I think that the council needs to place some boundries on the topic areas. I agree that they should not re-use a topic area until after 4 years have passed to avoid having a student debate about an issue over and over. There should also be a gaurentee that the sponsor can not influence the wording. I believe Scott Wunn when he says that the wording was not influenced, but it should be written in the regulations and rules regarding the event. Finally, why do we not have a rotating topic area guide like in policy. I believe that it must deal with a foreign topic, an economic issue, and domestic policy. I think that should be implementd for PF as well.

Finally, I think that the topics have really improved, but not because of the controlling areas of the sponsor. I think the committee has done a nice job with topic selection and wording.

I’m glad we know what it costs for you to forsake your integrity.

1. NO Health Care resolution has been specific to the one that actually affects the U.S.–The one being debated now

2. CX Files are open to everyone on the Open Evidence project–http://www.debatecoaches.org/openevidence/. This argument is not even unique considering half of the topics debated have CX overlap and it is virtually impossible not to unless there is an obscure topic, like the one we debate at the TOC.

3. There is always a “subconscious” bias. Whether it was on the lobbying topic, Affirmative Action or any other issue. Moreover, obviously Health Care was debated in the past and in my experience, the bias was not as strong as people would think. If you win a round, the vast majority of judges pick you up.

Israel:

1. Is this a real argument? We should base topic off of the assumption that and Israeli person MIGHT judge (considering there are not many Israeli’s) and then question their integrity by insinuating that they could NOT be objective? It is ripped from the headlines and is a VERY important issue. There is a wealth of literature on both sides and it meets every criterion for a good topic

2. Is this a real argument too? This is like saying “we should not debate Cap and Trade because it had overlap with lobbying.” You know how many topics would be precluded going by this logic? So what if it has overlap, if anything that is a good thing because now everyone knows to block out the dumbest arguments first.

Health care:
(1) Has been debated to death in PF (NCFLs 09, NFL Nov 09, respectively)
(2) Has substantial Policy overlap – the research burden would be skewed by access to CX files and CX style arguments.
(3) Is too controversial for a fair lay-judge pool. EVERYONE has an opinion on HC, meaning that even on a subconscious level they will be tainted.

Israel:
(1) Is explosively too caustic to touch. How many Israeli judges are going to vote for “Israel imperialist” “Israel violent” “Israel bad for US image”? The core issues are all being debated still in the public sphere in a form too explosive and galvanized to discuss fairly in PF.

(2) Has overlap with February, as anyone that ran AIPAC knows.

Although I agree a good NFL national topic would be nice.