JPS
03-18-11, 06:57 PM
To the NPTE Community:
With regret as well as a sense of pride, Patty and I would like to announce our resignation from the NPTE Board. It was our privilege to be on the NPTE Board from its beginning in 2001. We enjoy and have pride in helping maintain what has become THE elite national championship in parliamentary debate. But our careers no longer include much involvement with debate, and the NPTE deserves Board members who can shape the future of the tournament from perspectives more attached to the continually evolving nature of the activity.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the "last lecture" tradition where professors who are leaving take the opportunity to share some final thoughts, we hope that you will give us a few minutes as we recount the origins of NPTE and share a few thoughts on its future.
The NPTE was, seriously, conceived of in a debate van. The Creighton team was on its way back from the Ohio State tournament in December of 1999. Jason Steck was in the van, along with his debate partner, Jon Lang (now an attorney in Philadelphia), Adam Astley (now an attorney in Omaha), and Creighton coach Marty Birkholt. The discussion turned to the lack of any way in debate to recognize year-long achievements by teams that not only succeeded at individual tournaments, but repeatedly at tournaments throughout the year. Although the name "National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence" would be suggested more than a year later by Wyoming coach Matt Stannard, the idea of "excellence" was from the very beginning at the core of NPTE.
Within minutes of the proposal of the idea of an elite national championship based on year-long achievement, the ideas and arguments on how to pull it off and how to deal with the many problems and tradeoffs of how to measure "year long performance" were flying hot and heavy. It got so intense that Jon Lang, who was driving, took a wrong turn and went nearly 100 miles towards Memphis before we even realized it.
Later, after the end of the 1999-2000 competition year, a mailing list (an arcane concept in the age of Facebook) was established to gather the modest group of people who were interested in designing a new elite national tournament. Remember, even NPDA had only been around for 6 years at this point, and a lot of people thought the idea of creating a new national championship was pretty ridiculous and even offensive. We can't remember everyone that was there, but we do remember that Michelin Massey from the University of Colorado was there, as well as Scott Gratson, then at Metro State in Denver and now at Temple University. Matt Stannard came up with the name. And Jim Hanson agreed to be the first tournament host.
Many of the original novelty ideas about NPTE have survived to the present day. The process of how elimination round resolutions and sides are chosen is still very similar to what was originally suggested in the Creighton debate van. The concept of having two judges per round continues. Even the design of the point system that measures year-long performance bears some similarity to the original system used in 2001, in spite of seemingly endless tweaking. We've even seen the NPTE moving this year towards one of the most radical concepts -- automatic ballots by internet. The technology simply didn't exist in 2001, but we had discussed it on that old mailing list.
We had 11 teams at the first NPTE. Another alternative national championship begun that year pulled only 8 teams and immediately disappeared. But we pulled 35 teams in 2002 at Regis and NPTE has not slowed down since.
A lot has changed too. In particular, elite level parliamentary debate has morphed into what some call "parlicy", an amalgamation of the traditional extemporaneous parliamentary debate and the prepared, high-speed methods of policy debate. We would like to take this opportunity not only to engage in nostalgia about how NPTE has grown, but also to sound a note of caution about this.
Some of the evolution of parliamentary debate into "parlicy" represents positive change. Those who suggest that research, preparation, practice, and acquisition of knowledge about topics represents "cheating" are, in our view, hostile to both the educational and competitive goals of debate as an activity. Parliamentary debate should not be an anti-intellectual redoubt where judges' decisions are made based on their personal belief that debaters who actually know what they are talking about are being unfair to debaters who are ignorant. Because we now live in an area of the country where such frankly idiotic views have at times been dominant, we understand the urge to bring greater research and rigor into parliamentary debate.
But at the same time, we regret the inferiority complex that plagues parliamentary debate. Parliamentary debate has some unique strengths as an activity that it should be proud of, and the practice of assuming that whatever policy debaters do is worthy of imitation simply because policy debate is, quote, "real debate", unquote, is just conceptually wrong. One of the chief strengths of parliamentary debate we see is spontaneity -- encouraging debaters to develop the ability to think on their feet, come up with arguments in the round that they never prepared during prep time. Even as we encourage more preparation and research, we should be careful not to disparage an argument just because "it's not in the shell".
Several law school professors, attorneys, and judges have commented that the skills taught by parliamentary debate are actually better than those of policy debate for court room practices. The process of in-depth research is always valuable, of course. But parliamentary debate uniquely teaches debaters to adapt to the judges, slow down when necessary to a rate of presentation that is comprehensible to judges and juries, and tolerate the interruptions in the middle of speeches that are frequent in appeals courts. Also, the reliance on what debaters already know instead of what they can quickly read off of a page is much more adaptable to arguments in all forums, from court rooms to board rooms to classrooms. Parliamentary debate should nurture its unique characteristics and strengths instead of trying to just be policy without cards.
None of this is meant as disrespect to policy debate as an activity. It also has unique strengths and skills and there is much there that is worthy of consideration as we choose how to debate, coach, judge, and adapt our competition experiences to the real world. All we ask that you reject is the claim of its superiority and the demand that parliamentary debate simply ape whatever policy debate does. Parliamentary debaters should be proud of what they do and how they do it. You are every bit as good a policy debaters and, in some forums, a whole lot better.
With that message, we now conclude our formal involvement with "the debate community". The NPTE is a fantastic tournament and we know that the Board will continue to grow and develop it even though the difficult budgetary times that we are all facing. It is with great affection and fondness that we say goodbye.
Jason and Patty Steck
With regret as well as a sense of pride, Patty and I would like to announce our resignation from the NPTE Board. It was our privilege to be on the NPTE Board from its beginning in 2001. We enjoy and have pride in helping maintain what has become THE elite national championship in parliamentary debate. But our careers no longer include much involvement with debate, and the NPTE deserves Board members who can shape the future of the tournament from perspectives more attached to the continually evolving nature of the activity.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the "last lecture" tradition where professors who are leaving take the opportunity to share some final thoughts, we hope that you will give us a few minutes as we recount the origins of NPTE and share a few thoughts on its future.
The NPTE was, seriously, conceived of in a debate van. The Creighton team was on its way back from the Ohio State tournament in December of 1999. Jason Steck was in the van, along with his debate partner, Jon Lang (now an attorney in Philadelphia), Adam Astley (now an attorney in Omaha), and Creighton coach Marty Birkholt. The discussion turned to the lack of any way in debate to recognize year-long achievements by teams that not only succeeded at individual tournaments, but repeatedly at tournaments throughout the year. Although the name "National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence" would be suggested more than a year later by Wyoming coach Matt Stannard, the idea of "excellence" was from the very beginning at the core of NPTE.
Within minutes of the proposal of the idea of an elite national championship based on year-long achievement, the ideas and arguments on how to pull it off and how to deal with the many problems and tradeoffs of how to measure "year long performance" were flying hot and heavy. It got so intense that Jon Lang, who was driving, took a wrong turn and went nearly 100 miles towards Memphis before we even realized it.
Later, after the end of the 1999-2000 competition year, a mailing list (an arcane concept in the age of Facebook) was established to gather the modest group of people who were interested in designing a new elite national tournament. Remember, even NPDA had only been around for 6 years at this point, and a lot of people thought the idea of creating a new national championship was pretty ridiculous and even offensive. We can't remember everyone that was there, but we do remember that Michelin Massey from the University of Colorado was there, as well as Scott Gratson, then at Metro State in Denver and now at Temple University. Matt Stannard came up with the name. And Jim Hanson agreed to be the first tournament host.
Many of the original novelty ideas about NPTE have survived to the present day. The process of how elimination round resolutions and sides are chosen is still very similar to what was originally suggested in the Creighton debate van. The concept of having two judges per round continues. Even the design of the point system that measures year-long performance bears some similarity to the original system used in 2001, in spite of seemingly endless tweaking. We've even seen the NPTE moving this year towards one of the most radical concepts -- automatic ballots by internet. The technology simply didn't exist in 2001, but we had discussed it on that old mailing list.
We had 11 teams at the first NPTE. Another alternative national championship begun that year pulled only 8 teams and immediately disappeared. But we pulled 35 teams in 2002 at Regis and NPTE has not slowed down since.
A lot has changed too. In particular, elite level parliamentary debate has morphed into what some call "parlicy", an amalgamation of the traditional extemporaneous parliamentary debate and the prepared, high-speed methods of policy debate. We would like to take this opportunity not only to engage in nostalgia about how NPTE has grown, but also to sound a note of caution about this.
Some of the evolution of parliamentary debate into "parlicy" represents positive change. Those who suggest that research, preparation, practice, and acquisition of knowledge about topics represents "cheating" are, in our view, hostile to both the educational and competitive goals of debate as an activity. Parliamentary debate should not be an anti-intellectual redoubt where judges' decisions are made based on their personal belief that debaters who actually know what they are talking about are being unfair to debaters who are ignorant. Because we now live in an area of the country where such frankly idiotic views have at times been dominant, we understand the urge to bring greater research and rigor into parliamentary debate.
But at the same time, we regret the inferiority complex that plagues parliamentary debate. Parliamentary debate has some unique strengths as an activity that it should be proud of, and the practice of assuming that whatever policy debaters do is worthy of imitation simply because policy debate is, quote, "real debate", unquote, is just conceptually wrong. One of the chief strengths of parliamentary debate we see is spontaneity -- encouraging debaters to develop the ability to think on their feet, come up with arguments in the round that they never prepared during prep time. Even as we encourage more preparation and research, we should be careful not to disparage an argument just because "it's not in the shell".
Several law school professors, attorneys, and judges have commented that the skills taught by parliamentary debate are actually better than those of policy debate for court room practices. The process of in-depth research is always valuable, of course. But parliamentary debate uniquely teaches debaters to adapt to the judges, slow down when necessary to a rate of presentation that is comprehensible to judges and juries, and tolerate the interruptions in the middle of speeches that are frequent in appeals courts. Also, the reliance on what debaters already know instead of what they can quickly read off of a page is much more adaptable to arguments in all forums, from court rooms to board rooms to classrooms. Parliamentary debate should nurture its unique characteristics and strengths instead of trying to just be policy without cards.
None of this is meant as disrespect to policy debate as an activity. It also has unique strengths and skills and there is much there that is worthy of consideration as we choose how to debate, coach, judge, and adapt our competition experiences to the real world. All we ask that you reject is the claim of its superiority and the demand that parliamentary debate simply ape whatever policy debate does. Parliamentary debaters should be proud of what they do and how they do it. You are every bit as good a policy debaters and, in some forums, a whole lot better.
With that message, we now conclude our formal involvement with "the debate community". The NPTE is a fantastic tournament and we know that the Board will continue to grow and develop it even though the difficult budgetary times that we are all facing. It is with great affection and fondness that we say goodbye.
Jason and Patty Steck