If teams use racist arguments, won't they just lose rounds? And won't it teach debaters a lot more how to use their voice to combat real life arguments that are prevalent to them? When are we ever getting into an argument over Mexican energy in real life? This idea that we need to inoculate teams from this bad literature seems faulty; in reality, it is that exact literature that debaters should be prepared to defend against. The idea that the main arguments are those that demonize immigrants is also faulty; it takes about 20 seconds of googling to find 10 studies that show that immigrants don't commit crime at all. These bad arguments are not winning arguments, because they're bad arguments.
Judges inserting themselves into RFDs seems unlikely; we've had plenty of controversial topics before, including biometric data technology a year and a half ago. There was also student loan debt, which at the time was one of if not the largest political issue on the docket of the Biden administration. Maybe five or so years back, we even had a topic about the validity of the NSA surveilling US citizens. No citizen really wants to be surveilled. But the debates were still fine, the best teams still winning every round, etc.
Also, there's no real statistical way of showing whether the topic choices affected novice retention? Debate is a growing sport by virtue of resume boosting for college applications, popularity on social media, etc. But are we really going to pretend like a debate on the Mexican energy sector is actually more interesting or even close to as interesting (at least to potential beginner debaters) as a debate on the border? It's also a little bit misguided to say that the only potential debaters who are intellectually curious are the ones who would choose the energy topic? All the headlines are about the border; maybe it's a sign of intellectual curiosity if someone wants to explore those headlines further.
All this to say, if picking a topic by sheer virtue of that topic's validity, I think the decision would be less black and white than outlined in this article; both topics have decent side on both grounds. However, it's worth noting that this announcement comes very late in the debate camp cycle; is it really fair to all of the other debaters who have paid for other camps and done significant work on the other topic (which had previously been the general camp consensus) to potentially shift the choice? I think not.
I think it's naive to suggest teams that read racist or xenophobic arguments will be perfectly corrected. In fact, many of the educators that need to be empowered most to make these corrections are increasingly prevented from doing so in border and red states. Ideally, the stasis point for the debate would not necessarily invite these sorts of racist characterizations as a pretext for debate-developing media literacy doesn't necessitate dehumanizing students in your classroom.
I think it is also misleading to suggest that the political climate surrounding biometric data collection or college loans rivals the sort of vitriol being spewed about the caravan four years ago, or at the RNC today. I would also be more wary of judge bias on a topic like this, especially at tournaments that do not hire circuit-style judges, held at red-state schools, buoyed by administrations that attempt to strip away any nuance to these sorts of discussions.
In a general note- if it is genuinely easy to research core affirmative arguments, it would be great to see some evidence of it. If there is evidence that a probable implementation of border surveillance, either under Biden or a looming Trump admin, would gather evidence humanely, and then act on it in a way that is not malicious to the benefit of trafficking victims, for example, it would be great to read said evidence.
Agreed there's no way to statistically validate how topic choices affect novice retention- that is why the initial complaint about the energy topic seemed silly. I am not sure why it is so ludicrous to suggest that novices could be interested in Mexican energy- many debaters on a whole prefer topics about other countries, many novices come in very interested in social studies, and many other novices are from Mexico themselves. If there are ways to dive into the border topic deeper, while being anchored by the probable implementation of surveillance, would love to hear.
To be fair to VBI, they have been doing the energy topic all summer. This sort of strong-arming a mere few days into the topic is the concern about the selection process- how can it be equitable and allow for ample research if we are instantly locking in the decision based on the financial concerns of a few camps? Why is the primary allure of camp gaining topic prep in the first place? This would seem to be bad value for many thousands of dollars- camp should likely focus on more core curricular elements that transfer throughout the year rather than a single topic at that price point. Amassing lots of prep from qualified coaches could be bought at a significantly lower rate, if that is the concern.
On the first point, I think that is a narrow minded focus of winning/losing. If we want to discuss winning and losing, the majority of judges don't really have super large biases, and even fewer will vote solely on those biases. But also, I think this letter from another debate camp makes an interesting point from a pedagogical standpoint (https://www.publicforumboot.camp/a2-vbi). The author of this article transitioned from a far right republican to a democrat on some important racial issues because he was forced to research and confront historical realities during an African reparations topic. I think this raises an important point: that research could educate debaters holding misconceptions about the topic.
Also, if you're still concerned about winning/losing, the aforementioned article also mentions that its left leaning camp on a left leaning circuit had a perfect split of rounds, whereas one would expect a neg leaning based off of the political ideology of each side of the debate. It seems biased to say that republican leaning judges will somehow significantly skew the topic when liberal leaning judges don't?
I've gone through the novice retention issue below, but I would just say that some novices might end up interested in Mexican energy; but comparatively, which one would generate more initial interest?
What about kids who didn't go to a camp, or couldn't afford it, but are still working hard at the border topic, due to all of the sources pointing them to that topic throughout the summer. Why is it unfair for them to want to not lose all of the work they've put into this?
"If teams use racist arguments, won't they just lose rounds? "
No. Have you been around debate at all? Also, what are the non-racist aff arguments that don't run from the core of the topic? Remember, PF doesn't get plans, and the aff needs to defend the most likely implementation of the topic; given a likely Trump presidency and Biden's attempts to triangulate, how do we think the topic will manifest in the world?
"Judges inserting themselves into RFDs seems unlikely; we've had plenty of controversial topics before, including biometric data technology a year and a half ago."
Most judges in PF are parents. Many of them will be MAGA-pilled. There is no comparison of the strength of feeling over this topic and "biometric data collection" among those folks. Just yesterday, the RNC handed out signs calling for mass deportations and included speakers advocating for internment camps. There is no comparison. You're asking debaters, many of whom will be immigrants or have family members who are, to debate this topic in front of judges who likely support mass deportation and violence at the border. In the midst of this heated election, this topic is a recipe for crying novices and parents screaming at each other in the judges' lounge.
Also, there's no real statistical way of showing whether the topic choices affected novice retention?
It can't be tested, but could you engage the qualitative arguments? Debaters are more likely to be engaged with a topic they don't know much about but sounds interesting, compared to a topic everyone is screaming at each other about all the time. Also, this just completely ignores the novices with a person connection to this topic who will never debate or will quit quickly after being faced with arguments demonizing them or people they love.
"However, it's worth noting that this announcement comes very late in the debate camp cycle; is it really fair to all of the other debaters who have paid for other camps and done significant work on the other topic (which had previously been the general camp consensus) to potentially shift the choice? I think not."
This is a terrible reason and proves the article's point about collusion. Camps should not be trying to dictate to the rest of the country through collusion. A lot of the backlash seems to be motivated by self-interest on the part of certain camps and their students...
By racist arguments, I meant those arguments that posit that immigrants are large source of crime/terrorism etc. Those arguments are empirically untrue, and, as I stated, the evidence for this is not difficult to find. Those who run those arguments will lose rounds the majority of the time, and, if they are self interested and desire to win, will have to shift their arguments. As for non racist affs, there are lots of human trafficking arguments that stem from groups preying on immigrants who may be vulnerable.
As for the plan issue...border security increasing is probably the most likely implementation? But to say that this plan has no merit is pretty biased in and of itself? The whole point of the topic is to debate whether we should be increasing border security? I don't see a problem.
First, I don't only reference biometric data collection. Literally no one wants the NSA surveilling people, and as I stated above, the best teams continued to win their rounds on that topic. That is probably at an equal level of bias with the border topic, but we didn't see the bias come out in the judging. Second, just because people have strong opinions on the topic doesn't necessarily mean that they will let those feelings come out in their judging decisions (again reference the NSA study). Also lots of the debate circuit is liberal? Honestly there's just a lot of assumption going on here: That in an extremely liberal debate circuit, we're going to have lots of people who have republican beliefs, and of those people, lots of them are going to buck a historical trend of general tabula rasa in judging and suddenly let their biases affect their judging? Seems like an unlikely thing to happen at significant proportions.
I do engage in qualitative arguments. Saying that the average non-debater would rather argue Mexican energy than the border is like saying your average reader would rather read Moby Dick than Harry Potter. One is simply less attention grabbing than the other. If you asked someone whether debating student loan debt in December or debating something like Article 48 of X country's constitution was going to be more interesting, obviously we know what everyone would choose. It's a similar situation here.
Also, it's important to note that there's definitely good reason to debate a controversial topic? Wasn't debate created to argue controversial topics? I think it's fair to say that both sides have valid, non racist points (ex: trafficking vs. more dangerous routes for immigrants), and, as you yourself reference, this is a personal issue to many debaters; it seems like it would be of great use for them to learn to articulate the many issues and arguments they have on the topic?
Finally, I didn't even attend a camp. But (a) lots of these campers probably jumped through significant financial hoops to get to camps so they could have good prep and (b) lots of students (including those outside camps) have already invested lots of time and effort. I don't see why it's not at least a fair practice for them to defend the work they've already put into the topic.
If teams use racist arguments, won't they just lose rounds? And won't it teach debaters a lot more how to use their voice to combat real life arguments that are prevalent to them? When are we ever getting into an argument over Mexican energy in real life? This idea that we need to inoculate teams from this bad literature seems faulty; in reality, it is that exact literature that debaters should be prepared to defend against. The idea that the main arguments are those that demonize immigrants is also faulty; it takes about 20 seconds of googling to find 10 studies that show that immigrants don't commit crime at all. These bad arguments are not winning arguments, because they're bad arguments.
Judges inserting themselves into RFDs seems unlikely; we've had plenty of controversial topics before, including biometric data technology a year and a half ago. There was also student loan debt, which at the time was one of if not the largest political issue on the docket of the Biden administration. Maybe five or so years back, we even had a topic about the validity of the NSA surveilling US citizens. No citizen really wants to be surveilled. But the debates were still fine, the best teams still winning every round, etc.
Also, there's no real statistical way of showing whether the topic choices affected novice retention? Debate is a growing sport by virtue of resume boosting for college applications, popularity on social media, etc. But are we really going to pretend like a debate on the Mexican energy sector is actually more interesting or even close to as interesting (at least to potential beginner debaters) as a debate on the border? It's also a little bit misguided to say that the only potential debaters who are intellectually curious are the ones who would choose the energy topic? All the headlines are about the border; maybe it's a sign of intellectual curiosity if someone wants to explore those headlines further.
All this to say, if picking a topic by sheer virtue of that topic's validity, I think the decision would be less black and white than outlined in this article; both topics have decent side on both grounds. However, it's worth noting that this announcement comes very late in the debate camp cycle; is it really fair to all of the other debaters who have paid for other camps and done significant work on the other topic (which had previously been the general camp consensus) to potentially shift the choice? I think not.
I think it's naive to suggest teams that read racist or xenophobic arguments will be perfectly corrected. In fact, many of the educators that need to be empowered most to make these corrections are increasingly prevented from doing so in border and red states. Ideally, the stasis point for the debate would not necessarily invite these sorts of racist characterizations as a pretext for debate-developing media literacy doesn't necessitate dehumanizing students in your classroom.
I think it is also misleading to suggest that the political climate surrounding biometric data collection or college loans rivals the sort of vitriol being spewed about the caravan four years ago, or at the RNC today. I would also be more wary of judge bias on a topic like this, especially at tournaments that do not hire circuit-style judges, held at red-state schools, buoyed by administrations that attempt to strip away any nuance to these sorts of discussions.
In a general note- if it is genuinely easy to research core affirmative arguments, it would be great to see some evidence of it. If there is evidence that a probable implementation of border surveillance, either under Biden or a looming Trump admin, would gather evidence humanely, and then act on it in a way that is not malicious to the benefit of trafficking victims, for example, it would be great to read said evidence.
Agreed there's no way to statistically validate how topic choices affect novice retention- that is why the initial complaint about the energy topic seemed silly. I am not sure why it is so ludicrous to suggest that novices could be interested in Mexican energy- many debaters on a whole prefer topics about other countries, many novices come in very interested in social studies, and many other novices are from Mexico themselves. If there are ways to dive into the border topic deeper, while being anchored by the probable implementation of surveillance, would love to hear.
To be fair to VBI, they have been doing the energy topic all summer. This sort of strong-arming a mere few days into the topic is the concern about the selection process- how can it be equitable and allow for ample research if we are instantly locking in the decision based on the financial concerns of a few camps? Why is the primary allure of camp gaining topic prep in the first place? This would seem to be bad value for many thousands of dollars- camp should likely focus on more core curricular elements that transfer throughout the year rather than a single topic at that price point. Amassing lots of prep from qualified coaches could be bought at a significantly lower rate, if that is the concern.
On the first point, I think that is a narrow minded focus of winning/losing. If we want to discuss winning and losing, the majority of judges don't really have super large biases, and even fewer will vote solely on those biases. But also, I think this letter from another debate camp makes an interesting point from a pedagogical standpoint (https://www.publicforumboot.camp/a2-vbi). The author of this article transitioned from a far right republican to a democrat on some important racial issues because he was forced to research and confront historical realities during an African reparations topic. I think this raises an important point: that research could educate debaters holding misconceptions about the topic.
Also, if you're still concerned about winning/losing, the aforementioned article also mentions that its left leaning camp on a left leaning circuit had a perfect split of rounds, whereas one would expect a neg leaning based off of the political ideology of each side of the debate. It seems biased to say that republican leaning judges will somehow significantly skew the topic when liberal leaning judges don't?
I've gone through the novice retention issue below, but I would just say that some novices might end up interested in Mexican energy; but comparatively, which one would generate more initial interest?
What about kids who didn't go to a camp, or couldn't afford it, but are still working hard at the border topic, due to all of the sources pointing them to that topic throughout the summer. Why is it unfair for them to want to not lose all of the work they've put into this?
"If teams use racist arguments, won't they just lose rounds? "
No. Have you been around debate at all? Also, what are the non-racist aff arguments that don't run from the core of the topic? Remember, PF doesn't get plans, and the aff needs to defend the most likely implementation of the topic; given a likely Trump presidency and Biden's attempts to triangulate, how do we think the topic will manifest in the world?
"Judges inserting themselves into RFDs seems unlikely; we've had plenty of controversial topics before, including biometric data technology a year and a half ago."
Most judges in PF are parents. Many of them will be MAGA-pilled. There is no comparison of the strength of feeling over this topic and "biometric data collection" among those folks. Just yesterday, the RNC handed out signs calling for mass deportations and included speakers advocating for internment camps. There is no comparison. You're asking debaters, many of whom will be immigrants or have family members who are, to debate this topic in front of judges who likely support mass deportation and violence at the border. In the midst of this heated election, this topic is a recipe for crying novices and parents screaming at each other in the judges' lounge.
Also, there's no real statistical way of showing whether the topic choices affected novice retention?
It can't be tested, but could you engage the qualitative arguments? Debaters are more likely to be engaged with a topic they don't know much about but sounds interesting, compared to a topic everyone is screaming at each other about all the time. Also, this just completely ignores the novices with a person connection to this topic who will never debate or will quit quickly after being faced with arguments demonizing them or people they love.
"However, it's worth noting that this announcement comes very late in the debate camp cycle; is it really fair to all of the other debaters who have paid for other camps and done significant work on the other topic (which had previously been the general camp consensus) to potentially shift the choice? I think not."
This is a terrible reason and proves the article's point about collusion. Camps should not be trying to dictate to the rest of the country through collusion. A lot of the backlash seems to be motivated by self-interest on the part of certain camps and their students...
By racist arguments, I meant those arguments that posit that immigrants are large source of crime/terrorism etc. Those arguments are empirically untrue, and, as I stated, the evidence for this is not difficult to find. Those who run those arguments will lose rounds the majority of the time, and, if they are self interested and desire to win, will have to shift their arguments. As for non racist affs, there are lots of human trafficking arguments that stem from groups preying on immigrants who may be vulnerable.
As for the plan issue...border security increasing is probably the most likely implementation? But to say that this plan has no merit is pretty biased in and of itself? The whole point of the topic is to debate whether we should be increasing border security? I don't see a problem.
First, I don't only reference biometric data collection. Literally no one wants the NSA surveilling people, and as I stated above, the best teams continued to win their rounds on that topic. That is probably at an equal level of bias with the border topic, but we didn't see the bias come out in the judging. Second, just because people have strong opinions on the topic doesn't necessarily mean that they will let those feelings come out in their judging decisions (again reference the NSA study). Also lots of the debate circuit is liberal? Honestly there's just a lot of assumption going on here: That in an extremely liberal debate circuit, we're going to have lots of people who have republican beliefs, and of those people, lots of them are going to buck a historical trend of general tabula rasa in judging and suddenly let their biases affect their judging? Seems like an unlikely thing to happen at significant proportions.
I do engage in qualitative arguments. Saying that the average non-debater would rather argue Mexican energy than the border is like saying your average reader would rather read Moby Dick than Harry Potter. One is simply less attention grabbing than the other. If you asked someone whether debating student loan debt in December or debating something like Article 48 of X country's constitution was going to be more interesting, obviously we know what everyone would choose. It's a similar situation here.
Also, it's important to note that there's definitely good reason to debate a controversial topic? Wasn't debate created to argue controversial topics? I think it's fair to say that both sides have valid, non racist points (ex: trafficking vs. more dangerous routes for immigrants), and, as you yourself reference, this is a personal issue to many debaters; it seems like it would be of great use for them to learn to articulate the many issues and arguments they have on the topic?
Finally, I didn't even attend a camp. But (a) lots of these campers probably jumped through significant financial hoops to get to camps so they could have good prep and (b) lots of students (including those outside camps) have already invested lots of time and effort. I don't see why it's not at least a fair practice for them to defend the work they've already put into the topic.