For the future, I’d like to ask people (not just Content User, but in general) to post under their real names. Posting that you love POI on POI’s website isn’t that controversial – I promise.
Just in case not everyone knows, Parli in college is completely different from parli in HS.
CPS, PICs, DAs, and Kritiks of EVERYTHING are run during rounds. You are allowed to take typed materials, and most competitive debaters pack 4-5 kritiks (Capitalism K, Darwinism K, Biopower K etc) Teams will spread through multiple theoretical arguments, kritiks, and other random off cases. You will still be receiving topics, on the spot, with 15 min of prep, but discussion will be much more dense, with ACTUAL evidence with empirics/empirics. There will be no unwarranted bullshit which is ubiquitous on the school circuit. Pathos/Ethos will be thrown out the window, and logos will ultimately prevail.
Honestly, I simply do not understand how someone could possibly derive serious competitive educational benefits from this activity. I’m not making this up. I watched 3 rounds from people who made it to semis, and the quality of discussion was HORRIBLE. One of the finalists won the debate round by “proving” UN sanctions genocide! You guys might as well just debate “TH will allow CA to secede from the US” because the quality of arguments is very poor. This is pseudo policy on policy topics, pseudo LD on LD topics, and god help me for topics like “THB that John will cry.” I strongly urge someone to tell me why parliamentary debate is “good”
Standard=Net benefits. Parli may be good, but thru net benefits, LD and policy are VASTLY more educationalin EVERY aspect.
1) Post under a real name if you’re gonna knock Parli.
2) The essence of Parli is to have real interaction, and foster debate skills that might actually help you in real life. I mean, great that college kiddos run K’s and whatnot, but realistically, I’ve never found anyone whose mind changes on a topic based on that kind of krap. They’re tools that debaters use to rationalize failing to debate properly and still try to eke a win out of it. This is particularly true in Parli. Is it fair to a team that prepares thoughtfully and diligently during their prep time to lose to a team that dismisses the on-case with the wave of a pre-prepped K (or FIVE)? Of course not. It’s about spontaneous argumentation, and realistic policy (or realistic value, I guess).
So before you dismiss parli as being pseudo-policy, I suggest you compare the two in the context of what is actually better at creating policy. Indeed, we cannot put Parli on the scale that uses Policy as the gold standard—that’s an unfair playing field. Instead, what actually works in the real world? Kritiks, a prioris, and Foucalt, or a well-reasoned argument presented well that aims to give REAL benefits to people?
I must agree with Ben – use your real name. It’s really difficult having a serious discussion with someone going by Crimson Chin.
I also find it really annoying that neither the people who read biopower criticisms nor the people who dismiss them as a crutch to “eke out a win” ever bothered to actually read the literature behind them. Agamben, for one, is a very clear and accessible author with tons of real world impacts.
I am the poster JohnnyDepp. It’s a nickname, but I honestly do not see how this changes a thing for the discussion.
@Artem
First, does artem=artem raskin, the judge who voted aff for ilya against legried @harker, or is it just a coincidence =]
Second, I would argue that i would improve the quality of my arguments against a person with a ridulous name. Losing to Chris Theis is better than losing to random Crimson Chin.
Third, I agree with you: those who read the complex Ks (Nietzsche, baudrillard, derrida, zizek, etc) (especially Nietzsche IMO)will find themselves in a world of hurt if they simply rip from the ol’ backfiles =]
Cap K, NeoImperialism K, etc, are very simple to understand, but I would concede that the well warranted “do nothing” alts are pretty cheap.
1) Yes, I judged Ilya and Erik. If I recall correctly, Erik lost that round because of a one letter typo in one of his taglines :/
2) Terrible argument. I don’t post on POI because I want to “win” against an anonymous poster.
3) I think you just answered your own question. By prohibiting printed material, parli forces people to understand their arguments instead of simply regurgitating what their coach / some book they didn’t read said.
2) wasnt rly important. I was about to submit a very long post regarding this issue, but I have seen your posts on the “Ld ought to be intelligible to intelligent lay people” thread. I don’t think I want to go into the line by line, or even articulate all of the arguments regarding parli.
Can you guys answer my question:
Why do you do parliamentary debate as opposed to others?
I don’t remember what I posted on that thread or why it’s relevant. Anywho…
I can’t speak for everyone, but here are some of the reasons I like parli (this is not to say that I hate other events). As a disclaimer, I like NPDA-parli a lot more than CHSSA-parli, but both are cool.
- see my #3 above
- I get to debate current events
- longer speech times = slower & more in depth discussion
- I find spontaneity intellectually stimulating and get an adrenaline rush in prep time
- I get a lot more freedom in what I want to research
- topics change = I don’t have to hear the same argument 10 times at one tournament
- I love POIs – you could probably already tell by the name I chose for this website
I have extensive background with high school/college policy debate & choose to teach parli in high school because of its superior educational value. The key features are:
1) New topic every round, ranging from philosophy to current events. Successful parli debaters prepare themselves for a broader range of subject matter than any other speaking event. This preparation translates into knowledge useful for high school, college & life.
2) Limited prep time has the benefit of teaching students to truly “think on their feet” which gives them skill & confidence.
3) Focus on persuading untrained judges. Unless you work as a lawyer, every meaningful debate you’ll have as an adult will be in front of a judge who likely knows less about the topic than you do. This is true in business, at town hall meetings & on the street. In these situations, ethos & pathos play as much or more of a role than logos. The predominance of ‘parent judges’ in parli simulates this nicely & learning how to convince these judges to support your position is perhaps the most educational aspect of high school parli, IMHO.
Broad, relevant subject matter + thinking on your feet + learning to persuade anyone = quite a valuable educational experience.
Anyone want to play odds maker out there? I would like to but am not qualified. I agree, norcal teams should dominate, but I think there are a few wild cards who could muss things up a bit. Here is my list of favorites to reach semis in alphabetical order:
Slight bias here, but I think Lynbrook MN should get to at least quarters, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got to semis too – they’re very good with lay/flay, but not as good w/ legit flow judges against good teams as evidenced by CaliCup.
So I would take Lynbrook as the dark horse, with Bentley MB and O’Dowd AD as locks for semis. I’m also going out on a limb to say that the 4th semifinalist will be Lowell QA.
The two returning semifinalists from last year, who haven’t really been active on the parli circuit this season, but are good nonetheless are Tony Paranzino from Bell and Oscar Wang from San Marino.
Also, anyone familiar with CHSSA history would know that finals is a CFL team versus a SoCal team, and that GGSA never gets to finals.
It’s really hard to say who will do well at states as there are a ton of good teams this year. I agree with Iain in that Bellarmine certainly shouldn’t be discounted in making it far. Anthony Paranzino is great with parent judges and has made it far at states before who are predominant throughout states and his new partner Ali Hazrati is quite good as well
State Finals, a terrific tourny to watch… Bishop O’Dowd AD went ALL the way!! They debated Granite Bay ON the first debate of the T and in the final debate of the T (2-0 for BOD against Granite Bay)
Aditya had it correct:
Bentley MB
BOD AD
would both be in the semi’s. Personally, my bet was that they would debate in the finals, but it was not to be.
Congrats to all the teams. You are all winners, but BOD AD took home the championship for 2010 and put O’Dowd debate on the map.
Lynbrook was thinking about it, but we really didn’t want to deal with the worlds format as well as being burned out for AP testing/late testing/science fair
fact: You guys do parli because it takes less time, is easier, and can be done with a friend.
Anyone who actually reads the news, and does parli prep for like 30 min a day will crush everyone. No joke.
I creamed 3 teams which semi’d at the “biggest” parli tournament when debating alone. me vs 2 of them. (i gave a case with straight up legit deont, then nietzsche. both forfeited, and we had another debte on topic, with less philosophy which i also won) there is no one half decent at my school, and none of my LD novi want to drop down to parli to pwn for fun,(and rightly so)so im sorry guys.
Can you guys please use weighing mechanisms? If you guys actually layered arguments/ had blocks (nvm this is parli after all), you could have educational discussions.
i really dont feel like straight up bashing parli as (parli bad/LAZY(i wish i could bold that), ld much much better)
Crimson chin…At least we all know why you chose LD. No friends, huh? That’s what a pretentious elitist look on life will do to you. You may be a great debater and you may cream every parli debater ever, but the fact that you would come to a parli website to rant-about-not-ranting-about-parli speaks loads to your character. Run Nietzsche and deonto all you want, but you are clearly just regurgitating ideas. An uberman would never do something like this.
Also, who are you crimson? You sound like the average varsity LD debater who reads maybe 2 philosophy books (from what I’ve read so far nietzsche(prbly thus spake zarusthra) and some contemoporary of kant)
@Jason
Why does an attack on a form of debate
–> attack on individual?
Someone not finding an LD novice to do parli with constitutes no friends? For all I know, she could be minimizing the suffering of millions in Africa, or preventing the black rhino from going extinct[gender neutralized, but i am pretty sure crimson=a guy]. What I do know is that a handful of posts on a debate website, on the INTERNET cannot be used to judge a person’s character.
Further, why do you assume that someone who runs deontology and nietzsche is simply regurgitating ideas? You still have to apply deontology to the unique scenario. Making a moral decision, actually, deciding what constitutes a moral decision, defining morality can be a fascinating process. Your opponent triggers some impact which is BAD. To prevent this impact would constitute GOOD. Minimize bad, maximize good. Every debater has done this in at least one debate. Every debate regurgitates fundamental ideas. Many debaters put in hours of research delving through the mysteries of Kant, coming out of the bok slightly perplexed, then going back again. Understanding the nuanced arguments functioning at different levels while keeping track of specific jargon from the author, like “a priori” takes a considerable amount of effort, and can be very rewarding. Even someone who can’t understand Kant has the option of reading Korsgard, who frontlines deontology in the 20th century. Just because one does not understand complex, nuanced attacks on their position does not mean that the argumentation is simply text compiled by a coach for a robot to read. I admit that it happens. However, most of the debaters who do this chose to sacrifice the educational benefits, and end up getting much less out of the activity than their peers. Cross examination checks this back further, forcing debaters to EXPLAIN their position clearly. Debaters who rip off cards from backfiles or coaches lose rounds. If you don’t know what you are saying, you will lose. You might beat someone bad, but chances are you would have beaten them normally anyway. These are a few reasons as to why the vast majority of debaters read evidence which they have cut themselves from the actual book, actually understanding what they are saying. The vast majority of debaters dont parrot their coaches.
I am not saying that I agree with this, but simply that it is my interpretation of what was being said.
The poster felt that parliamentary debate offers significantly lesser educational benefits than Lincoln Douglas debate for a variety of reasons, as well as the fact that parliamentary debaters are disincentivized from working hard.
Okay Spartacus… calm yourself haha. I said he has no friends because of his pretentious attitude. You’re trying to apply logic to a fallacy I threw at him.
btw i have no idea who he is. I am just presenting my take on him after reading a post. By no means, am I right. It is just my opinion that someone who did what he did (go on a parli website and blah blah) can be judged, to some extent, by this action. “the fact that you would come to a parli website to rant-about-not-ranting-about-parli speaks loads to your character.” Extrapolate what you will, but this action still speaks loads to his character.
Applying some philosopher’s thought to a specific scenario, doesn’t prove non-regurgitation. All it proves is that when vomiting ideas, this individual can shape their mouth to change the shape of the stream. By running Nietzsche, you are inherently regurgitating ideas.
That is my major point about L-D. They call it more educationally valuable, because the subject matter is centered in philosophical thought. (Which is exclusive and often only studied by those who have the leisure time to do so). Since less people can do it, therefore its better? I think the ability to spontaneously speak on a real-world topic and rely on Jason’s ideas is far more educationally valuable then defining morality and using Nietzsche to prove a vague and unoriginal idea. L-D is definitely fascinating to some(even me). But I don’t think one can say, with a sort of universal certainty, that one is more valuable then another.
As a side note, the fact that CrimsonCleft over here is trying to assert L-Ds educational value as supreme makes him elitist and pretty pretentious(His tone also strengthens that point). So there. Thats what I was trying to say. Sorry for not making that clear the first time.
Btw I would argue that even if you think that parli-ers work less outside of the round (which we dont), the uncertainty that goes on in almost every round makes us work significantly harder in prep and in round.
LDers and parliers work hard upon hearing their topic. LD-ers just happen to hear their topics earlier that doesn’t mean that parli debaters are disincentivized from working hard.
*I tried to match your length
Sorry for the fragments and grammatical slip ups;I’m not English major.
7 of the 15 teams moving on to round four of SVFL Parli Quals are from Mira Loma.
Initial Pool is 29 teams.
Other Schools in R4:
Granite Bay (2)
West Campus (2?)
Monterey Trail (1)
Ponderosa (1)
and two others that I can’t remember!
How many teams for each school are allowed to go to state quals?
http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ca/svfl-debquals/2010/results4.htm
SVFL Results are up. Quallers are:
Mira Loma AL (Agarwal and Lin)
Granite Bay ON (O’Brien and Nielsen)
Finalists were:
Mira Loma MM (Morris and Mecklai)
West Campus PM (Peters and Meroux)
I LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!!!
Thanks.
For the future, I’d like to ask people (not just Content User, but in general) to post under their real names. Posting that you love POI on POI’s website isn’t that controversial – I promise.
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15758185&source=features_box_main
Obama – 3
Republicans – 0
LOL, I guess Leland is trying to be funny…
Entered at SCU2 for this weekend:
Leland High School Taman Narayan & Ryan Kuo Open Parliamentary Entered
Also: Leland High School Czar Nick Polussa & Alexander Polussa Open Parliamentary Entered
Can anyone post a list of colleges which recruit high school parli debaters for us sophomores?
posted some links on http://www.pointofinformation.org/news/college-connection/
What are the educational benefits of parliamentary debate?
Why do you do parliamentary debate?
Just in case not everyone knows, Parli in college is completely different from parli in HS.
CPS, PICs, DAs, and Kritiks of EVERYTHING are run during rounds. You are allowed to take typed materials, and most competitive debaters pack 4-5 kritiks (Capitalism K, Darwinism K, Biopower K etc) Teams will spread through multiple theoretical arguments, kritiks, and other random off cases. You will still be receiving topics, on the spot, with 15 min of prep, but discussion will be much more dense, with ACTUAL evidence with empirics/empirics. There will be no unwarranted bullshit which is ubiquitous on the school circuit. Pathos/Ethos will be thrown out the window, and logos will ultimately prevail.
Honestly, I simply do not understand how someone could possibly derive serious competitive educational benefits from this activity. I’m not making this up. I watched 3 rounds from people who made it to semis, and the quality of discussion was HORRIBLE. One of the finalists won the debate round by “proving” UN sanctions genocide! You guys might as well just debate “TH will allow CA to secede from the US” because the quality of arguments is very poor. This is pseudo policy on policy topics, pseudo LD on LD topics, and god help me for topics like “THB that John will cry.” I strongly urge someone to tell me why parliamentary debate is “good”
Standard=Net benefits. Parli may be good, but thru net benefits, LD and policy are VASTLY more educationalin EVERY aspect.
1) Post under a real name if you’re gonna knock Parli.
2) The essence of Parli is to have real interaction, and foster debate skills that might actually help you in real life. I mean, great that college kiddos run K’s and whatnot, but realistically, I’ve never found anyone whose mind changes on a topic based on that kind of krap. They’re tools that debaters use to rationalize failing to debate properly and still try to eke a win out of it. This is particularly true in Parli. Is it fair to a team that prepares thoughtfully and diligently during their prep time to lose to a team that dismisses the on-case with the wave of a pre-prepped K (or FIVE)? Of course not. It’s about spontaneous argumentation, and realistic policy (or realistic value, I guess).
So before you dismiss parli as being pseudo-policy, I suggest you compare the two in the context of what is actually better at creating policy. Indeed, we cannot put Parli on the scale that uses Policy as the gold standard—that’s an unfair playing field. Instead, what actually works in the real world? Kritiks, a prioris, and Foucalt, or a well-reasoned argument presented well that aims to give REAL benefits to people?
Policy…Educational for what, might I add?
I must agree with Ben – use your real name. It’s really difficult having a serious discussion with someone going by Crimson Chin.
I also find it really annoying that neither the people who read biopower criticisms nor the people who dismiss them as a crutch to “eke out a win” ever bothered to actually read the literature behind them. Agamben, for one, is a very clear and accessible author with tons of real world impacts.
I am the poster JohnnyDepp. It’s a nickname, but I honestly do not see how this changes a thing for the discussion.
@Artem
First, does artem=artem raskin, the judge who voted aff for ilya against legried @harker, or is it just a coincidence =]
Second, I would argue that i would improve the quality of my arguments against a person with a ridulous name. Losing to Chris Theis is better than losing to random Crimson Chin.
Third, I agree with you: those who read the complex Ks (Nietzsche, baudrillard, derrida, zizek, etc) (especially Nietzsche IMO)will find themselves in a world of hurt if they simply rip from the ol’ backfiles =]
Cap K, NeoImperialism K, etc, are very simple to understand, but I would concede that the well warranted “do nothing” alts are pretty cheap.
1) Yes, I judged Ilya and Erik. If I recall correctly, Erik lost that round because of a one letter typo in one of his taglines :/
2) Terrible argument. I don’t post on POI because I want to “win” against an anonymous poster.
3) I think you just answered your own question. By prohibiting printed material, parli forces people to understand their arguments instead of simply regurgitating what their coach / some book they didn’t read said.
2) wasnt rly important. I was about to submit a very long post regarding this issue, but I have seen your posts on the “Ld ought to be intelligible to intelligent lay people” thread. I don’t think I want to go into the line by line, or even articulate all of the arguments regarding parli.
Can you guys answer my question:
Why do you do parliamentary debate as opposed to others?
I don’t remember what I posted on that thread or why it’s relevant. Anywho…
I can’t speak for everyone, but here are some of the reasons I like parli (this is not to say that I hate other events). As a disclaimer, I like NPDA-parli a lot more than CHSSA-parli, but both are cool.
- see my #3 above
- I get to debate current events
- longer speech times = slower & more in depth discussion
- I find spontaneity intellectually stimulating and get an adrenaline rush in prep time
- I get a lot more freedom in what I want to research
- topics change = I don’t have to hear the same argument 10 times at one tournament
- I love POIs – you could probably already tell by the name I chose for this website
hope that helps
I have extensive background with high school/college policy debate & choose to teach parli in high school because of its superior educational value. The key features are:
1) New topic every round, ranging from philosophy to current events. Successful parli debaters prepare themselves for a broader range of subject matter than any other speaking event. This preparation translates into knowledge useful for high school, college & life.
2) Limited prep time has the benefit of teaching students to truly “think on their feet” which gives them skill & confidence.
3) Focus on persuading untrained judges. Unless you work as a lawyer, every meaningful debate you’ll have as an adult will be in front of a judge who likely knows less about the topic than you do. This is true in business, at town hall meetings & on the street. In these situations, ethos & pathos play as much or more of a role than logos. The predominance of ‘parent judges’ in parli simulates this nicely & learning how to convince these judges to support your position is perhaps the most educational aspect of high school parli, IMHO.
Broad, relevant subject matter + thinking on your feet + learning to persuade anyone = quite a valuable educational experience.
Anyone going to Claremont Mckenna’s high school camp this summer?
Bump previous question!
Any bets on who will win at states?
Betting the semifinals will be only Norcal teams. But beyond that, I think it’s anyone’s game.
Anyone want to play odds maker out there? I would like to but am not qualified. I agree, norcal teams should dominate, but I think there are a few wild cards who could muss things up a bit. Here is my list of favorites to reach semis in alphabetical order:
Bentley MB
Carlsbad GM
Mira Loma AL
O’Dowd AD
Slight bias here, but I think Lynbrook MN should get to at least quarters, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got to semis too – they’re very good with lay/flay, but not as good w/ legit flow judges against good teams as evidenced by CaliCup.
So I would take Lynbrook as the dark horse, with Bentley MB and O’Dowd AD as locks for semis. I’m also going out on a limb to say that the 4th semifinalist will be Lowell QA.
Bump Sam’s question.
Anyone going to Claremont/Sniffy/ODI this summer? Check out our camp pages: http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/resources/camps/
The two returning semifinalists from last year, who haven’t really been active on the parli circuit this season, but are good nonetheless are Tony Paranzino from Bell and Oscar Wang from San Marino.
Also, anyone familiar with CHSSA history would know that finals is a CFL team versus a SoCal team, and that GGSA never gets to finals.
I’m potentially thinking about SNFI, depends what science/research camps I get into and when Lynbrook summer camp will be.
Jason’s logic is nearly infallible. Windsor wins, as does the GGSA.
Lo and behold The Poorly Formatted Table of Champions: http://www.pointofinformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Table-of-Champions.htm
I really think that nobody is really a lock for sems. However, I’m kind of expecting Bellarmine to rock it.
I say Granite Bay O’Brien-Nielsen is gonna dark-horse it.
It’s really hard to say who will do well at states as there are a ton of good teams this year. I agree with Iain in that Bellarmine certainly shouldn’t be discounted in making it far. Anthony Paranzino is great with parent judges and has made it far at states before who are predominant throughout states and his new partner Ali Hazrati is quite good as well
Look for Windward and Campbell Hall from SoCal (Dark Horses)
How many of you have been to parli camps over the summer? If so, which one and what did you like about it?
State Finals, a terrific tourny to watch… Bishop O’Dowd AD went ALL the way!! They debated Granite Bay ON the first debate of the T and in the final debate of the T (2-0 for BOD against Granite Bay)
Aditya had it correct:
Bentley MB
BOD AD
would both be in the semi’s. Personally, my bet was that they would debate in the finals, but it was not to be.
Congrats to all the teams. You are all winners, but BOD AD took home the championship for 2010 and put O’Dowd debate on the map.
Word on the street is that Artem is planning another round robin tourney during the off season, sometime this summer. I cant wait
I heard this Artem guy was going to have that entire tournament be in Spanish. I cant wait.
Que Bueno =D
Artem is it true? Another parli round robin?
No.
Thanks a lot Dan, you got my hopes up for no reason.
Anyone going to iToc up in Oregon?
If anyone at iTOC wants to report resolutions/elims/their experience in worlds format, we’ll make a post about it.
Lynbrook was thinking about it, but we really didn’t want to deal with the worlds format as well as being burned out for AP testing/late testing/science fair
Good luck to anyone who is going!
fact: You guys do parli because it takes less time, is easier, and can be done with a friend.
Anyone who actually reads the news, and does parli prep for like 30 min a day will crush everyone. No joke.
I creamed 3 teams which semi’d at the “biggest” parli tournament when debating alone. me vs 2 of them. (i gave a case with straight up legit deont, then nietzsche. both forfeited, and we had another debte on topic, with less philosophy which i also won) there is no one half decent at my school, and none of my LD novi want to drop down to parli to pwn for fun,(and rightly so)so im sorry guys.
Can you guys please use weighing mechanisms? If you guys actually layered arguments/ had blocks (nvm this is parli after all), you could have educational discussions.
i really dont feel like straight up bashing parli as (parli bad/LAZY(i wish i could bold that), ld much much better)
i’ll prbly do that some other time though.
Enough said.
Clearly, your logic is far superior to a Parli debater’s.
Crimson chin…At least we all know why you chose LD. No friends, huh? That’s what a pretentious elitist look on life will do to you. You may be a great debater and you may cream every parli debater ever, but the fact that you would come to a parli website to rant-about-not-ranting-about-parli speaks loads to your character. Run Nietzsche and deonto all you want, but you are clearly just regurgitating ideas. An uberman would never do something like this.
Oh, Jason.
What made the post pretentious and elitist?
Also, who are you crimson? You sound like the average varsity LD debater who reads maybe 2 philosophy books (from what I’ve read so far nietzsche(prbly thus spake zarusthra) and some contemoporary of kant)
@Jason
Why does an attack on a form of debate
–> attack on individual?
Someone not finding an LD novice to do parli with constitutes no friends? For all I know, she could be minimizing the suffering of millions in Africa, or preventing the black rhino from going extinct[gender neutralized, but i am pretty sure crimson=a guy]. What I do know is that a handful of posts on a debate website, on the INTERNET cannot be used to judge a person’s character.
Further, why do you assume that someone who runs deontology and nietzsche is simply regurgitating ideas? You still have to apply deontology to the unique scenario. Making a moral decision, actually, deciding what constitutes a moral decision, defining morality can be a fascinating process. Your opponent triggers some impact which is BAD. To prevent this impact would constitute GOOD. Minimize bad, maximize good. Every debater has done this in at least one debate. Every debate regurgitates fundamental ideas. Many debaters put in hours of research delving through the mysteries of Kant, coming out of the bok slightly perplexed, then going back again. Understanding the nuanced arguments functioning at different levels while keeping track of specific jargon from the author, like “a priori” takes a considerable amount of effort, and can be very rewarding. Even someone who can’t understand Kant has the option of reading Korsgard, who frontlines deontology in the 20th century. Just because one does not understand complex, nuanced attacks on their position does not mean that the argumentation is simply text compiled by a coach for a robot to read. I admit that it happens. However, most of the debaters who do this chose to sacrifice the educational benefits, and end up getting much less out of the activity than their peers. Cross examination checks this back further, forcing debaters to EXPLAIN their position clearly. Debaters who rip off cards from backfiles or coaches lose rounds. If you don’t know what you are saying, you will lose. You might beat someone bad, but chances are you would have beaten them normally anyway. These are a few reasons as to why the vast majority of debaters read evidence which they have cut themselves from the actual book, actually understanding what they are saying. The vast majority of debaters dont parrot their coaches.
I am not saying that I agree with this, but simply that it is my interpretation of what was being said.
The poster felt that parliamentary debate offers significantly lesser educational benefits than Lincoln Douglas debate for a variety of reasons, as well as the fact that parliamentary debaters are disincentivized from working hard.
Okay Spartacus… calm yourself haha. I said he has no friends because of his pretentious attitude. You’re trying to apply logic to a fallacy I threw at him.
btw i have no idea who he is. I am just presenting my take on him after reading a post. By no means, am I right. It is just my opinion that someone who did what he did (go on a parli website and blah blah) can be judged, to some extent, by this action. “the fact that you would come to a parli website to rant-about-not-ranting-about-parli speaks loads to your character.” Extrapolate what you will, but this action still speaks loads to his character.
Applying some philosopher’s thought to a specific scenario, doesn’t prove non-regurgitation. All it proves is that when vomiting ideas, this individual can shape their mouth to change the shape of the stream. By running Nietzsche, you are inherently regurgitating ideas.
That is my major point about L-D. They call it more educationally valuable, because the subject matter is centered in philosophical thought. (Which is exclusive and often only studied by those who have the leisure time to do so). Since less people can do it, therefore its better? I think the ability to spontaneously speak on a real-world topic and rely on Jason’s ideas is far more educationally valuable then defining morality and using Nietzsche to prove a vague and unoriginal idea. L-D is definitely fascinating to some(even me). But I don’t think one can say, with a sort of universal certainty, that one is more valuable then another.
As a side note, the fact that CrimsonCleft over here is trying to assert L-Ds educational value as supreme makes him elitist and pretty pretentious(His tone also strengthens that point). So there. Thats what I was trying to say. Sorry for not making that clear the first time.
Btw I would argue that even if you think that parli-ers work less outside of the round (which we dont), the uncertainty that goes on in almost every round makes us work significantly harder in prep and in round.
LDers and parliers work hard upon hearing their topic. LD-ers just happen to hear their topics earlier that doesn’t mean that parli debaters are disincentivized from working hard.
*I tried to match your length
Sorry for the fragments and grammatical slip ups;I’m not English major.
“Reality exists, but the reality we perceive is nonexistent”
*Post reflections*