@ThankYouforHelp you seem to be saying that the discussion will be just fine as long as you don’t transgress certain boundaries (drawn by whom?). But you acknowledge you’ll be “shut down pretty fast” if you “bash immigrants” for example. But let’s take a slightly more nuanced example: birthright citizenship. In 2012 one of the PF debate topics was: “Resolved: Birthright Citizenship Should Be Abolished.” One of the things my D loved about debate was that you always learned the pro and con sides of an argument and never knew which you would end up having to argue in any given round. You had to rely on logic and evidence to win, in addition to your oratorical and persuasive skills. In her college, however, all issues are inextricably tied up with one’s identity. Your argument is heard and weighed based on your race, ethnicity, economic status, and gender identity. So let’s hypothesize that a student says there are some good arguments for abolishing birthright citizenship. I think that student would quickly be denounced as “problematic” at best and a white supremacist (or disloyal POC) at worst. Not by everyone but by those who are the most vocal on campus. Is that what you mean by “shut down pretty fast”? Or do you mean that you will quickly be bested in a civil, logical argument? I wish it were the latter but I’m afraid it’s the former. And whether or not it’s a justified fear, that fear is stifling debate on a lot of campuses. Students see significant downside social risk to engaging in debate.