Big Questions is NSDA's philosophy-of-everything format. One resolution per year. Topics span science, religion, consciousness, free will, and ethics. The format is one-on-one with no judge paradigms. You have to make the philosophy accessible.
BQ is unique in that you debate both sides over the course of a tournament. Speeches are short (5/4/3/3 minutes) and the language has to stay clear. Your opponent could be a coach, a parent, or a former judge from any other format. No jargon, no spreading, no theory.
Consciousness is not the current resolution. It is a practice motion, used here because the moves transfer to most BQ topics: define the terms, pick a standard, and keep the philosophy accessible to a lay judge. Aff (physicalist) framings:
The NSDA keeps the full archive of past Big Questions resolutions, including topic papers and classroom packets, on its archived Big Questions resources page.
Big Questions (BQ) is the NSDA's philosophy-of-everything format. One resolution per year, focused on questions of science, religion, consciousness, free will, and ethics. The format is one-on-one. Each debater argues both sides over the course of a tournament. No jargon, no spreading, no kritiks: the philosophy has to stay accessible to lay judges.
A full competitive season. The NSDA announces one BQ resolution per year, typically in late summer, and it runs September through nationals in June. The same resolution at every tournament means debaters get deep on both sides of the question and the literature behind it.
Constructive: 5 minutes. Rebuttal: 4 minutes. Consolidation: 3 minutes. Summary: 3 minutes. Two cross-examination periods of 3 minutes each. The short speeches force concision and clarity. The format does not allow new arguments in consolidation or summary.
Mostly. Topics center on philosophical questions (the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, free will, objective morality), but strong debaters pull in empirical evidence where it bears on the question: neuroscience for consciousness, evolutionary biology for moral realism, fundamental physics for free will. The argument has to remain accessible to a non-specialist judge.
BQ topics are positive (questions about what is true) rather than normative (questions about what ought to be done). LD turns on value-criterion frameworks; BQ does not. BQ topics are annual; LD topics rotate every two months. BQ disallows kritiks and theory; circuit LD welcomes them. BQ rewards clear synthesis of philosophical and empirical evidence in plain English.
No. BQ explicitly rejects kritiks, theory shells, and meta-debate tactics. The format is designed to keep the debate accessible to lay judges and to keep the focus on the underlying philosophical question. Debaters who try to import circuit-LD tactics typically get penalized on speaker points and on the ballot.
One-on-one. Constructive (5 min) lays out the case. Cross-examination (3 min) follows. Rebuttal (4 min) attacks the opponent's case and defends your own. Second cross-examination (3 min). Consolidation (3 min) collapses to your strongest arguments. Summary (3 min) weighs and writes the ballot. Both speakers debate one side, then switch sides between rounds across a tournament.
Resolved: Consciousness can be fully explained by physical processes. The 2026-27 NSDA Big Questions resolution. Aff (physicalism) argues mental states are reducible to brain states or functional patterns; Neg (anti-physicalism) argues phenomenal experience and qualia resist physical explanation. Past resolutions covered free will, moral realism, the existence of objective truth, and the value of self-interest.
The AI takes either side of the consciousness debate. Useful for stress-testing your framework before tournament weekend.
Spar with an AI → Or debate a stranger on video →