Cross-Ex in Parli

[USC MissingLink]

From the Long Beach warm-up invitation:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>3. We are going to experiment by adding a 3-minute cross-examination period after each constructive speech. We will forgo the traditional use of points of information and leave all questioning for the cross-examination period.[/quote]Cool beans! I know we'd talked about this for awhile, but I'm glad to see someone take the initiative to try it out. It has been a long time since I'd done a CX, but in New Orleans at the tryout for the British Tour the debate we did had a CX period and I gotta say. It came back to me fast, and dang, I missed it. Cross-Ex is <em>so fun</em>.

Do we think that CX will make POI's obsolete"? POI's are good too; I wonder if there's a way to keep both...

jEd

[NoGraveButTheSea]

I am fully behind this system. I think that having to ask 3 minutes of questions as well as field them in a round is a larger test of skill than POI's, furthermore I think that our rounds will flow better overall. So yay for cross-ex period and eliminating POI's.

[tutakai]

Unfortunately, POIs are one of the most unique features of parli and it is sad to see them tossed aside out of a desire to blindly emulate other forms of debate that are PRESUMED to be superior.

There is a sad tendency in many sectors of intercollegiate debate to homogenize all debate into a very narrow range and to deny dissenters any alternatives. Every time an alternative is set up, there rises very quickly a countermovement to coopt and reform that alternative back into the previous form. It happened to CEDA and now it is starting to happen to NPDA.

[ISamuel]

POIs are cool. CX is cool too. So here's a good idea. Why not have some formats that have one, and others that have another? That way if you like POIs (as I do) you can do one of those formats, and also compete in other formats if you like CX (as I also do).

This would be the status quo.

Cheers,
Ian

[Western Amy]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Unfortunately, POIs are one of the most unique features of parli and it is sad to see them tossed aside out of a desire to blindly emulate other forms of debate that are PRESUMED to be superior.[/quote]

OK, this seems a bit overdramatic. How about insted of <strong>blindly</strong> emulating other forms of debate we have a tournament experiment with something different to see how people like it. Oh wait, that's what this tournament is DOING. It seems awfully defensive to characterize soemthing as being "tossed aside" when one tournament proposes an experiment of something different.

[USC MissingLink]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Unfortunately, POIs are one of the most unique features of parli and it is sad to see them tossed aside out of a desire to blindly emulate other forms of debate that are PRESUMED to be superior.[/quote].Well, I've done 4.5 years of policy with CX and 3.5 years of POI's so I think I'm qualified to claim that CX <em>is</em> better.

I don't know why POI's and CX are mutually exclusive. You can do both.

jEd

[joecool12321]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't know why POI's and CX are mutually exclusive. You can do both.[/quote]Actually,<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We will forgo the traditional use of points of information and leave all questioning for the cross-examination period.[/quote]I wish the word "forgo" wasn't there. It would be nice to have both. Now, as has been argued, some people might just say, "Save it for CX." But I think maintaining room for points of clarification during the speech is both beneficial to the debate and to the audience. I don't want to sit through six minutes of meaningless speech because my opponents wouldn't take a question about their definition (or some other such thing).

--Joey

[tutakai]

Doing both was exactly what I prefer. If any of you remember, when proposals to use CX came up on the list, "do both" was precisely the experiment I proposed.

Unfortunately, this "experiment" and much of the rhetoric in support of CX periods have pursued a zero sum game instead, implying that CX must come at the expense of POIs since CX is "better".

So, Amy, *I* am not the one who is advocating a single-track approach.

[Western Amy]

Jason--Can you show me where I said that you <em>were</em> advocating a single-track approach?

I thought I was calling to task your use of words like "blindly." At no point did I promote one over the other <em>or</em> doing both.

All I said was let's not freak out over what Long Beach has called an experiment, and state that they're "implying" anything that you can't quote them as actually saying.

[tutakai]

Amy,

Some people are very blind in their assumption that other debate practices are always presumptively superior forms of debate. Some of the claims that float out from time to time in support for CX in parli and/or evidence in parli or various other proposals for change bear the marks of such assumptions.

The most obvious hallmark is when the proposal seeks not to supplement a particular parli tradition, but rather to replace it entirely with a practice modeled precisely from other forms of debate. The CSU Long Beach "experiment" bore that particular mark.

[dissensus]

I think adding three minutes of C-X is equivalent to adding three minutes of prep time. I don't mind this in principle but I think it is worthwhile to make sure everyone understands that this would probably encourage the trend towards more CEDA/NDT type positions. With three minutes to sit and think a person could generate far more sophisticated positions. Instead of two off case it would be easy to jump to four...

[smiley30girl]

Hey all,
Since it is a tournament we're hosting, I thought I'd jump in.

As for Jason, fear not! I doubt our one tournament will push parli over the edge into scary policy world. (sarcasm) Anyway, while I do understand your frustration with people just assuming that some form of debate is superior, our tournament does anything but. I think it will be a fun experiment.

We did a public debate on campus that eliminated POIs and used CX, and I think it added a lot to the round. There's room for direct interaction with a speaker from the other team for longer than one question, and it really gives you a chance to figure out your strategy.

As for the 3 minutes of extra prep time.........as the LO, I say rock on! Who couldn't use the extra 3 minutes? If positions come out better thought out, the better for debate.

I hope as many people as possible will come and support this experiment. For those of you who are anti-CX, maybe it will go horribly and you will be proven right. But the only way to know is to try.

Audrey :)

[tutakai]

Audrey,

Why do you have to eliminate POIs in order to experiment with CX? Why make this a zero-sum game?

If it IS a zero-sum game, then I for one will fight to keep the POI and the maintenence of parli's unique identity. If, however, it is a matter of "do both" then I support experimentation.

[Eagle of Meaux]

Hey Audrey, when is the tournament? I sounds like something LC would be up for supporting, or at least I think Paul and I would be.

Jason, I've got a question about one of your earlier statements. you say
"Unfortunately, POIs are one of the most unique features of parli and it is sad to see them tossed aside out of a desire to blindly emulate other forms of debate that are PRESUMED to be superior."

Amy asks why what is being done is necessarily being done blindly. I would inquire where in the Long Beach invitation it stated that this was being done to emulate other forms of debate. Furthermore, I'm curious as to why there is an assumption of the superiority of another forum in a desire to experiment with augmentations to our own forum? I think there is a lot which is good about Parli, and a lot which is good about other forums - CEDA seems to be the focus here. I don't understand why a desire to import one of the desirable aspects of another form of debate makes the assumption that "other forms of debate... are PRESUMED to be superior" Can you clarify please?

Keith

[tutakai]

I am not going to let you bait me into another CEDA vs parli discussion because of the way you have behaved in previous instantiations of such discusssions in the past.

I will suffice it to say that experimentation is something I support but wish that experiments did not have to come in a zero-sum form of this type. Further, I would argue that there is something valuable in the POI (sponteneity, requiring debaters to think on their feet and adjust their arguments on the fly) that is not necessarily present in CX. I would also argue that there is something valuable in other features of parli, such as the no-cards format, that should also be retained in spite of periodic calls for change from those who want to convert parli into a close of CEDA/NDT.

[smiley30girl]

Jason,
Although I do not know the "official" explanation of why we are for this tournament elimiating POIs for CX, my guess would be as follows: In order to experiment, we need to try just CX, a combo of both, and just POI's (which is the SQ) So if the weekend goes well and people like it, maybe we should also try both. If people hate it, maybe CX in parli isn't the way to go.
I do understand your love of what it unique about parli. I did choose this activity over others because of what I think it has to offer. However, we can appreciate parli while always working to improve it and allow for change.

And Keith, can you backchannel me? I sent a note to the L but maybe you didn't get it.

Audrey :)

[tutakai]

Experimentation is good. For some time, I have been trying to think of a way to shoehorn an "experimental round" into NPTE. This round would use alternate rules (like a CX or something) and would not count towards overall results. The purpose would solely be to gether data, using many of the top teams in parli, about the real effects of possible changes. Examples of possible experiments include: CX periods, second rebuttals, "must take this" POIs, worlds format, etc.

[USC MissingLink]

I agree with Jason here that there's no reason for cx and pois to be mutually exclusive. I also applaud CSULB for their experimentation. I think that it's definitely a step in the right direction.

jEd

[Eagle of Meaux]

I think the experimaental round at NPTE is an excelent idea Jason. I'd certianly be up for it.

Keith

[tutakai]

The major problem with an experimental round is also a major barrier to NPTE tournament expansion -- scheduling and tournament administration.

[stannard67]

...some people might think that the NPTE is just too important a tournament for any "experiments."

mjs

[tutakai]

Matt,

As I said, the "experimental" round would not affect the important part of the NPTE -- namely the results. It would be for demonstration purposes only and would not be counted towards team records.

Just a thought anyway...

[stannard67]

Jason:

That said, I think such an event would be great to have. I have seen some great public and panel debates at CEDA nats and the NDT. This is certainly an idea I would love to explore.

stannard

[Hummingbird Tenny]

What would be the advantages to using both formats? It seems the most important questions would be asked during the POI's and the CX time would just be used as fillers (and as mentioned previously functionally prep time).

More importantly, speakers would have no incentive to accept POIs and allow their opponents to burn away speech time.

[BrendoFTC]

I am psyched up to try out the cross x in parli, but I think there is at least one more battle that will be fought over it if it were to ever be considered as a replacement or cohabitant of regular debate with POIs: there has bee a bit of a rift [as I'm sure I don't need to tell and Southern California debaters] as to whether or not CEDA debate style is having too much effect on parli. There is some concern that cross x periods are going to open the door for strategies such as baiting opponents into Kritik debates and sacrificing on-case argumentation entirely. I think that would be pretty cool, as many parli teams already use POIs for that purpose anyway, but there is a significant number of people who feel that this is one of those lines between parli and policy that still seperates the events.
Allowing cross x will mean that OPP teams can ignore the usual burden of preparing for the gov case by taking a kritikal stance at the resolution and finding what part of the gov's burden can be exploited as weakness. Using 15 minutes in such a manner may be more appealing than to take the suggested ground that most resolutions strive to afford both teams and serve to effectively- 1. Destroy the govs prepared responses and 2. lock the gov into a bind of either affirming the res and biting the Kritiks entailed or face being non-topical/resolutional.
The question of whether this offers more of a slant towards the OPP in a given round is one that a pose to the debate community, as well as the greater question of whether or not there should be seperate lines between poicy and parli, or whether the best arguement shoud just win. In any event, I know I just can't wait to give cross x a chance.

[HumorlessInTheLB]

Is cx good or bad for parli? We won't know until its tried and either rejected or embraced. PSCFA fall champs tried something new as well (same resolution back to back for first and second rounds). This experiment could also be seen as similiar to other debate formats where the same topic is used year round. Parli debate is still here, so I'm assuming the short term impacts of experimentation are minimal. Long term...I'm guessing that changes will occur in the format of the game. Parli is an activity for both fun and education. Further the individuals involved in this community tend to think and talk (alot). Thus new ideas are inevitable. If you percieve specific ideas to have negative implications then voice your objection. (talking part along with thinking). There isn't one person who gets dictate how things are going to be.

My opinion is that experimentation is a good thing because it'll provide a better understanding of the activity at the very least and possible present changes for the future of a beneficial nature. Who knows? I like poi's because they allow for immediate clarification for the audience. However poi's can be just as effective. Like Audrey said, Long Beach has been trying some public debates. In these debates we've eliminated poi's and implimented cx. This change seemed beneficial because it allowed a more focused period of clarification. If the focus of the community is public oratory with a combination of logos, ethos, and pathos then parli will evolve based on what is desired. I've been told that parli is a balancing act of presentation and critical thinkng. That balance won't go away because new formats are tried or even accepted.
later,
Joe

[TheRyanKing777]

I think we're on a slippery slope with this cx thing. If it catches on parli is dead. Pretty soon we'll be bringing evidence in and all that shit, but I'm going to Long Beach and I'll give it a try<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/smoker.gif ALT=":smoker">

[UWCanadianGuy]

If we really wanted to keep Parli, we would have debate with free floor, acts, amendments and a monarch to come in at the end to sign the bills. But even with resolutions and set time blocks, we must not abandon the spirit of parliamentary debate.

So my point in brief: the important thing is that the spirit of Parli is kept in the content of the debater’s speeches and not the form.

I will first off admit that I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second and an elected member to her Youth Parliament in Vancouver Canada. As a person who has participated in a functioning legislative parliament, I am shocked and appalled by the bastardization of parliamentary debate in the United States competitive circuit. While I am sad to see that Gov and Opp in the US are rarely facing each other two sword lengths apart with the Government on the speaker’s right, I am fist and foremost shocked and appalled by values associated with it.

Parliamentary Debate is, and will always be, a test of elect-ability. Cross-examination is to Law what Parli is to Politics. Parli is about appealing to the people, on the people’s terms. Therefore, it should be judged on sex appeal, fear mongering, style, comedy, fashion and such matters. The question one needs to ask in watching a parliamentary debate is… would people vote for him if they saw a photo of him on a bill board ad?

Flowing in disastrous. Mr. Speakers who take notes are horrifying. Few Americans ever vote on a logical representation of issues. No one remembers what President Kennedy thought of trade with Japan during the election. Everyone knows who he is. My point is that the content of speeches are of little importance to true members of parliament. The Gov will always win a vote of the house because if a government looses a bill, it’s a general election and all votes are whipped. Therefore, what is important in parli is that the opposition sends its message of revolt to the people in hopes that a huge letter writing or suicide bombing campaign will halt the government in its tracks. No one watching the six o’clock news is flowing or otherwise note-taking.

Therefore, in conclusion, I urge everyone, while they are experimenting with form, to also take a bolder approach in Parli. Forget the CEDA experiences you’ve had and dare to try debating Parli in the spirit of the game. Dare to try to drown out the opposition by heckling incessantly. Dare to wail and howl at the government. Dare to be the maverick politician who stands out.


(as an example, while I was debating in Canada this winter break, I pounded the table with my shoe and got another opposition party to vote with me because they thought I had a lot of guts)

[opaun]

Who let the Canadian in?!?!?!? <img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/cutelaugh.gif ALT=":laugh">

[tutakai]

Yeah, God forbid that this forum actually hear from diverse viewpoints. Homogeneity good, I guess -- that way you can continue to pretend that whatever opinions predominate on the west coast are universal, right? Who cares what people in other segments of the parli community think? You Southern California folks always know what's best for us hicks and outsiders. <img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/flame.gif ALT=":flame">

IMHO, "The Canadian" made some excellent points and provided a perspective that is fairly common outside of the west coast segment of the parli community.

No wonder participation from outside of southern california is so low....

[Dan6814]

Jason, I certainly hope your post was tongue-in-cheek, since Owen's sure was...

Dan

[PancreasMatt]

well, even if Owens wasnt, what a hideous picture the canadian paints parli in! i certainly wouldn't want to invest all the time and studying that i do in parli if "logical argumentation" was rejected as a hideous vestige of that evil bogey-debate CEDA. I guess rounds should go to whomever can do the loudest drowning out of someone elses speech and the most exceptional ham acting and emotional appeals. of course, if, in round someone accused me of emotional appeal, i'd answer with Bleiker. <img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/cutelaugh.gif ALT=":laugh"> heh heh. more proof that the game is bigger than just in-round.
matt c.

[UWCanadianGuy]

I never said that i "rejected as a hideous vestige of that evil bogey-debate CEDA". CEDA is CEDA and PARLI is PARLI. each has their own charactoristics. CEDA is about law, hence the term "cross examination". Parli is about POLITICS. I view it as a practice, and as a very good place to study, how to be a better politician. How to better gain publicity for your cause and how to sugar coat the most controversial ideas into something that people don't automatically reject as radical. CEDA does not provide a forum for euphamisms and partisan scrapping. That's fine. It isn't really supposed to. it's more a critical analysis of policy like what happens when bureacrats debate policy and what happens when we are in a court of law. I'd just like to see Parli remain because it's just about the only place where we can practice "politicking"... and lets be honest "contention - counter arguement" is not exactly how people decided between Bush and Gore.

[DreinCali]

yo, Owen said one sentence and used extra punctuation and a laughing emoticon. So I wouldn't read anything substantive into it, Jason. Whoa. Unless you were kidding.

[Western Amy]

I gotta agree that the response to Owen's post seems a bit out of proportion. Furthermore, I want to point out that participation outside of Southern Cali is not that low, as we have plenty of posters from Nor Cal and the Northwest. Admittedly, we do not have as many posters from the midwest as I (and Brian and Jed) have hoped, but to attribute blame to a post that was meant to be a joke seems silly. I have it on decent authority that there is some snobbery against the West Coast existing in the midwest as well.

Amy

[tutakai]

My post was about half in jest. While I am sure Owen did not mean it that way, his post was an in-jest version of how some other voices that dissent from predominating opinions often feel treated. In particular, voices that speak up in support of some "traditional" notions of parli are frequently treated essentially as ignorant hicks on Net Benefits boards that are dominated by CEDA-crossover influences and adherents who are reluctant to question assumptions of superiority of policy debate.

As for snobbery against the west coast in the midwest, perhaps it exists but it lacks the numbers, apparent funding, voting power, and positions of privelege in NPDA enjoyed by west coast schools.

[opaun]

Of course my post was all in good fun, I love to hear from other areas when it comes to debate. It's actually rather ironic that I'm the one being used to characterize a West coast CEDA mentality when I've never actually done policy debate, and have been known to be quite knee-jerk biased against it. When I auditioned for a spot to teach debate in Eastern Europe, I was known as "Parli-Dude," (the audition was at CEDA Nationals) and for a month non-stop I was justifying and defending the merits of parli to my skeptical traveling partner, who also happenned to be a CEDA national champion. I tend to think that the vast majority of Kritiks are baseless appeals to authority, and the idea of talking at an accelerated rate is absurd. I'll be one of the first to decry CEDA as a snobby, elitist activity that excludes anyone who wants to debate in college but that didn't do policy in high school.

That being said, I guess I am squarely in the West coast camp in that I think fiat rounds are without a doubt the best. With that one minor caveat, I'm one of the fiercest defenders of Parli as an activity separate from and, quite frankly, better than CEDA. I think that the style and speed of Parli are among it's greatest assets, but logical argumentation should always be the basis. The point is to think critically and communicate persuasively.

As for the whole West coast dominance theory, won't the marketplace of ideas weed out the best ones? And the one thing I really would like to see more of is heckling. I really mean that. Sure, we should be respectful, sure, we should address the argumentation, but that doesn't preclude having a little fun at everyone's expense.

I hope that's cleared some things up, and I have nothing against ideas from other regions. Especially those from Canada: America's largest national park. ;)

[Western Amy]

Well said Owen. Although I want to highlight the fact that there are exceptions to the concept that you're not welcome in CEDA if you didn't do C-X in high school (i know several from my region and some i even coach that have had success in this activity without the hs experience). I think you deal CEDA a bit too harsh a hand, but I also appreciate that you explain exactly hwo strange it is that you were singled out.
See you at GSL!

I understand your frustration Jason, but loosing your venom on Owen won't make another midwest school post on net benefits or put in a bid to host nats. I think that posts like this may make people less sympathetic to complaints of bias against the midwest, by such a staunch and qualified defender attacking people.

[Dan6814]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here at all, but...

"As for snobbery against the west coast in the midwest, perhaps it exists but it lacks the numbers, apparent funding, voting power, and positions of privelege in NPDA enjoyed by west coast schools."

At the moment, the executive council consists of people from Minnesota, Arizona, Montana, and two from Nebraska. I guess I don't see where the West Coast has those positions of privilege.

Dan

[tutakai]

Sorry if I misconstrued your position Owen.

[oshannonmurphy1]

Hear Hear for Heckling.
<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/yes.gif ALT=":yes">
I'm not sure about the utility of doing both cx and pois. The speaker's just not going to bother taking any questions until the CX period. Having done both pois and cx periods for too many years each, I think cx periods are dreadfully boring. 3 minutes going on an hour. POIs are fun and force instantaneous strategic moves. They also help break up speeches that sometimes (I said sometimes) can put you to sleep(insert Jed speech here). Plus I'd rather have a chance to make my first impression on a judge early in a round if I'm Opp., instead of waiting until after the Gov has all their fun.
Again Hear Hear for Heckling. Need I say Debaters tend to take themselves a little too seriously. Independent reason for the legalization of marijuana.<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/smoker.gif ALT=":smoker"> :cool:

[ML]

"I'll be one of the first to decry CEDA as a snobby, elitist activity that excludes anyone who wants to debate in college but that didn't do policy in high school."

If this is the case, why does there exist a novice nationals for college policy debaters??

I'm not going to dwell on the reasons I think the debate over which form of debate is better is a huge and detracting waste of time, only that both communities can learn a lot from one another if they get over themselves and their fear of each other. Despite that, I think formats offering CX and POIs would probably be pushing things, and I think POI's should be preserved because they are such a unique form of refutation.

Now, CX in extemp, (judge to competitor) *that* would be fun!!
(and it is, actually....) :evil:

ML

[joecool12321]

And impromptu. And it shouldn't be by the judge, because of possible bias, but by the students. I would love to see two minutes of questions after every speech.

--Joey

[DreinCali]

Neither Owen or Grant are particularly..politically correct/tactful all the time, and for this quality I both love them and wish to smack them with a gavel shaped speaker award. All I know is, ODP had a bad experience with Mr. CEDA Champ Guy in Eastern Europe, who talked a large amount of shit for the entirety of the trip. The story of the tryout amused me too.
I keep sticking up for him because he remembered he owed me and sent me a beautiful bracelet from Moldova :)

I don't think CX would necessarily destroy the "spirit of parli" because it's probably too late for that, as I think any existing spirit would be closer to what the Canadian dude said. BUT I think people just don't use POIs as well as they could, and I'd rather see people working on that rather than switching question formats. I agree that using both in one round would probably result in POIs being declined a lot. Having to answer the question in the middle of the speech is just it's own, challengin-in-a-different-way thing. Yay.

[opaun]

Jason, no harm done. I certainly understand your viewpoint and how my comment, though in good fun, was a logical segway.

As for my experience with CEDA, I don't wish to start a huge war, because I do think that there are things we can learn from each other. What I meant when I said that it excludes people who didn't do it in high school wasn't to mean that there is some bias against them among the competitors. I think the people involved in CEDA are just as welcoming to novices as anyone. What I did mean is that the activity itself excludes new people. Take a random freshman, sophmore, junior, or senior in college, and sit them down in front of a policy round. I guarantee that the vast majority would leave the room and never come back. The event is simply so specialized in its own format that is fun for those involved, but that frightens off those who want to start. Also, it really is difficult to get good unless you went to camps in high school and such. Of course there are exceptions.

Parli is a much more audience, novice friendly event. I think we should strive to entertain as much as to inform. Every year at UCLA, we get tons of seniors who join the team and compete for their last year, and they have a blast doing it. It's relatively simple to get integrated into the Parli format, and have some level of success. For better or for worse, CEDA is just not as user friendly.

Lastly, my traveling partner, Rashad, was a fine debater. I'm glad he does policy and not Parli, he'd be too much competition :D He just happenned to exhibit the anti-Parli bias that I've at times felt from CEDA types.

owen

[smiley30girl]

Hey all,

First, I hope all this discussion about the value (or lack of value) of the cross-ex will make the Long Beach tournament fun and fuel the discussion further. I hope to see all of you there, and remember: casual dress encouraged! :)

Next, in terms of the parli vs policy debate. I think we are a bit too quick to generalize. I do agree with Owen that someone off the street walking into a policy round would be lost. But I doubt someone walking off the street into a parli round about topicality (note: this discussion should not become about whether or not T is good), fiat, topical counterplans, or mutual exclusivity would be able to follow the round either.

There are definietly merits to both types of debate. I just dont think all policy is this "i am faster than you I can read more cards than you" thing that many seem to portray it as. I know some of our teams are using hip hop in rounds and criticizing the notions of speed and "silence is consent." Other teams are embracing the topic as a metaphor and experimenting with performance techniques. Either way, all parli is not one way and all policy is not one style. We could learn from them, and they from us. (anyone else feel like singing "Kumbaya"? and did I spell that right?) lol I just think that watching policy rounds can be way fun, and that the discussion about which activity is better is pointless and is partly what fuels the division between the two.

Again, hope to see many of you at the Long Beach tournament!
Audrey :)

[joecool12321]

"BUT I think people just don't use POIs as well as they could, and I'd rather see people working on that rather than switching question formats."

How could POIs be used better? And do you think the somewhat-bais against non-questions POIs hurts our ability to use POIs as well as we should? (I actually had a judge tell our round that we should 'remember that POIs are only for questions.)

--Joey

[PancreasMatt]

hmm i posted but it got erased after the transfer... odd. Anyways, i was just saying thanks to the long beach people for the casual dress thing, i think the tournament is going to be really cool. and chance we could find out who on here is going? anyways, i had one more important question- will the place with the big screen have the superbowl playing on sunday? thanks. no way i can miss the "all pirate" battle.

p.s.- i agree about the policy thing. its so neat to watch the policy rounds- i got to see stacy nathan and dan shalman- Berkely NS vs Callum mattheson and his partner from MSU- real neat round, it was a SORT round, so it got really bloody- everyone kept calling the russians the "damned Sovs" and stuff. Really cool red dawn disad too.

[boredguy8]

"and judges who deviate are sneered at as "comm judges" or other terms of disdain."

If you're claiming the use of the term "comm judge" is indicitive of deisdain, I think you need to provide better justification. "Comm judge" is just a high-level signifier, which is (at least in my experience) used independent of support or derision. It's like saying "the sky is clear" or "the sky is cloudy" - there's no judgement inherent in such a statement.

--Joey

[Pattybar]

If you're claiming the use of the term "comm judge" is indicitive of deisdain, I think you need to provide better justification. "Comm judge" is just a high-level signifier, which is (at least in my experience) used independent of support or derision. It's like saying "the sky is clear" or "the sky is cloudy" - there's no judgement inherent in such a statement.

Joey,

This is where our experiences differ... caling someone a "comm judge" is equivalent to saying, they mostly coach IEs, thus don't know /don't care about debate and are only filling the judging slot for monetary purposes... thus, they will vote on shoes and ties and not on the debate rules etc... In essence, it is almost as bad to call someone a "com judge" as to call them a "bus driver judge".

Note, not all IE coaches or coaches of IE only squads are considered "comm judges" --- I know a few coaches of IE only squads in this area who are excellent debate judges, because they took the time to learn the rules of parli and that is how they vote.... In other words, they recognize the worth of debate and understand that their ballot is important to the students in front of them, they respect the work put into debate and as such they take the time to make a good decision.

Also, some competitors will sneer at any judge they don't consider a "flow judge" -- whatever that is....

Patty

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by Pattybar
Also, some competitors will sneer at any judge they don't consider a "flow judge" -- whatever that is....

Patty

Too true. And unfortunate. I often wonder how these debaters would reconcile judges like Alfred Snider -- who keeps a meticulous flow (even including CX/POIs) yet also has a strong appreciation for things like the narrative paradigm.

At some point in the past, the thing that made me the most happy in a philosophy changed from "I'm a flow judge" to "I'll listen to whatever arguments you make."

Unfortunately I don't know whether that made the judging pool more or less appealing as a whole. :) But at least it feels more honest.

Cheers,
Ian

[Eagleofmeaux]

Sigh. I feel like we've been through this before to no avail, but in the spirit of discourse which this board and our activity is founded on, lets do it again :) . I agree with you Jason, the picture is indeed complicated, and I think that the complexity of it is one reason why some of your analysis seems problematic to me, you state:

Let's begin with the premise that policy debate argument styles are largely preferred among the elite level of competitors and judges in parli (these are the people who are the examples to others are set the norms for the community).

I think this premise is the source of many of the problems I have with your analysis. The idea that what are being used are "policy debate argumentation styles" I see as a misidentification. A style which includes organization and line by line responses (which I believe is what you are referring to, please correct me if I'm wrong) is not being used because it is "policy style" as this designation would imply, it's being used because it makes sense to those using it. I think that the idea that these tactics are preferred by some <i> because </i> they're policy tactics is problematic, and incompletely descriptive. I can't speak for others, but for my own right I believe that high degrees of structure and specific refutation is a more accurate (though still subjective, admittedly) way of determining which team has a preferable position. THAT is why I use it, not because I believe policy is better, it's just that after a few years of doing this activity I've come to the same conclusion that people who do policy have come to. Certian things seem to work better. Furthermore, if people who argued in this fashion really did subscribe to

The practice of PRESUMING that parli is inferior whenever it differs from policy debate practices...

why would they do parli at all?

As for the statement that
...there is already a system of discrimination impacts against those who lack previous inculcation to policy debate styles and norms(either in high school or in other forms of college debate).

I think there are several incredibly good and incredibly successful debaters who lack high school debate experience of any kind who may disagree with you on that statement, one in particular comes to mind... Perhaps she'll weigh in on this discussion herself.

Furthermore, even in a traditional style of parli this problem would still theoretically exist, as people who lacked high school debate would be far less trained in terms of argumentation and rhetoric. Your model doesn't seem to solve for discrimination any more, thus it seems a moot point to me.

Regarding your argument that:

Many debaters and judges with policy debate experience tend to use a type of shorthand or "code" as a de facto "secret handshake" in rounds to reference and flesh out arguments. For example, I have seen several examples of debaters that respond to certain arguments by just invoking "Foucault" or "feminism kritik" and assume that the judge will fill in the rest because they have heard it so many times before. In the cases where the judge has heard it previously and does fill in the blanks, this often serves to unfairly punish an opposing team merely because they lacked prior access to a high school or college policy debate program. This is becoming common enough that I have having to repeatedly fight the temptation ot begin intervening against teams that do it just in an effort to produce SOME kind of disincentive.

I would first of all claim that those judges are simply bad judges, which any model of debate will have to deal with. Second I must confess that my experience differs from your. I have never seen a team simply say "feminist critique" and expect a judge to vote for it. Perhaps it's just my region, perhaps if others could let us know how common such incidents are for them it would give us a better overall picture. I would encourage you to continue your fight against the temptation to intervene, as I believe we can all agree that it makes debates unfair in possibly the most significant way possible.

I think your closing comment:

My main point is only to say that those who stand for "traditional parli" should not be sneered at or presumed wrong simply because they dissent from or question the assumptions and preferences of policy debate cross-overs.

Is quite important to consider. I would hate to think that people were derided for questioning a norm. I would be quite happy to discuss these issues with you at length. Being one of the aforementioned policy debate cross-overs it is quite important to me that my assumptions and preferences not get in the way of others desires to advocate their beliefs. If however, my well thought out and thoroughly questioned conclusions stand in the way then perhaps we would be better to discuss them than to deride them.

With much love to everyone, and no offence intended to anyone,

Keith
:)

[PancreasMatt]

wow, way better than i could have put it, especially since i dont know how to use the "quote" feature yet. And i think that that person you commented about is a really great example- she overcame the "culture of exclusion" to beat the living tar out of brendo and I at PSCFA, brutally.

[Natebear]

There is no conspiracy by ceda to take over Parli. Sorry. Jason uses a lot of straw targets to justify his fear and hatred of policy debate, but they aren't true. Dropping an argument doesn't lose you the round in policy unless that argument happened to have a big enough impact to win the round -- just because it is conceded doesn't mean it matters. Many of the top debaters in CEDA are fairly slow, and all of them are clear and fairly easy to understand. If you just extend taglines you won't win a round outside of novice, and if you don't give warrants to your claims and explain your arguments, you will be unsuccessful at CEDA debate. The things Jason indicts are not CEDA but rather this enemy image that he and other parli purists have concocted. I urge Jason to watch outrounds at a national tournament -- perhaps he will at least understand that CEDA isn't the monster he has made it out to be.
That said, I think Jason could be correct in questioning some of the things he does. Why is it that CEDA critics are presumed qualified to judge parli rounds and not the other way around? It is time to look for the causes of this. My contention is that parli as it is exists in an uncomfortable halfway point -- it strives for the CEDA-style standard of rounds being judged on substance and logical argumentation while shunning evidence and stable topic ground -- the very things that make them possible. As long as parli has those goals it will stay under the shadow of CEDA. To break free, it must blaze a different path, one based on style and ethos as "the Canadian" advocated. The only problem is, I think as Americans who believe in meritocracy, many of us will be a little uncomfortable with this.
now that everyone hates me, it's time to go and let you think (or fume)...
NATE

[Natebear]

There is something that Jason points out that I think are really important and with which I agree. First, he points out that the uncritical adoption of practices is a bad idea. I think that in this case, however, that isn’t what is happening and therefore gives me motivation to suggest that maybe he is overreacting a little. What many in Parli advocate is not an uncritical adoption but a solution to a perceived problem within the status quo. Where that solution comes from seems to me to be irrelevant. When Jason’s objections stem from the source of the solution rather than the ability of the solution to solve the problems, they seem to fall into the trap of what he is indicting; they are an uncritical defense of the status quo.
This is where conspiracy theories and parli purism come in. Jason uses a lot of rhetorical questions in his posts to imply that there is some sort of devious plan or threat. At the same time he refuses to examine the question itself. His knee-jerk rejection of all things that would attempt to change the activity is what I would call “Parli Purism.”
Nevertheless, I find Jason’s questions interesting and worthy of an answer. Let’s start with:
Q: why is someone who prefers parli a dangerous "parli purist" while those who prefer CEDA are not subjected to any similar name-calling?
Answer: they are, they’re called policy critics. It makes no sense to believe in the total superiority of one form of debate and then do another, and so people who prefer CEDA are not usually in parli. If Jason is referring to people that want to experiment with things found in CEDA, I think saying those people prefer CEDA is not a fair assessment. As for me, I like both and do both – I quit doing parli exclusively because I wanted to expand, but I still value its accessibility and think it is a vital part of debate in the country.
Q: Why is it that CEDA critics are presumed qualified to judge parli rounds and not the other way around?
A: I think that it this is an important question – one that is not just limited to judging, but competitor crossover as well. One may well ask why it is that crossing over from parli to policy is so difficult, but the other way is easy enough that Regis and Wyoming can do it whenever there isn’t a policy division. I think the answer is that parli and policy are cut out of the same mold – the difference is one of degree rather than type. However, the inclusion of evidence (and analytic blocks), the speaking pace, the time limits and the ability to prepare for one topic allows for more depth on argumentative theory and the complexity of warrants. Also, because judges in parli as a rule (quite a few exceptions) are less familiar with complex argumentative theory than are policy critics, it would not be as wise of a time investment to try to explain as much as one would need to, making theory debates less attractive and so less exploited and practiced in a parli round. This would be fine if parli didn’t rest on the same arguments as policy – the disad, the kritik, the counterplan, etc. Therefore, policy competitors and critics on balance are familiar with the argumentation in a parli round, while parli competitors and critics are less familiar with some of the arguments made in a policy round.
As a side note, I will totally agree with Jason that CEDA is elitist; that is one of the things that I think need to be changed with the event. However, I can’t find the rule (doesn’t mean it isn’t there) that he can’t judge at nationals. I’m sure there may be a rule that says one should have judged a certain number of rounds in a year to judge at nationals, but I don’t believe that automatically excludes Jason. At any rate, I know there is no rule that says that parli critics can’t judge. Like I said, no conspiracy.
Finally, the onus is on all of those who participate in, judge and coach parliamentary debate to decide what it should look like. If people are uncomfortable with lack of reciprocity from the parliamentary community they should raise the barriers – put forward a paradigm of debate that is more audience-centered and insist on its evaluation in that manner. Alternatively, parli could become centrally about value debate – which in my opinion is less theory driven and more analysis oriented but has the unfortunate quality of tending to shift about groundwise. Or we could just shrug off policy crossover and say we’ll beat them on the tactical level. It is up to us.
NATE
PS – please indict my arguments, not me.

[gaddy]

cx in parli rocks. it should be a rule.