To the Forensics Community:
As a member of the NFL Public Forum wording committee, I would like to take a moment to sound an alarm over our deeply flawed topic selection process. As many of you puzzled over the decision to revisit lobbying as a topic (previously debated in January 2007), you almost certainly are not aware of how the NFL arrived at all its 2010 resolutions thus far.
As has been done with increasing frequency in recent years – most recently for the November failed states topic – the NFL Executive Director has sold the topic selection rights to a sponsoring organization. In fact, the rights for the February, March, and April topics have together been sold for the lucrative sum of $150,000. This additional funding for the league is of course wonderful news for our activity. It will be used to enhance the repertoire instructional materials for debate, to expand nfltv.org, and to grant additional scholarships at Nationals. These are significant benefits that must be acknowledged as part of a fair public discourse on the NFL’s topic selling policy.
Currently by rule the NFL Executive Director retains final, sole authority to write Public Forum topics. The wording committee serves in only an advisory capacity and is comprised of coaches who serve at his leisure. Though the Executive Director has in the past deferred almost exclusively to the recommendations of the wording committee in months where there is no sponsor, when topics are sponsored there is very little wording flexibility and no advance input as to topic area.
As a result of this autocratic power of the Executive Director to sell topics, Public Forum is uniquely subjected to the whims of sponsoring organizations, diminishing it in comparison to the other debate events. Certainly the Policy and Lincoln-Douglas community would laugh at the thought of being told – with no advance input – that they were debating a topic selected by a sponsoring organization. They simply wouldn’t hear of it. Even “lowly” Congress isn’t made to debate a packet of legislation selected by the sponsor du jour. Public Forum is being used as the revenue stream because it lacks the respect afforded by longevity or the strength of a well-organized coaching community. Public Forum has been a growth engine for participation in the debate activity, but frustrating its coaches and participating students through second-class status may serve to reverse that trend. Or, with Public Forum showing the revenue potential of topic sales, perhaps soon Lincoln-Douglas and Policy coaches will find themselves under significant pressure from Ripon to accept similar compromises to the integrity of those events.
Nor is this process transparent. We have no idea which potential sponsor organizations are being told yes, which (if any) are being told no, and the rationale behind those decisions. Is there a political or pedagogical agenda behind the selection of certain organizations? I suspect not at this point, but worry as the practice of selling topics proliferates that we will someday find ourselves debating a resolution worded by an interest group that is highly polarizing. If an organization comes to the NFL and wants a resolution that pushes the activity in a direction that is inconsistent with the will of the majority of coaches, will they be told no? We as coaches have no way to know other than faith in the officials hired by the executive council we elected. As the wording committee that is rendered useless by the selling of topics, we as the NFL membership have lost the only awareness outside of Ripon of the topic selection machinery.
Yes, seeking partnerships and sponsorships could be a financial boon to the league with the multiplier effect of building greater public interest in our activity. Still, this must be done carefully with coaches as the driving force in topic selection and wording. The NFL should instead be reforming in a direction that involves significantly larger numbers of coaches in the Public Forum topic selection process, not excluding the membership from any real voice for three months at a time. I hope you will make your voice heard to the Executive Secretary and through the upcoming Board of Directors elections.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Peele
Candidate for NFL Board of Directors
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events
The Harker School (San Jose, CA)
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow. Absolutely destroyed.
McNeil is the real deal.
I think that foundations have done a GREAT service to the NFL and particularly to Public Forum Debate with their contributions. Grants given to the NFL will give more attention to PF and provide great opportunities for PF to expand and receive increased recognition. I’m thankful, as a coach of all events, that the NFL has teamed up with different foundations.
I also think the topics that are being debated are GOOD and TIMELY topics. I would welcome input on topics from any organization that sees the value in what we are doing and what we are teaching our students — I would welcome it in any debate event, not just PF. Not only that, but with PF being a debate that community members should be able to enjoy and adjudicate — having community input makes a lot of sense.
I think that the Executive Director and his staff have done a great job teaming the NFL up with different organizations and have brought more attention to our activity as a result of it. This can only be positive.
Please remember that the blog comments are moderated so they will not appear immediately. I expect that this post may generate a number of comments, so I will try to moderate comments ASAP.
Mr. Peele seems to protest too much on how much direction the Executive Secretary of the NFL has on the topic committee. An autocrat should be made of more hubris than this. As a member of the wording committee for a couple of years, plus a long time coach in all of the debate events, I would like to reply to Mr. Peele.
Before I begin the argument, I want to acknowledge Mr. Peele as an incredible coach. Last summer I had the opportunity to work with him at a camp. He is fun, engaging, and a great teacher. His students have been some of the best debaters in the country during the past decade.
Now the argument. He seems to argue that the NFL has sold out the activity of Public Forum debate at the hands of an autocratic leader. He points to the lobbying topic returning after only 3 years for support. Two mistakes on this argument. First, he unfortunately names an organization that did nothing but provide a grant to be used for scholarships to forensic students and monetary support for our organization. We should not blame the granting agency. Second, the repetition of topics is common in debate, and the LD topic list included a nuclear weapons topic for a vote this year. Far be it for policy debaters to repeat topic areas or arguments – Politics anyone?
We must remember that the granting foundation was approached by the NFL, not the other way around. The NFL wrote a grant that was accepted. The topic committee was given the general areas, and we worked through the topics like normal. When one area didn’t work, we changed it. A case can be made that having a topic area chosen for the topic committee is an infringement of the right of the committee, but I don’t buy it. We are all coaches, and we all can think of topics to debate. Our different perspectives help word the topic better. Mr. Kline from Myers Park is the Chair of the committee and does an incredible job and helps to keep the integrity of our deliberations. In my eyes, a topic area simply narrows the amount of research the selection committee does to find the best topic. We try to do what all topics need to do: be timely, “ripped from the headlines,” competitive, with nearly equal grounds for the pro and con. It doesn’t always work. Sometimes our topics have been revised or sent back to us. However, we have never repeated the NBA dress code topic!!!
Over my time on the committee, I have been upset by the topic areas we have chosen, but never the ones suggested by the NFL through marketing debate. At first blush, I thought they were not debatable, but I have usually been wrong. Because of the nature of Public Forum, the NFL can sell topic areas because Public Forum debates issues interest groups, foundations, and the public can understand. If the NFL wrote a grant for a policy topic, who would want to bring the granting agency to a tournament to watch a final round debate? In PF it works.
As far as congress goes, in Northwest Iowa Bob Galligan sent topic areas out to each school at the start of every season. We wrote bills in our topic area. It focused the research for all of us, and it prepared us for larger tournaments and legalizing marijuana was not on the agenda every week. Instead of vilifying him, we elected him to the Iowa High School Speech Association Hall of Fame. Maybe the NFL could find another revenue stream.
The NFL has been part of my life since my first debate round in November of 1974, and during my time in the activity, I have watched program after program die. We have had a lot of tournaments postponed or canceled in Iowa this year. Finding a way to successfully market our activity is vital for it to continue. Our executive secretary needs to be applauded not called out.
Finally, let’s look at the issue of academic integrity. Since PF began, my debaters have participated public debates in a variety of locations sponsored by a variety of groups usually with a topic of theirs and not ours. The Drake University Library has invited 8 schools to participate in their continuing education by debating the 10th amendment in front of Drake Law School Students and Drake faculty. We have also debated farm topics at the World’s largest County Fair, and we have debated for various library and political groups often on their topics. The genius of PF is that it is easy to debate, so nearly anything can be debated – even the NBA Dress Code. The academic integrity of PF debate will never be kept or compromised by the coaches or the topic committee, but by the students who debate. They will find ways to debate the topic much differently than we can ever imagine.
It still shocks me that someone from a small rural school in rural Iowa can participate on the selection committee. I am honored and take the work of the committee very seriously. Mr. Peele does not speak for me in his worries about the executive director. We have had an internal debate on the selling of topics, but I thought it was answered well in the Rostrum. Maybe we need to expand it. As always, I welcome debate – kind of who I am .
Resolved, that the NFL should write grants to sponsoring agencies to raise money for the forensic community.
I am definitely pro on the topic! What do you think?
I think one of my students summed it up best this morning when they said “Wait, if I have money, I can sponsor a topic?” They had no idea they were debating topics that were, even in grant form, paid for.
I don’t think the NFL has been transparent in what they are doing. In fact, Greg is the first person I know who said that the NFL wrote a grant and proposed topic areas to this organization. Is that how all sponsored topics come about?
As a former debater who paid my school’s NFL chapter dues and my membership dues out of the money I raised selling 4-H lambs and chickens at the San Joaquin County Fair because it was the only way our school could be a member (maybe $99 + $15 per member doesn’t seem like a lot to people now but it was a LOT to me), and now as a coach, I would ask the NFL Board of Directors and the NFL Executive Director to be more transparent in actions taken that directly affect our activity.
Maybe Jonathan wasn’t dead-on about buying vs a grant (did he know it was a grant?), however I agree with the general message of a need for transparency. As long as kids are doing car washes, babysitting, and cleaning barn stalls to earn money to go to Nationals, they should know what’s going on.
Make it an NFL topic. That’d be kicks to debate for March.
I’m glad that we all seem to at least agree that it is good to have a public debate about the selection process and role of sponsoring organizations. I certainly appreciate my colleagues thoughts thus far. I had a pleasant discussion with Mr. Wunn earlier this afternoon that was helpful in understanding more clearly what the NFL is and is not doing regarding Public Forum topics.
Before getting into the finer details, I think that the central concerns of my letter have gone unaddressed by Mr. Schappaugh and Mr. Stevens. The NFL Executive Director has been given unchecked power to negotiate topics with sponsors, the NFL has not been transparent in this process (resulting in the kind of murkiness I’m about to discuss), and that the selling of PF topics uniquely preys upon this event as a revenue stream. Simply restating “sponsorship money is good” is nonresponsive to these arguments.
If you’re interested in the minutia of it all, here’s the best clarification I can offer right now. Mr. Stevens is correct to say that the topic areas are born of a grant proposal. I don’t feel that I have the right to reveal email correspondence written by others in a forum like this, but suffice it to say the following:
A) Upon some members’ expression of disapproval when we learned of the February-April sponsorship deal last November, the wording committee received what was at best an unclear explanation from the Executive Director of what role the sponsoring organization played in topic area selection. In rereading old emails tonight, my interpretation of this explanation does suggest that the sponsoring organization played a role in narrowing the scope of topics. Nonetheless, Mr. Wunn assured me that the topic areas were drawn from the grant proposal and I accept his word. Keep in mind though that this means that even though the NFL has a committee that is charged with writing topics, a small group in the NFL office chose to prepare topics for the proposal with no input from the committee whatsoever. Nor does this address the November topic, which was sponsored by an organization clearly focused on the issue of failed states. It would appear – though due to insufficient communication from the NFL we can’t be sure – that the November sponsor was heavily involved in that topic area selection.
B) I’m not sure why who approached who to initiate sponsorship discussions is relevant if the concern is that topic selection is not being driven by coaches. Again referring back to the internal information shared with the wording committee (information that I argue should be available to the full NFL membership), it would appear that the February-April sponsor approached several organizations looking to donate to academic debate. To me, that means that the sponsor initiated the process.
The bottom line is this: us members of the wording committee can come here and argue about who knew what and when. But we’re the lucky few that even have a remote clue about what’s going on, and even we’re not being told everything. The very limited input that you, the membership of the NFL, has in the Public Forum topic process is the wording committee. Letting sponsors sometimes choose the topic area is bad, but this lack of transparency is even worse. It is time for significant democratic reform in the selection of Public Forum topics.
Jonathan Peele is the real deal.
So, we’re debating a topic this February about people with a lot of money buying the function of our government…
Here is a solution: Come up with a list of topics, AND LET THE DEBATERS DECIDE IN A REFERENDUM
Certainly, since we are the ones debating, we should get the ultimate decision
Now I am forced to debate a horrible topic that is barely timely when you consider Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, Global Warming, Economics, North Korea, and torturing/ interrogation of terrorist as major issues.
Mr. Peele says there are three things that need to be addressed from his original post – I was not posting to get into a line-by-line debate, but since he feels these things need specific addresses then I will try and deal with them separately.
1. He claims that the Executive Director has unchecked power. First of all, the Board of Directors oversees the National Forensics League and the actions of the office and the Executive Director. If the board members we elect think that Executive Director is not handling the process correctly then they would address that. Secondly, he has an advisory board for the topics that he can seek advice from. The wording committee is in an advisory position – they can offer their advice to the Executive Director. Third, he’s the Executive Director of the NFL … I **TRUST** that his actions are in the best interest of the league and in the interest of Public Forum debate. I think that all of the work that he is doing – hands on with PF – illustrates that he views the activity as a legitimate debate event worthy of the same respect as the other events. I also trust that the Executive Director is OPEN to discussions about how the process should be. I do not want to speak for him, but from my past interactions with him I’d guess that he’s about having open lines of communication. The tone of the post and the re-post are really accusatory and bothersome – as if some moral wrong has been done. Productive discussion with the tones presented are really hard.
2. The claim that the process is not transparent is the second issue Mr. Peele brings up. I do not think that there is any less information about the Public Forum topic process than there is any other event. There is the ability for ANYONE to submit ideas for public forum topics on the NFL website. It does not make sense to me that each event needs to have the same process. Events are different and require different conventions. If PF were treated the same as LD we would not have timely enough topics. Not only that, but even if we debate a similar topic from time-to-time — things change and thus the topic takes new angles — that’s a great thing, in my opinion, for debaters to see and deal with. No debate is the same. Even if you think the events need to mirror each other in some aspects then remember that in LD we have debated oppressive governments vs. no governments more than once and the same can be said for other topics ….
3. He claims that selling topics preys upon Public Forum Debate. The way that this is being presented is that any organization can come to the NFL and say – here’s X amount of dollars – now debate this specific topic. It’s sad that these accusations are being made without any actual support — it’s all speculative. I don’t have any real proof that this is the case but none is being presented by Mr. Peele. This is only further enhanced by Peele’s admission that after speaking with Mr. Wunn he found out that the staff of the NFL office drafted up the topic areas. Additionally, all of the topics that are being debated are not one-sided and are balanced with plenty of information on both sides (even the November topic, which, I believe, had information given to us by the organization that was balanced in terms of both sides—coming from memory so possibly not accurate). Finally, I trust that Mr. Wunn, Mr. Koshy (both former coaches) and other NFL staff (some of which have been coaches and others deeply interested in the benefit of the league and well-educated) can come up with good topics … and they have!
Mr. Peele wants topic selection to be driven by coaches. First, he offers no unique reason each area of debate must be treated the same. Second, I think that given the nature of PF Debate it’s great to have community involvement. If PF Debate is to be a debate that is public then why not have public input? Finally, like LD – anyone can submit ideas for PF through the NFL website.
Bottom line from me – A) I trust the NFL Office and Mr. Wunn to direct the league accordingly. The tone of the posts, the accusatory aspects, etc. are really bothersome and do not lend itself to a productive discussions. B) Sponsorships to the NFL are great and are bringing more resources to PF Debate and to a newer activity — adding legitimacy and greater opportunities for all to debate and succeed in PF. C) I will say this — Mr. Peele has some good ideas and they are worth talking about — I’m sure the NFL is happy to talk about them. Increasing the knowledge of coaches about how topics are picked is a great initiative. I think the intent of Mr. Peele was good but the execution, I guess, was not the best or most productive. I know Peele personally and consider him a friend on the debate circuit – and will after all of this, as I’m sure he will too – that’s the great thing about debate — we can have these types of discussions and make progress.
Admittedly this could be better organized and edited – did this during my prep so I didn’t have as much time to put into it.
Where was this letter originally posted?
So was it ONLY the February, March,and April topics that the sponsor gets to dictate?
I believe the October topic was tied to the NFL’s sponsorship deal with the Bickel & Brewer International Public Policy Forum and November was tied to The Stanley Foundation.
As far as the openness of the email, as a teacher in a public school, all of my emails are open to an inquiry. Our topic selection emails could probably be transparent, though why anyone else would want to read them is beyond me.
The question is really as I put it before, though as usual, my wording is too long. It might make a great mock debate between coaches.
I will try a new resolution!
Resolved: the NFL seeling topic areas in public forum debate threatens the academic integrity of the activity.
It seems to me, from the arguments made, that the NFL wording committee isn’t necessarily or directly given a topic by a special interest group, but rather that the interest group narrows the choices significantly.
From the perspective of a student, I would say that the previous system — having coaches submitting resolutions — is more effective. If the NFL is really hurting for money, coaches could write topics and then approach sponsors. The point of this is so that at least the topics are initiated from an educational standpoint.
I recognize that as a debater, I should be able to take the offense and the defense in nearly any debate; however I for one would prefer that the topics pertained to current events and were instigated for the benefit of myself and my peers.
Just curious, would these organizations not give money to the event if they were not allowed to choose the topic?
And as a former LD’er I agree with the fact that I would scoff about any resolution that was “bought” so to speak but this coming from someone who does not know everything there is to know about this particular scenario. That being said, I can only see positive things coming from a discussion like this so kudos to JP for bringing it up!
I agree with Mr. Peele. I think there’s a subtle level of disrespect that surrounds PF, which calls for reform on the national level. As a debater, I’m not in any position to decide what, exactly, that entails, but I applaud Mr. Peele for encouraging a discussion. However, I certainly do not think that the selling of topics is acceptable, let alone a good thing, even with the financial reasoning.
Boom boom pow. Peele on a 9-4 decision.
Wasn’t there some sort of decision last summer by the NFL’s PF committee to limit, not expand, the number of topics available for sponsorship? Has this just been completely neglected?
He is absolutely right, the topic December was one of the worst topics ever, sorry I mean February’s topic is the worst.
As one of the newest members of the wording committee, I’d like to share my perpective. Until I joined the committee, I had no idea who was on the committee or how topics were selected. My impetus for inquiring with the NFL about how to join the committee was based on my reaction to the November and December topics. To my delight, I was welcomed to the committee almost immediately and have appreciated the collegiality and thoughtful contributions of all members of the committee. We worked through a collaborative process on the January topic and offered what I feel is an excellent topic in terms of timeliness and balance. Then the February-April topic selections were presented to the committee. At that time, several members of the committee voiced our dismay about both the topic and about the lack of committee contribution to the development of the topic. Mr. Wunn did provide us an explanation of the benefits of sponsorship to the PF community and was also open to our concerns about “selling topics.” Since then, we have made suggestions to the NFL about how topic selection should proceed and I do feel that the NFL is being responsive to our suggestions within certain parameters. I am optimistic that the committee will work with the NFL to craft a more consistent and transparent topic selection process. I do see the benefit of sponsorship and I do believe that what makes PF so special is the community involvement element, but I feel just as strongly that coaches are the best final arbiters in terms of developing good topics. The coaches I know personally on the committee all share a love of and passion for this unique debate event. We do initiate discussion with many community members about topic ideas; I talk with debaters, other coaches, other teachers, business leaders and parents all the time about debate topics and consider their suggestions. A sponsoring organization can play the same sort of role, but it is my firm belief that coaches are the “experts” and should direct the process to limit any question of topics being sold. Many of our past resolutions have begun with the phrase “on balance.” Because of the nature of PF, that’s the standard by which I encourage my students to debate. It’s also the means by which I feel the NFL and the wording committee can develop the best possible topics for our students. I applaud Jonathan for his forthrightness and passion and I appreciate the perspectives of the NFL and the PF community. As PF evolves, we should continue our discussions about how we can balance the diverse visions and needs of the PF community.
I have very little insight into the situation, but as a current debater I wanted to post my own $0.02. I totally agree with what Michael T said above: I want topics to be selected that are going to be conducive to fair and educational debate, and that are “instigated for the benefit of myself and my peers.” However, I’m not convinced that the topics we’ve been given violate these principles. I think every topic this year has been a relevant, current-event (or at least currently pertinent) issue that provided for competitive debating on both sides that forced me to learn about something I didn’t otherwise know a lot about but that was a valuable education. I think February’s topic is actually the best yet of this year – I’m more excited for this than I’ve been about a topic for a while.
Since I think the topics have been fine, I don’t see any issue with there being money given to sponsor them. If *bad* topics were being chosen by that money, then I’d be concerned, but I’ve not seen that happen yet. I agree with poster stevens: we students as debaters will manage with just about anything that’s thrown at us. It’s important to find something balanced, but we always find a way. I, like everyone else, have topics that I thought were better than others (October last year about Nuclear Energy was by far my favorite topic of all time, with Military Options against Iran coming in second, and March on NCLB was probably my least favorite), but that doesn’t mean we didn’t have pretty good debates on all of them. I think Michael’s T’s criteria for “benefitting us” might actually be being better met if there is money coming in that can be used to support the activity, so long as there is oversight on sponsors so that fair and balanced topics continued to be produced. Transparency is definitely a good thing, but since I’ve been given nothing but pretty good topics so far, I have no reason to worry that this will be any problem other than starting down a possibly slippery slope.
Since no one answered my original comment,
WHERE WAS THIS MESSAGE ORIGINALLY POSTED?
Also, @Josh Zoffer, what are you talking about re:limiting corporate sponsorships?
I am in full agreement with Mr. Vander above. I agree that transparency and other such issues are vital to good topic selection. In the end, though, the topics have not yet been in any way biased or narrow. Even February’s topic, which, granted, is a repeat of January 2007, can be explored in new ways with new perspectives and new evidence.
So far, it seems, the NFL committee has reached the right balance: bringing in new resources for PF while at the same time maintaining integrity in topic selection. It is important, however, that the situation be monitored so as to allow coaches the largest voice in the process.
@Snarf
It is my understanding that a variation was sent directly to NFL Executive Scott Wunn As far as I know, this is the first place it was posted for public feedback.
The surreptitious nature of the NFL in choosing topics makes it difficult for me to trust the veracity and integrity of topic monitoring. When organizations sponsor topics, it’s not exactly like the NFL website has bright banners disclosing this information. In fact, it seems as if the upper echelons of the NFL are acting like a cabal in keeping all of this information secretive.
I feel like above all, transparency is the biggest issue here. I’m almost certain that no one would complain about topic selling if the NFL justified the choosing of each topic; however brief it may be; the point would of course be to make the NFL accountable.
Further, in looking at the context of selling topics, allowing the wholesale of PF topics is a slippery slope. While now, only several are sold each year, who’s to say that the trend won’t increase with voracity in each successive year? How do we know that topic selling wouldn’t be incorporated into other events as well? (On a tangential note, why should we be de-legitimizing public forum with these sponsorships when other events are spared?).
If the NFL is so concerned with making money, why not have commercial breaks in between each speech? Why not roll to the ads during prep time? I’m sure that with this kind of advertisement opportunity, McD’s is going to want to get in on it too…
Clearly, Mr. Peele has a point in stating that some checks need to exist over the Powers That Be.
I’m not seeing how this impacts back though- I understand the potential concerns people keep having but, the truth is, we HAVEN’T had many truly bad topics.
The fact that there are organizations willing to sponsor topics means they have literature on the, which means other people have literature on them. Its almost a guarantee of even ground, and excellent ground at that – we’re STARTING from a place of confirming good aff/neg arguments, and moving back, rather than trying to reach into the ether and hopefully pull out a topic with good division of literature.
tl;dr – no impact to complaints about transparency.
I believe in Jonathan Peele.
all I know is, I hate the february topic, and it upsets me that I have to debate it to qualify for states in Florida. It upset me even more to find out that this horrid topic was “bought”. As a pf debater, I enjoy debating GOOD topics. That’s why I am in the event, so when horrible ones like this come around, it makes me lose some faith.
As far as I’m concerned, the issue with February’s topic is simpler than the debate that has transpired here in regards to the ethics of “bought” topics. My problem? I DEBATED THIS TOPIC BEFORE. If the corporate sponsors attempted to implement a resolution about, say, the BRIC nations, would this have been allowed? Sure, that topic was debatable — one of my favorites, even — but even the best topics don’t need to be debated twice. And although in this instance my partner and I have the advantage of a plethora of evidence from previously debating a strikingly similar resolution, is this really fair? If topics are going to be recycled, at least wait a full four years to avoid this kind of situation, where long-time debaters have an even greater upper hand than usual. The sponsorship of topics is one thing, but please, NFL, don’t repeat resolutions over such a short span of time.
Does anyone else think that this is a thinly veiled attempt by Harker to gain more power?
Here’s what’s happened so far on this blog posting.
Letter: “I Jonathan Peele am upset that I do not have more power over topics. I’m going to try to make you mad about sponsorship deals that are also common in LD.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Peele
Candidate for NFL Board of Directors (please vote for me!)”
… a number of comments from people on the topic committee who are not bothered by this
Carol Green: you should all be upset
…more comments from people on the topic committee who are not upset
…comments from debaters who don’t like february topic because they either don’t know how to debate it or are upset about topic recycling
Note: So much has changed in terms of lobbying that it’s basically a completely new topic.
It seems that most of the people who are upset about this would be more than happy to let Jonathan Peele write all the PF topics.
I am not so much disappointed with the actual content of the resolutions as I am with their wordings. Countless teams, myself included, were wrongfully dropped by inexperienced judges who though the pro on the February topic was actually the con. I know for a fact that this problem made it so that teams did not qualify to state tournaments and did not advance at several of the big national tournaments held this month. I am equally disappointed with the use of the term “justified” in the March resolution as it allows for frameworks that place less emphasis on hard evidence. All I am asking for are consistent straightforward resolutions (ex: January topic).
I want to add one small note to Mr. Peele’s original comments. He wrote, “Certainly the Policy and Lincoln-Douglas community would laugh at the thought of being told — with no advance input — that they were debating a topic selected by a sponsoring organization. They simply wouldn’t hear of it.” But that’s exactly what happened in 1995 with the LD topic. The Special Olympics wanted to make students more aware of issues surrounding disabilities and offered the NFL money if they would encourage students to investigate this topic. The Sept/Oct topic for 1995 was ” Resolved: individuals with disabilities ought to be afforded the same athletic competition opportunities as able-bodied athletes.” The LD Wording Committee and the community of coaches were incensed (not laughing) at the “selling” of an LD topic and then Executive Secretary Copeland promised it would never happen again.
{ 2 trackbacks }