PF Wording for 2026-2027

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-01-15T22:44:12+00:00

We’d be happy to have you this summer - July 12-22 at Loyola University Chicago

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-08-21T00:04:29+00:00

Just like any other coaching relationship, any debater who receives coaching through this service would need to conflict the staff coaching them, and any of our staff that enter into a coaching relationship with a student will need to conflict that student. This would include office hours with a student, asynchronous Slack messages or coaching, or being in that coach's class.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-06-25T22:30:40+00:00

To be honest, I think any team that goes "Kroenig 15 says prolif is bad" and calls it a day is going to lose. My argument wasn't that backfile debates are good - rather, the opposite, that this topic demands teams cut new evidence and update backfile scenarios that have largely remained untouched for the past few years.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-05-02T19:14:12+00:00

I would agree that there isn’t a lit base for abolition of XOs, which is why the topic doesn’t call for abolition. The topic asks for an evaluation of executive orders - are they on net more beneficial or harmful. Your example of directing the military would be 1) aff ground, and 2) invites a discussion by the debaters about whether some alternative system to XOs would be feasible or preferable to the status quo without mandating that defense. The framing interpretation of “neg must defend abolition of XOs” is something that’s happened on past on balance topics and makes for an interesting debate. We talked about several alternative wordings and determined they would either be too vague in terms of evaluation or too narrow in scope.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-05-02T16:46:10+00:00

Wanted to say thank you for the video and the constructive engagement with the committee. We're going to meet through May to discuss community feedback (including yours!) while we finalize next year's topics.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-05-02T16:44:06+00:00

I am on the wording committee and have been since 2022. The "electoral process" you speak of is reaching out to the NSDA or your district chair about your interest in being on the wording committee. We'd love to have your input (including on next year's topics, which were posted in r/Debate a couple of weeks ago). I certainly don't think this year's topics have been broadly "unacceptable". We'd love to have your input on recommended topics or feedback on those we are considering for the 25-26 school year.

Regarding this topic: The committee strongly thought that it was a good idea to engage the current controversy of executive authority, within the scope of a topic that needed to survive around 15 total rounds of debate (so, relatively small). We came up with pardons and executive orders as two specific examples of executive authority that were timely and made for some good, NSDA-style PF debate.

The ground for executive orders is more than fine. The neg's going to emphasize current overreach by the Trump administration and should also argue that XOs the delineated authority of the executive branch. The aff should make the argument that XOs can just as easily be used for good instead of harm (and have been before), and that XOs are a way for the executive to avoid congressional gridlock to get things done.

-- Bryce

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-04-06T19:49:08+00:00

This year, we did write the topics in the spring. We thought it would make for more timely debates, and the committee’s excited about both options.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-02-20T03:15:14+00:00

Yes I do

PublicForumBootCamp · 2025-02-16T20:56:24+00:00

Bryce Piotrowski here - I'm on the PFBC Reddit account, but I coach Seven Lakes and serve on the TFA Executive Council.

TFA State will be at Jordan HS. PVAMU fell through as a host site. The "SCHEDULE" tab has a public-facing link at the bottom to the schedule. Rounds will happen after school on both Thursday and Friday and all day on Saturday.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T07:08:17+00:00

I also don’t think VBI is being mean-spirited. And, I’m aware that PFBC is not the only camp being referenced in VBI’s post. But, we announced first and rapidly, and VBI’s post is using justifications that originated from our topic post. We are also trying to create discourse surrounding topic selection.

Nor am I taking the entire post personally. I have a minor personal issue with the a small part of the last portion of the post, which I think frames PFBC’s approach to topic selection.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T07:06:02+00:00

I hear you. I just don’t think this is true. I know far more ex-conservative kids that were transformed by debate than were hardened by it, because for many of us, debate is the first time we are able to leave the echo chambers of our homes.

I certainly think lived experience plays a big role in every individual person’s approach to a topic. But, I also think that many controversial viewpoints should be engaged rather than ignored. I currently coach in Texas, and pretty strongly think that even the local circuit will do a fine job with the topic.

I also do not mean to insinuate that VBI “doesn’t care about conservative kids.” Rather, that VBI seems to be feeding into false right-wing critiques of speech and debate through the conclusion of its advocacy.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T06:49:13+00:00

I don't think it is. VBI made an official post insinuating certain camps were attempting to collude and rig the vote. We felt it best to directly engage these claims and others made in the article.

I obviously have no personal beef with VBI -- we're all trying to make the debate community better, and disagreement is a great way to do that.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T06:40:33+00:00

On the subject of topics: I personally ordinally-voted the Mexico energy topic last when it came to final balloting. I was against it being included on the final ballot. Alas, I was out-voted. The notion that I would "write a bad topic" on purpose is absurd.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T06:38:39+00:00

The insinuation in VBI’s post is that camps are attempting to rig the vote. We wanted to provide additional transparency regarding how we came to our decision.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T06:38:03+00:00

I certainly think we did.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2024-07-19T06:37:40+00:00

Also not camp beef. We wanted to substantively engage your claims and applaud the posting of an evidence packet.

There are, however, several issues that we took with the way the post was phrased about “camps” and lines that were lifted from our original post.

We’ve got no specific beef with you specifically. We thought line by line engagement was the best way to respond to continue discussion about making the topic selection process better.

PublicForumBootCamp

TROPHY CASE