NPTE Controversy Areas

[JBlaz]

The NPTE Board is currently reviewing the controversy area procedures for the NPTE. The main goal in this review is to substantially reduce the research burden to compete at the NPTE and improve the quality of controversy areas. The following are proposals that have been suggested to that end. The NPTE Board welcomes feedback on these proposals and controversy areas more generally.

(Last year, we had four controversy areas, each with six resolutions - 24 resolutions in total. 22 were used by the tournament.)

1. Eliminate the ability to choose resolutions in elimination rounds. This would effectively reduce the number of resolutions needed from 22 to 14.

2. Reuse resolutions in elimination rounds (if the ability to choose resolutions in elimination rounds is maintained). Offering the same resolution twice in elimination rounds would also effectively reduce the number of resolutions needed from 22 to 14.

3. Use the same resolution for paired prelims (1 & 2, 3 & 4, 5 & 6). This would reduce the number of resolutions needed from 22 to 19.

4. Use some resolutions that are not contained within the controversy areas. For example, elimination rounds could offer the choice between a controversy area resolution and a non-controversy area resolution.

5. Reduce the number of controversy areas. For example, there could be two controversy areas, each with 12 resolutions (with the current need for resolutions).

6. Release only controversy areas, but not the actual resolutions.

7. Eliminate controversy areas entirely.

8. Allow coaches with teams at the NPTE to serve on the topic committee. The current rule requires that topic committee members not have teams at that year’s NPTE.

[nmatthews]

Originally Posted by JBlaz

1. Eliminate the ability to choose resolutions in elimination rounds. This would effectively reduce the number of resolutions needed from 22 to 14.

This is the only change that is needed.

[The Puge]

^true that

Originally Posted by JBlaz

8. Allow coaches with teams at the NPTE to serve on the topic committee. The current rule requires that topic committee members not have teams at that year’s NPTE.

except also this

[kdennis]

I feel as though the last suggestion is a no-brainer when combined with one or more of the others.

Why do we want resolutions to be crafted for people who are doing our activity at its highest level by people who aren't?

[BReid]

1 and 8.

kthxbye

[carrollpadwon]

2 & 8

My two cents.

[kdennis]

I think I agree with Joe. Doesn't seem to be any reason that we can't recycle resolutions. Especially if we would have fewer, better resolutions.

The idea of having a resolution choice where one is a "topic area" resolution and the other is a new, unseen resolution intrigues me. I'd like to hear the case for this from someone who wants this to happen. It would certainly make the flip process much more interesting.

[Jeffro]

1 and 8. Still think there's value in not re-using topics, and I also think the possibility that the NPTE may feature uneven numbers of teams this year and in future years could put a team at a competitive disadvantage; ie., they may get to debate a resolution for the first time that their opponents have previously debated.

[oleary]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

1 and 8. Still think there's value in not re-using topics, and I also think the possibility that the NPTE may feature uneven numbers of teams this year and in future years could put a team at a competitive disadvantage; ie., they may get to debate a resolution for the first time that their opponents have previously debated.

One team picking side, the other picking resolution is a fairly big deal, IMO. A great equalizer, as I see it. Thus, I would not be in favor of that process going by the way side. I would rather see repeat resolutions even with Jeff's concerns.

k.

[carrollpadwon]

Originally Posted by oleary

One team picking side, the other picking resolution is a fairly big deal, IMO. A great equalizer, as I see it. Thus, I would not be in favor of that process going by the way side. I would rather see repeat resolutions even with Jeff's concerns.

k.

I couldn't agree more.

[KCalderwood]

I am not sure if these are the only eight issues up for discussion, but did the board discuss forming the topic committee at an earlier than usual date? If the goal is to increase the quality of controversy areas, establishing a system more akin to policy debate (while still maintaining the current even nature of parli) seems ideal to me. I know it is something Kyle Dennis and I have consistently brought up, and I am at least curious why it is not one of the eight options.

I am also curious why more people do not like the third suggestion. I realize it does not significantly decrease the number of topics provided, but I think it established two things. First, one of the frequent complaints about topic areas is that it produces "wasted research" because it is likely you will never read the file you write before the tournament. Personally, I think that every file, at the very least, has an educational purpose, but I have seen this as a frequent complaint (and one I am sure I used to make as well). Second, it equalizes any associated side bias. Obviously, this problem would still exist in elimination rounds, but with the generic nature of many of the resolutions last year it provides a more equal playing field for everyone.

[BReid]

Using the same topic for consecutive prelim rounds way incentivizes prep abuse. Didn't quite finish transliterating that file for your second round? Don't worry about it, just go finish, and say your first round got out late!

[JBlaz]

Originally Posted by KCalderwood

I am not sure if these are the only eight issues up for discussion, but did the board discuss forming the topic committee at an earlier than usual date?

If we do #8, I suspect forming the topic committee earlier should be pretty easy.

Also, proposals other than the ones mentioned above are certainly welcome.

[The Puge]

Originally Posted by KCalderwood

I am also curious why more people do not like the third suggestion. I realize it does not significantly decrease the number of topics provided, but I think it established two things. First, one of the frequent complaints about topic areas is that it produces "wasted research" because it is likely you will never read the file you write before the tournament. Personally, I think that every file, at the very least, has an educational purpose, but I have seen this as a frequent complaint (and one I am sure I used to make as well). Second, it equalizes any associated side bias. Obviously, this problem would still exist in elimination rounds, but with the generic nature of many of the resolutions last year it provides a more equal playing field for everyone.

Personally, I don't think there's an impact to either of these. Whining about wasted research is obviously silly, because it's A) inevitable, and B) missing the point that research should be an end in itself that the structure of the tournament encourages (which you seem to agree with). I also think removing the res-choice feature in elims would resolve a majority of these complaints.

Side bias also shouldn't be a problem if we can start producing more coherent topics, which proposals #1 and #8 would go a long way towards. I do think it's important to acknowledge that several of the final res wordings last year were quite literally broken, but it seems like this approach just forces both sides to deal with crap topic draws equally, whereas just fixing the underlying issues regarding topic construction would make this kind of quick-fix unnecessary. Apologies if that sentence made no sense.

As of right now, I don't have a lot of terribly salient offense regarding why it's explicitly a bad idea in my view, but I do think repeating resolutions is kind of boring. It would also appear to give a disproportionate advantage to schools with more teams/judges in attendance, since they would have a better idea of what the rest of the tournament came up with strat-wise for the first round. Obviously big school bias is inevitable, but this seems to be a particularly significant instance of it. Also, what ben reid said.

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by The Puge

I do think it's important to acknowledge that several of the final res wordings last year were quite literally broken

What does that mean?

[KCalderwood]

Originally Posted by BReid

Using the same topic for consecutive prelim rounds way incentivizes prep abuse. Didn't quite finish transliterating that file for your second round? Don't worry about it, just go finish, and say your first round got out late!

Yes, because releasing the actual resolutions before the tournament did not already do that enough!

If you are worried about people cheating then advocate tournament paper.

Personally, I don't think there's an impact to either of these. Whining about wasted research is obviously silly, because it's A) inevitable, and B) missing the point that research should be an end in itself that the structure of the tournament encourages (which you seem to agree with). I also think removing the res-choice feature in elims would resolve a majority of these complaints.

We are on the same page on the utility of research, whether it is used in debates or not. I find the educational value of research, even if it is unused, far outweighs the educational value of physically debating at a tournament (this, of course, is just my own anecdotal experience).

Side bias also shouldn't be a problem if we can start producing more coherent topics, which proposals #1 and #8 would go a long way towards. I do think it's important to acknowledge that several of the final res wordings last year were quite literally broken, but it seems like this approach just forces both sides to deal with crap topic draws equally, whereas just fixing the underlying issues regarding topic construction would make this kind of quick-fix unnecessary. Apologies if that sentence made no sense.

I agree that better topics = less side bias. I also think that poor topics will continue unless we enact the proposal I made (to form the topic committee earlier). I agree with Joe (and you) that if we implement #8, this will be much easier to do.

As of right now, I don't have a lot of terribly salient offense regarding why it's explicitly a bad idea in my view, but I do think repeating resolutions is kind of boring. It would also appear to give a disproportionate advantage to schools with more teams/judges in attendance, since they would have a better idea of what the rest of the tournament came up with strat-wise for the first round. Obviously big school bias is inevitable, but this seems to be a particularly significant instance of it. Also, what ben reid said.

I am not sure this is as big of an issue as you make it out to be. It's not that I disagree with your premise; I think that larger teams have an advantage in scouting. I just feel that this is already ongoing as a result of very vague topics that almost demand generic negative strategies. Having a topic repeat in prelims is not very different than having some of the African topics repeat from last year. However, I think we both agree that better worded topics are more likely to solve a lot of these problems.

[RLayne]

I feel as if the mechanism for side/resolution is what makes the NPTE what it is. While I have been critical of several things about the NPTE, outround mechanism is the one thing that I actually am very supportive about. I would most definitely not like to see it changed.

Like Kevin, I don't understand the research burden argument. I don't understand how encouraging students to be well-read on a number of different issues is a bad thing. If we're talking about time allocation, there are clearly strategies for engaging a resolution, while not being forced into a lot of prior research time. If anything, it seems to me the proliferation of hyper-specific cases/neg strategies exploded with the introduction and prior-release of resolutions. I would be favorable to walking back the the release of resolutions as it seems that if we have the resolutions before the tournament, then prep is really about who can transcribe their arguments the fastest rather than needing to be adaptive to a resolution.

The downside to going back to only controversy areas would also mean that you likely shouldn't have coaches prepping students, when those coaches are writing the resolutions for debate. My argument would be that if you walk back prior-release of resolutions, then you can't have coaches prepping those resolutions. Certainly, a downside....but a fair and pragmatic approach.

Finally, on this issue of re-using resolutions. I think depending on how this gets paired up could be disastrous. So, if we got a debate in on Africa in Elim 1 and the topic is again present on Elim 4...we are probably going to choose that resolution again since we've seen likely some pretty smart arguments in the previous round or got to see answers to our strategy. This seems to give a very substantial advantage to the team that won the flip, rather than a means of equalizing any side bias. It also distracts from the intent of the activity, which is that a resolution is one and done...thus, forcing students to be adaptive.

[BReid]

Originally Posted by oleary

One team picking side, the other picking resolution is a fairly big deal, IMO. A great equalizer, as I see it. Thus, I would not be in favor of that process going by the way side. I would rather see repeat resolutions even with Jeff's concerns.

k.

Last year (based on information entered publicly), the winner of the coin flip elected to choose resolution four times out of sixty total coin flips. Washburn CL and KR, and McKendree NR and RT all chose once each. So it's an equalizer people aren't exactly using. I'd be shocked if this past year was an outlier.

Admittedly, last year we chose the resolution primarily because we preferred to affirm, and the NPTE set is pretty easy to predict re: side preference. I imagine we'd be happy to not have that option if it focused our research and improved the quality of the final resolutions.

[JBlaz]

While I agree with Rob that topic selection is a neat aspect of NPTE and with Kevin that it does help balance the benefit of choosing side, the reality is that it is the single easiest way to reduce the research burden for competing at NPTE.

If we did get rid of topic choice, is there something we could do for the non- side-choosing side of the debate to provide some balance?

[oleary]

Originally Posted by BReid

Last year (based on information entered publicly), the winner of the coin flip elected to choose resolution four times out of sixty total coin flips. Washburn CL and KR, and McKendree NR and RT all chose once each. So it's an equalizer people aren't exactly using. I'd be shocked if this past year was an outlier.

Admittedly, last year we chose the resolution primarily because we preferred to affirm, and the NPTE set is pretty easy to predict re: side preference. I imagine we'd be happy to not have that option if it focused our research and improved the quality of the final resolutions.

It was used...60 times in fact. You'll be sad when you've lost the flip and the resolution is a dud.

k.

P.S. Joe-side equalization, though I don't recall it all that fondly.

[oleary]

Originally Posted by JBlaz

While I agree with Rob that topic selection is a neat aspect of NPTE and with Kevin that it does help balance the benefit of choosing side, the reality is that it is the single easiest way to reduce the research burden for competing at NPTE.

If we did get rid of topic choice, is there something we could do for the non- side-choosing side of the debate to provide some balance?

Because repeating resolutions isn't as easy why? Have 6 resolutions for prelims, have 6 more for out-rounds, teams in out-rounds that don't choose side get to choose any of the 6. 12 resolutions total, and folks will certainly consider taking resolution over side. The strategy and gamesmanship would be epic.

You are welcome overlords.

k.

[BReid]

Originally Posted by oleary

It was used...60 times in fact.

Come on, now.

You'll be sad when you've lost the flip and the resolution is a dud.

Hey man, it's not like I'm thrilled that the two major candidates are Obama and Romney.

[RLayne]

Originally Posted by JBlaz

While I agree with Rob that topic selection is a neat aspect of NPTE and with Kevin that it does help balance the benefit of choosing side, the reality is that it is the single easiest way to reduce the research burden for competing at NPTE.

If we did get rid of topic choice, is there something we could do for the non- side-choosing side of the debate to provide some balance?

Joe,

What's the argument for why the research burden is TOO high? I'm interested in the reason why this change is being discussed. Perhaps I'm just missing the warrant for why the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence needs to reduce the research burden. Any chance you could illuminate that part of the discussion?

RBL

[AdamK]

I think the warrant is that the NPTE is filled with extremely generic debates in the SQ, and we should be incentivizing deep, topic specific debates on the controversy areas instead.

24 resolutions too often means that most topic research consists of finding links for your generics, rather than coming up with an original topic specific strategy.

[Alan]

There are tournaments with fewer resolutions to prep for. I don't recall seeing any deeper topic debate at those tournaments.

Generics are used because they are easy. And because, let's face it, people don't like to lose and sometimes, the case debate just goes one way.

Hell, they still have generics in CEDA/NDT and they use the same topic all year.**

**Yes, they also have deeper case debate than we do, but the point remains - politics and the K were born in policy and they ain't going anywhere.

[awarren]

Originally Posted by AdamK

I think the warrant is that the NPTE is filled with extremely generic debates in the SQ, and we should be incentivizing deep, topic specific debates on the controversy areas instead.

24 resolutions too often means that most topic research consists of finding links for your generics, rather than coming up with an original topic specific strategy.

I'm willing to believe the debates are more generic than you might like. I'm less willing to believe that they are more generic than, or even approaching the level of, most tournaments throughout the year.

I get that there is some sort of imaginary ideal floating around out there, but you can't quantify it. I also feel like this discussion is disingenuous. I'd rather have a good politics debate than a specific debate about, say, the Comcast-NBC merger. Some topics are shitty. Some debaters prefer one argument to another. Some debaters are just deeper on some positions, so they run them more often, or understand more intuitively how they link to multiple resolutions. Just because you're bored doesn't mean we should rewrite the activity to keep you entertained.

[nrobinson]

Substantially reducing the number or topic areas and/or resolutions is a bad idea. The ideal amount of research for any given tournament is functionally infinite. IE, if you didn't have to eat or sleep the optimum would be to work 24/7 until the tournament began. Right now, all that research effort is spread over 20-25 different resolutions within 4-6 topic areas.

If you reduce the number of topic areas, you will not get LESS research burden. The optimal amount remains the same: infinite. The difference is that your research will be focused on a small number of areas. That is bad. It creates debates that rely on very, very specific knowledge--that judges then have to resolve without reading cards. Fewer topic areas = more rounds decided on questions like "which is preferable: LMFBR's with sodium or LMFBR's with lithium?" Unless the judge happened to cut that file him/herself, you're gonna have a problem.

Also, fewer topic areas doesn't solve the "useless research" argument. Affs will always find little niches that don't link to anything, and negs will always find tiny pics that avoid clash. Same as it ever was.

[nrobinson]

Originally Posted by AdamK

24 resolutions too often means that most topic research consists of finding links for your generics, rather than coming up with an original topic specific strategy.

teams who are doing this are not working hard enough to win the tournament.

[awarren]

Originally Posted by nrobinson

teams who are doing this are not working hard enough to win the tournament.

This. Talent is great and all, but if you aren't outworking the field you probably shouldn't feel very confident about your chances.

[KCalderwood]

I am definitely in the "work hard" camp, and we were fairly successful last year at developing topic specific strategies for most of the resolutions. There were some where I (trying not say we in reference to the old team anymore, old habits die hard) felt like the best option trended towards the more generic. I would agree with Alex, though, that this was a strategic decision since all of the debaters were more than competent in debating an actor counterplan.

The only question that remains, assuming that the goal is not to reduce the research burden (which, it sounds like it is, but for the moment let's pretend like it is not):

All things being equal, and I spend the same time on 12 topics as I would with 24 topics, does this create the best debates? I tend to think knowing more about fewer topics (although not just one topic) creates the best debates. I am not saying we should reduce the number of topics to reduce the research burden. I am saying work just hard (or harder), but on fewer topics to create the best possible debates.