Tags: nfl, topic sponsorship,

NFL Executive Secretary Scott Wunn has posted about the controversy related to the sponsorship of PF topics. My reaction:

The objections to the sponsorship of the resolutions seem to center on four objections

^The areas produce poorly worded resolutions

^The areas produce topics for which there is scant literature

^The resolutions are not timely

^The areas end up being redundant with previous areas/resolutions

It is implied that these problems outweigh the benefits of sponsorship – scholarships, money to promote public debate, opportunities for interaction with advocacy groups and the community at large.

To be honest, none of these arguments seem particularly compelling…

Poorly worded resolutions—Some of the PF resolutions could certainly be worded better, especially with respect to making sure that there are quality arguments for both sides.  I think the failed states resolution in particular suffered from this problem, but these are wording issues, not sponsorship issues.  No one has given an example of how better resolutions could not have been written in some of the areas.  For example, while “failed states good” is basically an indefensible position, “nation building” is very controversial and could have been an excellent resolution for that topic area.  So, this year’ most problematic resolution (in my mind) could have been made better.

Also, no one has demonstrated that the resolutions for the sponsored topics are any worse than the resolutions for the non-sponsored topics.  Resolution writing is incredibly difficult (I have been involved with it at both the HS and college levels for more than a decade and have literally spent thousands of hours analyzing resolutions), and when you are trying to write 9-10 a year on many different topics, this is only going to become more difficult.

Scant literature – Each month I write an evidence release for Planet Debate on the announced PF resolution. I usually complete this within 24-72 hours of the release of the resolution.  I have never had trouble finding literature to support my efforts.  For government unions, I cataloged more than 20 research links within an hour, and within 72 hours had finished reading Plunder! How public employee unions are raiding treasuries, controlling our lives, and bankrupting the nation.  After that, I added a bunch of evidence about the value of teacher unions (many judges are teachers) and finished the release.

Sometimes I’ve had trouble finding arguments on the other side (failed states, affirmative action, and public employee unions (until I thought of the teacher unions arguments)), but I’ve never had trouble finding literature on any of the resolutions.

The resolutions are not timely.  Again, this argument does not seem compelling.  The only example of a non-timely resolution that has been offered is government employee unions, but this is just plain false.  Salaries of government workers that are (perceived to be high) is a huge subject of debate in many state like California, New York, and Florida.  If you watch the video I did on the resolution, you can see the media clips that I integrated from popular news shows.   When you are debating 9-10 topics over the course of the season, some are going to be more timely than others, but it was easy for me to find current news stories on all of the resolutions.

Areas/resolutions are redundant.  To me, this is the best argument, as there is a ^little^ overlap between government employee unions, EFCA, and merit pay for teachers, but the overlap is small.  EFCA was about the process of union formation and (largely) about the impact that ^private^ employee unions have on companies and the economy.  The April 2010 resolution is largely about the impact that government employee unions have on the taxpayer.  All of the literature on government employee unions recognizes that there is a significant difference between the two. But, yes, maybe there is a little overlap. But kids are potentially debating 20 different topics across two different seasons, so there is going to be some overlap anyhow, and most kids are only getting 2 tournaments on a topic, so I’m not even sure why some overlap is bad. 

So, to be honest, I don’t even think these objections are very good.  And, even if there is some marginal merit to each of them, opponents of sponsorship have to win the following arguments:

-The objections outweigh the value of sponsorship – scholarships, publicity, general resources to support debate. Debate isn’t exactly flush with cash.  Interjecting money into debate so that more than those from upper and upper middle class families can benefit from the fruits of it is an inherently good thing.

-Eliminating sponsorship solves.  It is somehow implied that if sponsorship were eliminated all PF resolutions would be timely, well-balanced, well-worded, and not redundant with any previous resolutions.  I fail to see any demonstrated proof of this.  While I do not think the problems raised above are particularly significant, it is certainly not the case that non-sponsored resolutions are free of the potential problems that have been identified.  Removing sponsorship will not produce resolutions that everyone thinks are nothing but awesome.

Moving forward…

It seems to me that the best world is a world in which students debate current topics that are well worded, timely, well-balanced, and based on relatively easily accessible literature AND one in which the NFL is able to obtain sponsorship of many of the resolutions in order to support significant scholarship efforts, instructional resource materials, and efforts to provide a quality event at the NF tournament.  To this end, I suggest the following –

The NFL establish (if it hasn’t already) these measures:

^Topic areas that are significantly redundant with topics offered in the last 24 months will not be accepted

^Topic areas that are in any way redundant with topics offered in the last 9 months will not be accepted

^Topic areas from which the wording committee cannot produce timely, well-written, and well-balanced resolutions that have easily accessible literature with arguments on both sides will not be accepted

^The NFL/wording committee should offer three credible arguments on each side of the resolution along with a citation for each argument when releasing any PF resolution.  NOTE:  This should not be a simple listing of arguments within the area, but a listing of pro/con arguments that are specific to the resolution.

^Seek the advice of an outside content expert (someone not from the sponsoring group) and one debate coach to certify that any resolution is…

a-not significantly redundant with a resolution from the past 24 months

b-not in any way redundant with a resolution in the last 9 months

c-has easily accessible literature

d-well balanced, with at least three STRONG arguments on both sides

e-is current/timely

Stefan Bauschard

Planet Debate, Harvard Institute for Public Forum Debate