I participated in the topic committee process this year for the first time and I really enjoyed it. I was on the subcommittee that handles water and state recognition and I can assure everyone that the process thats followed to actually get the wording right on the topics is more than thorough. This is work being done by competent people who really care about the topics you, as students, must debate on over the course of a full year.

I don’t know what I expected to see in the meetings I attended, but I was surprised by the degree of care that goes into every aspect of the process. Moreover, everyone who voiced opinions in the meetings was fully engaged and highly competent. It was also run exceptionally well by the NFHSA.

As to water, I debated this topic, or one very similar to it in 1986 as a novice, so I’ll just get that bias out of the way upfront. With that in mind let me offer my opinion on the ground issue. I don’t see the problem at all. First, there has been a fairly sustained attack, maybe that’s not the right word, on the disadvantage as a concept for a number of years