NPTE Controversy Areas

[nmatthews]

Originally Posted by KCalderwood

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.

^^^ credited response.

[oleary]

Originally Posted by BReid

Come on, now.

60 flips = 60 side choices + 60 resolution choices. It really happened, at least to the extent the NPTE happened, maybe even more so.

Res. choice might be consolation, but it's better than nothing, and IMO an important aspect of the NPTE and how a champion there is crowned.

k.

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by oleary

60 flips = 60 side choices + 60 resolution choices. It really happened, at least to the extent the NPTE happened, maybe even more so.

Joe (the Gantt variety) still has the spreadsheet for each elim posted.

http://parlitournament.com/npte2012/npteindex.htm

-- Konrad

[nmatthews]

Somewhat off-topic, but teams might opt to choose the resolution instead of the side more often if the current procedure were modified. For example, sides could be selected and disclosed before the other team selects a resolution (reversing the current order), or alternatively, we could use a double-blind where neither the resolution nor the side is disclosed until the finalized pairing is announced. The latter option is probably too complicated to administer, though.

[JBlaz]

Originally Posted by oleary

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.

In saying eliminating resolution choice would be the easiest of the possibilities (not necessarily best), I mean that it is standard operating procedure at most tournaments to not offer resolution choice. We would be adopting a new approach (as far as I know) with either using non-controversy area resolutions in combination with controversy area resolutions or reusing resolutions (other than paired prelims which is pretty standard).

In terms of reusing resolutions, there would be some potential advantage to choosing to debate a resolution for a second time (Rob's point, I believe). However, if side choice is as important as people think, this shouldn't substantially upset the balance (and potentially creates more balance). Additionally, repeating resolutions isn't really a huge shift from the current practice of providing core ground within a controversy area (which means some arguments work for most/all resolutions in a given area).

[JBlaz]

Originally Posted by RLayne

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?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. In my original and subsequent posts, I used the term research burden instead of the number of resolutions (which are not precisely the same thing). The argument is that the number of resolutions should be reduced, not necessarily that the overall amount of preparation for NPTE should be (or could be) reduced. Those that want to win will work as much as possible regardless of the number of resolutions released. Reducing the number of resolutions probably does change the nature of that preparation in some important ways (i.e. more depth on fewer topics).

That said, most of the feedback I've received (so far) suggests that there is fairly broad agreement that there are too many resolutions. The reasons for this are varied as are preferences regarding how the number of resolutions is reduced.

[RLayne]

Originally Posted by JBlaz

Sorry for the lack of clarity. In my original and subsequent posts, I used the term research burden instead of the number of resolutions (which are not precisely the same thing). The argument is that the number of resolutions should be reduced, not necessarily that the overall amount of preparation for NPTE should be (or could be) reduced. Those that want to win will work as much as possible regardless of the number of resolutions released. Reducing the number of resolutions probably does change the nature of that preparation in some important ways (i.e. more depth on fewer topics).

That said, most of the feedback I've received (so far) suggests that there is fairly broad agreement that there are too many resolutions. The reasons for this are varied as are preferences regarding how the number of resolutions is reduced.

I think the way that I'm reading the thread isn't centered specifically on just too many resolutions, but rather that the resolutions need better crafting. I suppose there could be an argument that explains a correlation between number of resolutions and sub-par resolution-writing. Unfortunately, the latter is subjective and not all folks will ever be happy.

Additionally, based on what you're saying above about number of resolutions, then I'm not quite sure why the proposals about limiting topic areas is being discussed. It seems like we're in one of those re-jiggering years, where big changes come to the NPTE. I just don't know if we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, while attempting to make changes.

[JBlaz]

Originally Posted by kdennis

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.

I wanted to see if people had more feedback on this particular option, which is certainly a possibility.

In addition to reducing the number of resolutions, it would do three other things: 1) allow for the selection of more current topics (since topic areas are chosen well in advance), 2) be more reflective of the regular season (since most tournaments do not use topic areas), and 3) add an element strategy to the elim round flip process.

[DD2]

Originally Posted by kdennis

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.

Originally Posted by JBlaz

I wanted to see if people had more feedback on this particular option, which is certainly a possibility.

In addition to reducing the number of resolutions, it would do three other things: 1) allow for the selection of more current topics (since topic areas are chosen well in advance), 2) be more reflective of the regular season (since most tournaments do not use topic areas), and 3) add an element strategy to the elim round flip process.

I like the current event/randomness/strategy part of this idea for sure. I would really like it if these rezs could only be selected from the 2 week news cycle before the NPTE tournament.

peace
dd