Public Forum Boot Camp

Hi everyone,

PFBC thinks that the EU nuclear sharing agreement topic is preferable to “Unbrexit” for Septober 2025. We’re going to synthesize our reasoning for this topic choice below.

To be clear - we do not think that the topic choices for Septober of this year are uniquely polarizing, especially compared to the discussion last year - instead, we think that camps and coaches should make a decision on topic choice based on which topic is better rather than which topic everyone else is using. We are making this announcement public for three reasons: 1) because we think it is a good norm to publicize conversations that have historically happened between camp directors behind the scenes, 2) because we think it is a good norm for camps to explain why they have chosen the topic they are using beyond “everyone else is using it”, and 3) because we want to share our thinking with the community to provide a starting point for the community to do research.

We strongly encourage other camps to do the same.

–

PFBC will use the topic “Resolved: The European Union should establish a nuclear sharing agreement with France to create an independent deterrent capability” for camp in 2025. We’ve made this decision after conducting preliminary research on both topics, and have determined that while Unbrexit would be an okay topic, the depth and direction of literature of EU nuclear sharing provides benefits that far outweigh.

As we do every year, we decide the topic that we will choose for the summer based on which topic offers the best division of ground to survive debates during the summer of camp through October.

While “Unbrexit” is an easy topic to immediately understand (and therefore “more accessible” for novices), there are many concerns that we have about ground on the topic, in terms of both depth and breadth. Unbrexit is purely limited to a debate about economics and the process of rejoining the EU. Every affirmative will likely look about the same – that leaving the EU created regulatory and trade barriers that the UK could remove by rejoining the EU, stimulating economic growth and the benefits associated with it. Most negatives will lean heavily on process-based disadvantages and defense to this core aff argument – be it political backlash in the UK or EU, arguments about the complexity of negotiations between the UK and EU, or arguments that the process would take too long. Other negatives might choose to go for vague “sovereignty” arguments that were used to justify Brexit in 2016 that are neither very good nor supported well by the topic literature. Outside of this core clash point, the aff has some arguments about soft power in various areas of international cooperation or specific points of collaboration between the UK and the EU, while the neg has some arguments about whether the UK leaving and rejoining would undermine the legitimacy of the EU or lead to broader instability across the bloc.

These arguments are fine, and we have no doubt that PF would be fine with this topic – but by mid-September, these arguments would be extremely stale and played out, with little possibility for evolution or deeper research.

On the other hand, nuclear sharing offers several different directions of ground for both sides that are likely to evolve with the international political landscape over the coming months.

The first point of clash is whether this independent deterrent would be effective as a deterrent or not – the obvious scenario that comes to mind is Russia/Ukraine, but creative teams can find scenarios that expand Europe’s nuclear influence more broadly. This also includes a debate about capacity – France’s nuclear arsenal is small, and there is a lot of discussion in the topic literature about what capacity France has to step into a role historically occupied by the US in relation to Europe.

Second, the topic obviously demands a discussion of the United States’ role as global peacekeeper in 2025 – there are questions about the Trump administration’s response to the war in Ukraine, the Israel/Iran conflict, and whether traditional American allies can rely on American defense commitments. France and the EU taking a concrete step to distance themselves from the United States creates both actual and perceived links to the global network of alliances shifting, in ways that could either be beneficial or harmful. This topic subpoint also includes a discussion of NATO and its effectiveness - i.e., would the EU creating a nuclear deterrent capability ultimately supersede American defense commitments in Europe? Is that beneficial or harmful?

Thirdly, the topic invites a classic PF backfile debate - the nuclear proliferation debate - in a creative way. Whereas many PF nuclear proliferation debates focus on horizontal proliferation – or new countries developing nuclear weapons – this topic starts at the vertical proliferation debate, asking whether an expansion of the role of France’s established nuclear arsenal would be beneficial. Aff teams can choose to either bite the link to proliferation and contend that France’s proliferation would benefit regional stability, or make the argument that vertical proliferation would be limited in scope and instead focus on the benefits of a potential nuclear sharing agreement at a perceptual level to derive impacts, contesting the negative’s proliferation disadvantages on a link level. Moreover, very few PF proliferation debates have focused on European prolif. The vast majority of PF cards and backfiles on nuclear proliferation and conflict are focused on the Middle East and Asia. This offers both something new for experienced debaters, and something well-worn for novice debaters to get their heads around as the first topic many will debate.

Fourthly, the topic touches on global nonproliferation norms - including the NPT. Most major European Union states are signatories to the NPT. An EU that is actively engaged in an increase in the role of France’s nuclear arsenal may work against global non-proliferation and treaties – giving access to not only unique ground regarding international negotiations and arms control frameworks that can expand the debate beyond Europe, but also similar EU backlash arguments that would exist on the Unbrexit topic.

This is just scratching the surface of the EU nuclear sharing topic. We are certain that over four months of debate, the PF community will find excellent evidence to support incredibly creative and thought-provoking positions that go beyond the scope of what we have written. And, while we think PF would be fine with the Unbrexit topic, it’s clear that the ground is simply less varied and interesting than the alternative.

Finally, to address the potential counterargument of “novice retention” – we will concede that at first blush, the nuclear sharing topic is more difficult to grasp than Unbrexit. The Unbrexit topic is shorter, and most high school debaters are likely to at least have heard of Brexit on some level. However, a topic that is “less complicated” immediately is not necessarily a topic that is preferable for debate. Novices remain interested in debate because they are able to investigate a topic in-depth and have interesting, thought-provoking discussions with their peers in a competitive setting: the precise subject of that conversation. We would contend that we should focus on writing topics that best facilitate that conversation rather than attempting to appeal to vague “simplicity” or “accessibility” standards.

Furthermore, we don’t think the nuclear sharing topic is actually less complicated than Unbrexit once you dig into the topic. The process of joining the European Union is tremendously complicated, and requires an understanding of European parliament, the politics of several European countries, and a detailed history of the relationship between the UK and the EU in order to craft well-researched and reasoned arguments. To be clear, we don’t think this is a bad thing – but we make this point simply to illustrate that every debate topic reveals fractal-like complexity the longer one grapples with it.

In summary, PFBC believes that the topic more likely to lead to better debates and research through Halloween is the EU/France nuclear sharing agreement topic, and that will be debated at PFBC 2025.

We have a (very limited) number of spots available for our session on July 10-20 at the University of Minnesota. If you are interested in coming to camp, feel free to apply on our website and/or shoot us an email at [email protected].

–Bryce Piotrowski, Co-Director of PFBC

Christian Vasquez (Blake) and Bryce Piotrowski (Seven Lakes) here to announce Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) 2025. This summer, we're offering 2 sessions, both at the University of Minnesota. Session 1 will be June 29 through July 9, and Session 2 will be July 10 through July 20. Applications have been open for a little while, but we wanted to take some time to post information about camp here.

PFBC is a summer institute focused on national-circuit Public Forum Debate. Many of our staff from last year are returning, and we are happy to have several former PFBC students back as junior staff this year, including:

-- Kaylee Chen and Ruhi Kurdikar (Blake CK), who won the Barkley Forum at Emory;

-- Devin Lester (Lakeville North LM), 4 TOC bids, Badgerland champion;

-- Luis Carvajal Picott and Andres Mendoza Casas (Seven Lakes CM), 3 TOC bids, Blue Key top seed;

-- Anshika Agrawal and Siri Ramineni (Seven Lakes AR), NSDA 2024 top seed, TFA State quarterfinalists;

and more, who will be confirmed and announced on our website and Instagram over the coming months.

Here is our core philosophy: You get better at debate by doing debate. "Doing debate" entails conducting research, debating in practice rounds, and giving redone speeches. At camp, you will spend all of your time either:

- Researching to prepare for upcoming debates.

- Doing practice rounds to test the research you have done.

- Redoing speeches from those debates to hone your strategic vision.

Over the course of a 10-day session, we will guarantee:

- A brief of evidence on a September/October topic, compiled by our camp staff, to be sent to you before camp, allowing you to jumpstart your research process.

- 19 guaranteed practice debates for all students on the same topic, including 2 full practice rounds on the first full day of camp instruction.

- A 1:4 faculty-to-student ratio to provide constant, individualized attention to hone your skills and strategy, with labs of no more than 12 students.

- No "top lab" elitism - all labs are evenly mixed based on your record and seniority - to facilitate a true team environment and ensure that everyone who comes to camp receives top-tier coaching.

- A comprehensive library of recorded lectures from every past summer of PFBC, which can be viewed before, during, and after camp, as many times as you want.

You can read more at https://www.publicforumboot.camp/, where you will also find future staff announcements, our sample schedule, reviews from past PFBC attendees, and answers to frequently asked questions.

We are accepting applications, and have extended our early bird discount window to February 28. Please use this link to apply: https://www.publicforumboot.camp/student-application

If you are interested in being a staff member this summer, we are still accepting applications through February 28. That link is here: https://www.publicforumboot.camp/staff-application

Finally, if you have already applied, we will email out confirmations and scholarship information by March 1.

Our email is [email protected]. Please reach out with any questions you may have.

See you this summer,

Bryce and Christian, PFBC Co-Directors, on behalf of the PFBC Staff

Student Application — Public Forum Boot Camp PROSPECTIVE STUDENT APPLICATION Hello! Welcome to PFBC's student application. In order to better target curriculum development, we're looking to gather some information about you/your student. None of the information is shared beyond our administrative staff. Student Name * First Name Last Name Stud...

We've posted a starter packet of resources on our website at this link for the November/December 2024 NSDA PF Topic - Resolved: The United States should substantially reduce its military support of Taiwan. On sale for $12 with two ready-to-go contentions on each side to jumpstart your research.

Nocember 2024 - Taiwan Starter Packet — Public Forum Boot Camp Evidence packet containing two arguments for the affirmative and two arguments for the negative on the November/December 2024 NSDA Public Forum Topic - Resolved: The United States should substantially reduce its military support of Taiwan.

We've released some starter resources for the September/October 2024 PF Topic Option 1 publicly for the PF community to view and learn from. If you're interested in getting access to our 400+ page evidence packet, 3 additional demo debates, and extra online practice for Sept/Oct 2024, sign up for our Online Supplement, held the week of July 29!

Here's a link to our Septober resources: https://www.publicforumboot.camp/septoctober-resources

Here's a link to apply for camp:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf2E-Vcva3ucINoSEkRZd1leu-8FmEyUq5yfeNcwzxGgPPVWQ/viewform

Sept/October Resources — Public Forum Boot Camp Traditional Demo Full Round Part One Full Round Part Two Starter Pack Download Sign up for our online supplement! PFBC Starter PacketPrior to the start of camp, PFBC staff members are involved in the creation of a packet of evidence that students are able to use to jumpstart the argument writing pro...

Hi folks!

We still have a couple more spots remaining for our in-person session at the University of Minnesota which runs from July 7-17. If you are interested, or know somebody that might be, please let them know.

We are also still accepting registrations for our online session, to be held from July 29-August 3.

The registration link is below.

Prospective Student Application Hello! Welcome to PFBC's student application. In order to better target curriculum development, we're looking to gather some information about you/your student. None of the information is shared beyond our administrative staff.

Hi everyone!

Registration is open for 2024! Our in-person session will run from July 7 - 17, 2024, back at the University of Minnesota. The link to register as a student is here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf2E-Vcva3ucINoSEkRZd1leu-8FmEyUq5yfeNcwzxGgPPVWQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

We also have an online session which will run from July 29 - August 3 available for sign up in the same spot.

If you are interested in working with us during the 2024 summer, staff applications are also open here: https://forms.gle/zhy3GTNhmNGgJvWZA

See you this summer!

Prospective Student Application Hello! Welcome to PFBC's student application. In order to better target curriculum development, we're looking to gather some information about you/your student. None of the information is shared beyond our administrative staff.

PFBC will be using the HSR resolution this summer! We're excited and staff have already begun preparing initial evidence packets so all students will be able to have some great debates starting on the first day of instruction!

Still interested in camp this summer? We still have a few spots in our session running from July 18th-July 28th. You can sign up today at publicforumboot.camp!

Applications for PFBC are now officially open! To better help you in making the right decision for your summer learning, we’ve added a new FAQ page that covers a lot of what you all have asked of us over the past week and a half. We’re looking forward to seeing all of you in Minneapolis this summer!

FAQ — Public Forum Boot Camp Frequently Asked Questions Why are you charging so much money?We understand that debate camp is expensive: and PFBC is no exception to this rule. It costs quite a bit of money to secure classroom space, dorm space, and to feed all attendees of the camp. We also want to make sure that our amazing deb...

We are pleased to announce that Public Forum Boot Camp will launch this summer. PFBC is a new approach to camp that focuses much more on doing debates than listening to former debaters talk about debate. It will be held on the University of Minnesota’s campus in Minneapolis. Two sessions will be held: July 6 - July 16, and July 18 - July 28.

Here is our core camp philosophy: we believe that the best way to get better at debate is by doing debate. Our camp will focus on providing you with excellent instructors to guide you through the process of researching, doing rounds, and re-doing speeches, with as much debate as possible taking place over the course of 9 instructional days.

We will guarantee:
A brief of evidence on a September/October topic, compiled by our camp staff, to jumpstart your research process and to be sent to you a week before you arrive at camp.
17 guaranteed rounds of debate on a September/October topic, including a practice round on the first full day of camp instruction.
A 1:4 faculty-to-student ratio to provide constant, individualized attention, with labs of no more than 12 students.

Check out our full site at publicforumboot.camp to learn more. We are currently setting an initial entry cap at 48 competitors per session, and priority will be given to applicants that are complete partnerships. We will increase the entry cap at a rolling basis. Applications will open on February 21. Priority application deadline is March 21st.

If you have questions, please reach out to us at [email protected]. We will be updating our site with an FAQ page in the coming weeks.

Bryce Piotrowski and Christian Vasquez
PFBC Co-Directors