Nov/Dec Public Forum Brief

Our Nov/Dec Public Forum Brief is 321 pages long, in-depth Topic Analyses by Yair Fraifeld, Rachel Mauchline, and Thadeus Smith, 200+ cards, plus General Information, Framework suggestions, and more! Our briefs for Public Forum Debate are powerful educational tools because of their structure, quality, and quantity of included arguments. Each brief includes topic analyses by highly reputable coaches and alumni, background information on the topic, and heavily warranted arguments on each side — every argument paired with blocks and answers so you're prepared for anything. As educators, we believe it is important to help students learn argumentation, research, and critical thinking skills fostered by debate. Our briefs are designed to facilitate real learning — helping students succeed in their rounds and build a foundation of expertise that benefits them for a lifetime.

From the Editor

The November/December resolution asks whether European members of NATO should ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Although the topic centers on nuclear weapons, the most interesting debates will probably not be about whether nuclear war is bad. Both sides can agree that the use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. The real question is what European countries should do about that danger while nuclear weapons continue to exist. The PRO can argue that NATO's current approach makes Europe part of the nuclear problem. Some European countries host American nuclear weapons, participate in nuclear planning, or rely on the threat of nuclear retaliation for their security. Ratifying the TPNW would challenge that model. It could remove nuclear weapons from European bases, limit participation in nuclear sharing, strengthen pressure for disarmament, and give European states greater credibility when asking other countries to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons. The CON has an important response: Russia would still have nuclear weapons the day after Europe ratified the treaty. So would China and the United States. European states would therefore be limiting their own participation in nuclear deterrence without requiring other nuclear powers to make the same choice. For countries closest to Russia, that tradeoff may look very different than it does for countries farther away. That distinction is especially important because European NATO members are not all in the same position. France and the United Kingdom possess nuclear weapons. Some NATO members host American weapons. Others participate in NATO's nuclear planning without hosting them. Strong debaters should avoid treating "Europe" as if every country faces identical costs and benefits. Does someone have to move first for the world to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons, or is disarmament dangerous unless adversaries move together? The best debates will compare those two theories directly and explain which creates the safer path forward. Yair Fraifeld Editor-in-Chief