top­ics have been both timely and fit into some National Initiatives.

For exam­ple, in Octo­ber of 2005, the topic was on the United Nation’s role in stop­ping ter­ror­ism. This allowed NFL schools to use this topic to par­tic­i­pate in the NFL’s Peo­ple Speak Pub­lic Debate Pro­gram in con­junc­tion with the UN Foun­da­tion more easily.

PFde­bate: Has there been a con­sid­er­a­tion to using bi-monthly top­ics like LD or is the mem­ber­ship happy with the monthly topics?

Scott Wunn: It was dis­cussed by the rec­om­men­da­tion com­mit­tee and deter­mined that monthly top­ics were the best for the event.

PFde­bate: Some of the neg­a­tive feed­back we have heard from Pub­lic Forum par­tic­i­pants involves the word­ing of spe­cific top­ics and not the choice of topic areas. For exam­ple, there is a lot of hand wring­ing with the Octo­ber 2005 topic (UN & Ter­ror­ism) over the phrase “lead and direct the fight against ter­ror­ism” because it is not found in the topic lit­er­a­ture. How much time and effort goes into review­ing the lit­er­a­ture sur­round­ing a spe­cific Pub­lic Forum topic before the word­ing is selected?

Scott Wunn: I can say that the word­ing com­mit­tee has worked hard to inves­ti­gate the topic areas. Writ­ing these top­ics is dif­fi­cult and there are always peo­ple that see another ver­sion that may be bet­ter. In gen­eral, I have been quite pleased with the work of the word­ing group. How­ever, we are cre­at­ing this spe­cial­ized group that will spend even more time on it to try to pro­duce the best top­ics possible.

PFde­bate: How dif­fi­cult is it to find and con­struct top­ics that are “ripped from the head­lines” that still plenty of defen­si­ble ground for both the Pro and Con sides?

Scott Wunn: The caveat is that they have to be “ripped from the head­lines” yet last for 90 days. So they are not truly “ripped from the head­lines”, but are top­ics that are pretty timely and have cur­rent lit­er­a­ture that can be eas­ily found.

PFde­bate: As you noted, top­ics need to last for 90 days. You want some­thing fresh, but not so fresh that it is obscure. Are there any top­ics that are “too timely”? Have you ever had to change a topic at the last minute because the cho­sen topic was no longer suitable?

Scott Wunn: We have never had to change a topic. In fact, we once had the Los­ing the War on Ter­ror topic and right before the month of the topic began, Sadaam was caught. Many peo­ple emailed us that it should be changed. The truth was that it made the topic really debat­able. If any­thing, cur­rent changes have pro­duced bet­ter topics.

The rec­om­men­da­tion com­mit­tee at Nation­als did an excel­lent job of pro­vid­ing thoughts on topic selec­tion for the future. The new com­mit­tee will cer­tainly do its best to pro­vide the best wording.