Net Benefits  

Go Back   Net Benefits > Main Forums > On Case
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-11-02, 10:07 PM
airassault101
 
Posts: n/a
the future of parli debate


so how has parli changed over the past few years and where is it going? are we headed towards more of a policy format (useing ev) and are we getting away from...resolved: this house.... and of course is the attitude towards canned cases abd positions changing( the can can thread)?

i think that we are becoming more like policy everyday. as we see more policy rounds and canned arguments we are changing the format so to speak. in some ways i feel that this is welcome but in others i think we are ruiniong the concept of parli by making it more like policy.

a funny thing happened at nats to me this year. after having my worst tourny of the year i was down in the bar with two of the irish and ravi ravo. the irish where totally amazed at our style of parli. we must have spent 2 hours discussing the differences between u.s. parli debate and that which is practiced in europe.
one thing i came away with was that the community was alot more relaxed at tournaments and the the tournaments were alot smaller than what we are used too. the kill or be killed attitude doesn't seam to invade their debate circuit like it does ours and yet the have highly educational and fun debate.
i am just wondering what you all feel about our style of parli and where it is going.
thanks,
ken
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-11-02, 10:10 PM
Western Amy
 
Posts: n/a
Re: the future of parli debate


I don't think we have all that much of a "kill or be killed" attitude. Maybe I'm just too trusting of people, but I've always thought of us as people who can have a good, competitive debate in the round and go hang out outside of the rounds. With a few notable exceptions, that's how my debates have been.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-11-02, 10:18 PM
airassault101
 
Posts: n/a
Re: the future of parli debate


while the kill or be killed attitude isn't everywhere it is definitly here. i have had rounds that were down right nasty and the other side wasn't all to friendly afterward...but it doesn't end there. i know of a few teams and coachs who discourage interaction between teams from other schools for fear of losing some type of advantage......i like what the irish said though
" we have a round then we all go to the pub and drink while we wait for the next round to start. by the end of the night everyone is drunk and having a good time.. there is no i am better than you when its all said and done"
i just wish that this friendly attitude was more pervasive in our community. i am not saying that its not there but there is defintly a dark cloud out there.

but more to the point where is npda parli going...are we going more policy..more canned args...starting to use ev???
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-12-02, 12:06 AM
Eagle of Meaux
 
Posts: n/a
Re: the future of parli debate


I don't think the move to evidence will happen anytime soon, if at all. There are too many people who remember the NDT/CEDA merger and will fanatically work to prevent that from happening. it also requires a change in the rules of parli which stylistic differences do not, thus they seem much more likely.
As for teams using prepreped arguments and CEDA style analysis: I really don't think thatís a necessarily bad thing. I have addressed (on another thread, and in a decent amount of detail, I believe) the details of why I beleive prepreped arguments are not necessarily bad.

I think the key in examining CEDA/NPDA similarities and difference is to recognize the importance of balance. CEDA has developed the educational and logical element of the activity (at least among the participants) to the extreme. The part of parli that opposes topicality, Prepreped arguments and "CEDA-style analysis" are the other extreme. That portion of the activity has developed the communication aspect of the activity and the surface level rhetoric to a very high degree. I believe the more "classical" understanding of Parli (as described above) is probably a bad thing, just as the CEDA can be in some aspects. We should not, on principle, be afraid of things which the community adopts from CEDA. We must seek to preserve detailed, fair, educational debates for both participants and audience members. To do that we will need to shift parli a bit closer to CEDA, (as parts of the community seem to be doing, myself included) but we must also make certain we do not lose all rhetorical elements and all semblance of audience communication. Balance in all things. There was a wise person who once said something about the middle path. So long as we strive for a balance (which I think the progressive elements of the activity are doing) we will maintain good, educational, communicative, fair debates.

Keith

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-12-02, 02:48 AM
pattybar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: the future of parli debate


From my philosophy standpoint, it seems that the best form of parli debate would be more similar to an amazing class discussion (with some rules... and less like an argument about whether the wiget should go to the left of the whatsit or to the right.

It seems that parli should be about issues and ideas. First of all, whether or not the case presented is within the general area of the discussion, and if not... how can you tell (T).... after that, the careful analysis of ideas among people who know they will see one another often for the next few years would be the perfect model....

For example, last night in my Rawls seminar we were discussing the merrits of including the basic political liberties and/or the difference principle in a constitution, (the difference principle is the level of Rawls that says that any inequalities should be resolved to favor those least well-off in the society).

As a group, we had some distinct disagreement over the topic... and when the class freak tried to bring out his theory of why we should have a theory of justice that includes animals and large plants like trees, he was told in no uncertain terms why that was a) sort of a silly idea and b) why that isn't in the topic area under discussion.... Otherwise, we explored the implications of each option and ended with friendly disagreement.

This sort of round could and should be your goal.... the real question is how do you prepare to achieve the goal?

Patty
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-01-02, 02:06 PM
NoGraveButTheSea
 
Posts: n/a
Re: the future of parli debate


I am inclined to agree with Amy. I believe that if my partner and I do not conduct ourselves with a "kill or be killed" mentality that mentality will not be put onto us, the old tired golden rule still holds weight in my estimation.

I play to win but part of winning for me is enjoying myself and as I traveled around the circuit last year I noticed quite alot of people not having alot of fun but their were alot who were of the more easy-going ilk and I just hung out with them.

Our team has a philosophy of competing that combines research and hard work preparing issue briefs but also with the understanding that it takes more than being right to win many debates. After a practice round last year Mike Dugaw (my coach) gave me a stellar piece of advice. "Will you said everything you needed to say to win, do that and smile and you just might not suck at Nationals"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-01-02, 06:43 PM
properwinston
 
Posts: n/a
Don't Binary Me.


Don't assume that a move towards CEDA-style debate will make parli more logical. I don't have a problem with CEDA type analaysis, but I do have a problem with CEDA jargon used in replacement of genuine argumentation. Topicality sums it all up. It is based on flawed reasoning and it is used as a substitute for clash. Your dichotomy of CEDA versus Classic is too broad. Under such a typology, I would have to consider myself a Classic parli debater. But to tell you the truth, I despise nothing more than some pathetic "communications" judge who only cares about style. I'll take a former CEDA debater as my judge anyday. Also, can CEDA really claim to be the source of logical argumentation? I think Aristotle came around thousand or so years before CEDA.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Net-Benefits 2001-2003