confession of an ex-parli coach

[Kevin Sargent]

I have read with interest the ongoing debate over the future of CEDA/NDT
and the Parli phenomenon. Though I don't have the time to engage in the
line-by-line with the many thoughtful post(ers) on this matter, I wanted to
bring to bear the perspective of a team (Furman) that has switched FROM
parli TO CEDA....Yes it IS possible!

I inherited a Parli squad four years ago and went along with it for
precisely the reasons that the Parli defenders have mentioned--budget, time
constraints, general ease. But the fact is  I just COULD NO LONGER justify
doing Pali (at least exclusively) and call what I am doing as DOF
"educational." Beyond all the skills that are never aquired by not having
to do that oh so awful research (give me a break! that's the FUN of it
all!), I found it very difficult to even teach the much vaunted "argument
theory" without reference to EVIDENCE. Does anyone out there teach
argument/debate classes where (research based) evidence is prohibited?!
Despite claims about a more level playing field it seemed to me that most
successful Parli debaters were ex-high school policy debaters that were
doing their briefs without their cards. Of course tbe irony is they would
never have been able to develop those abilities without having been trained
in "REAL" debate. (OK, so I'm biased) Yes, t has been difficult for our
young sqaud to cut the cards necessary to compete in today's CEDA/NDT world
(note our unplanned absence from the Tarheel), but it's really a matter of
developing the necessary focus, dedication, and organization that teams
with the smallest budgets and libraries CAN do ( I hope :-).

Now, though I don't think the educational benefits of Parli come close to
those in CEDA/NDT, I'm not in favor of scorched earth reaction to the Parli
movement. I think all the proposals for improving the novice/JV experiences
are part of the answer. But I also favor co-option! Why can't Parli serve
as a bridge/enteryway to fully substantive debate (CEDA/NDT)? In other
words, I think the most traditional of programs need to bite the bullet and
offer Parli divisions. Maybe Parli debaters will never want to "spew" (what
a bogus term...GOOD fast teams do nothing of the kind), but I think that
when they see the greater degree of rationality and depth of issue
development in even a poor Novice round they might be tempted to make the
leap to the real thing. In addition, linking Parli to CEDA/NDT tournaments
offers Parli debaters the advantage of having judges who are more prone to
evaluate the round on the ISSUES rather than elusive performative
standards. In my time in Parli I saw a great deal of frustration with the
state of judging.

Well, I don't think I've added much new to the discussion but I just want
everyone to know that not every team is abandoning the grand and stately
ship of policy debate--a ship that sails on seas smiled upon by over 100
years of tradition and experience.

After all, there's got to be a morning after!

Kevin Sargent
Furman Debate
Ready to Reason, Ready to Rock