Jump to content
Dr. Fox On Socks

Parli: FAQ / Help Me / Novice Center

Recommended Posts

Okay, so, I figured I'd address some of these criticisms of parli (specifically BP) in my first post. Whoohoo.

 

Firstly, on the point of no prep time: Yeah, that's what makes Worlds-format debate more difficult than policy in some respects. Just because we don't prep long cases doesn't mean we don't write briefs or research. You need to pull concepts (AND evidence) from your memory quickly. You need to find the points of stasis and fulfill your role adequately. In my mind, this doesn't make BP less educational, as one poster mentioned. In fact, I think it gives you a greater incentive to research on your own prerogative; you will be sufficiently rewarded. BP also rewards quick thinking. As I said, finding and dealing with the points of stasis are key aspects of BP--ESPECIALLY if you're opening gov. (APDA kids, that's first aff or whatever.)

 

Secondly, on the point of a lack of evidence: If you have no evidence, a good chair will take that into account and penalize you, whether in placement, speaks, or both. You need to have relevant examples. Examples are the language of parli. If you don't provide evidence, warrants, and express solvency, whatever arguments you run will fall apart pretty quickly. You need both analysis AND evidence. Analysis falls flat if a judge doesn't see it as realistic or plausible.

 

Thirdly, I think BP is a far more accessible form of debate. The format is pretty straightforward, and the speakers generally don't speak at unintelligible rates. Furthermore, it's all about creating a good clash. Judges look for debaters who can clash well with the other side of the house. I find this far more engaging and appealing than merely rattling off facts. Also, BP allows for a wider range of motions--we debate everything from "THW legalize police entrapment" to "THBT eating meat is unethical" to "THW invade Libya" to "TH prefers a philosopher king to a tyrannical democracy."

 

Fourthly, if anyone's going to USUDC in a couple weeks, tell me =] I'm soooo excited!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, please don't confuse Worlds-style debate with NPDA/NPTE parli. You have 4 teams debating in the same round...

 

Edit: Also, I forgot how terribly misinformed Miller's posts were on this subject. Full of lulz.

Edited by Pete Wentz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were referring to me, I totes didn't confuse the two =p but BP and Worlds are synonymous.

 

Four teams in one room makes for awesome clash, if they know what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a limit to the number of questions you can ask a speaker in parli debate? Do I need to thank everyone before I start speaking?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get a resolution that starts with 'This house' I am allowed to define that as any ruling body right? I had a practice round tonight and everyone had conflicting view points on that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a limit to the number of questions you can ask a speaker in parli debate? Do I need to thank everyone before I start speaking?

There is neither a minimum nor a maximum - courtesy and reciprocity would dictate that each debater take at least 1-2 questions. If you are asked more than that, or if their questions are obviously run-on attempts to waste time, then decline further questions. Obviously, if the other team keeps taking questions, you should keep asking them.

 

Thank you's are very old school. Experienced flow judges will be irritated by them. Parents or other new folks will probably be ignorant of them. But, if you do have an old-school coach or something, it wouldn't hurt to spend three seconds to say "Thanks everyone for being here, let's get started."

 

If I get a resolution that starts with 'This house' I am allowed to define that as any ruling body right? I had a practice round tonight and everyone had conflicting view points on that.

TH can be whatever actor you want it to be - especially if the resolution is metaphorical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get a resolution that starts with 'This house' I am allowed to define that as any ruling body right? I had a practice round tonight and everyone had conflicting view points on that.

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so, I figured I'd address some of these criticisms of parli (specifically BP) in my first post. Whoohoo.

 

Firstly, on the point of no prep time: Yeah, that's what makes Worlds-format debate more difficult than policy in some respects. Just because we don't prep long cases doesn't mean we don't write briefs or research. You need to pull concepts (AND evidence) from your memory quickly. You need to find the points of stasis and fulfill your role adequately. In my mind, this doesn't make BP less educational, as one poster mentioned. In fact, I think it gives you a greater incentive to research on your own prerogative; you will be sufficiently rewarded. BP also rewards quick thinking. As I said, finding and dealing with the points of stasis are key aspects of BP--ESPECIALLY if you're opening gov. (APDA kids, that's first aff or whatever.)

 

Secondly, on the point of a lack of evidence: If you have no evidence, a good chair will take that into account and penalize you, whether in placement, speaks, or both. You need to have relevant examples. Examples are the language of parli. If you don't provide evidence, warrants, and express solvency, whatever arguments you run will fall apart pretty quickly. You need both analysis AND evidence. Analysis falls flat if a judge doesn't see it as realistic or plausible.

 

Thirdly, I think BP is a far more accessible form of debate. The format is pretty straightforward, and the speakers generally don't speak at unintelligible rates. Furthermore, it's all about creating a good clash. Judges look for debaters who can clash well with the other side of the house. I find this far more engaging and appealing than merely rattling off facts. Also, BP allows for a wider range of motions--we debate everything from "THW legalize police entrapment" to "THBT eating meat is unethical" to "THW invade Libya" to "TH prefers a philosopher king to a tyrannical democracy."

 

Fourthly, if anyone's going to USUDC in a couple weeks, tell me =] I'm soooo excited!

Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...