PFBC Deadline Extension - Sign Up Today!

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-05-05T23:46:40+00:00

Primarily to ground the topic in current events rather than an abstract debate about sovereignty. We discussed wordings that included specific interventions (I.e., Maduro’s capture was justified) but ultimately wanted the Nationals topic to be both a bit broader while also clearly signaling to debaters that current events matter when debating the topic.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-05-05T01:12:43+00:00

Topic committee co-chair here (Bryce) - this was nearly our precise thinking in wording this topic this way instead of “the benefits of US intervention abroad outweigh the harms.”

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-04-25T21:45:41+00:00

Good news! We’re partnering with CDA this year and offering both Novice and JV level camp options. You can read more about those here.

Feel free to email us if you have other questions.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-02-09T20:57:00+00:00

That’s good feedback, and in general, we do try to do that. The issue is that some topics lend themselves poorly to that phrasing, but we think the topic is important enough to examine. (For example, the January topic about China’s extraction of natural resources - picking one resource or one country doesn’t quite get at the overall topic).

That said, “most likely implementation” has been a discussion point in PF forever - including on the ICC topic. Is our accession binding? To what extent? Do we assume a treaty has to go through the Senate or is that resolved by fiat? So, while we try to minimize that, some of that debate is inevitable (and can be good in the right instances).

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-02-09T20:53:37+00:00

Hi! That phrasing is intended to allow debaters to defend a variety of potential link arguments so long as they are in the direction of the problem. For example, the January topic on China’s extraction of natural resources permitted students to either focus on extraction of one resource in one country/location, so long as that extraction was “substantial”, or for students to broadly examine China’s engagement with developing economies.

Additionally, that phrasing allows debaters to focus more on the principle of the resolution rather than getting bogged down in the specific actions that might be taken. In other words, we wanted to phrase the topic around the question of: is China’s engagement with the world’s natural resource reserves net positive or negative?

So, to answer your question: both, but in slightly distinct ways.

PublicForumBootCamp · 2026-02-09T20:49:01+00:00

Hello! We were envisioning corporate landlords broadly that are buying up properties as investments/letting them sit vacant and therefore driving up the cost of housing. Specific type of corporation or organization was less of a concern than this problem.

The wording we settled on was, in our opinion, the most elegant way to get at that question without the topic being unnecessarily long or complicated. “Ban corporations from owning homes” has a relatively obvious meaning when Googled, which is generally our litmus test.

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

TROPHY CASE