NFL Debate Topics (UPDATE with this month's and November's topics)

3 replies [Last post]

The National Forensic League has released new topics for the months of November-December (depending on the event).  They have also changed their November topic.

2010-2011 Policy Debate Topic

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.


Public Forum Debate

2010 September

Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

2010 October

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

2010 November

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.


Lincoln Douglas Debate

2010 September-October

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

2010 November-December

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.


In regards as to why the NFL altered the November Policy topic (ORIGINAL: Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero), they posted this on their website:

"Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public Forum resolution.

We realize that it is unusual to change a topic after posting. We hope that this new resolution will allow educators and competitors to explore core issues that face high school academic debate."

so with the new November Policy topic, could the side arguing that "resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues" use the fact that the NFL altered the topic due to complaints as evidence?  and what are the implications if you CAN use that as evidence?  if the league you debate in decided to change a topic b/c it's too sensitive, what chance does a debater have of proving that Policy should confront all sensitive religious issues?  and how can this topic change how future resolutions are chosen?

help an HIer...please! 


and by Policy I meant PF...oops

Anony's picture

Best i ever seen tool,i like it very much,thank you:D

Post reply