People who know me, likely would know I like debates. After all, I’m the guy who listen to Supreme Court oral arguments for fun and write about them.

This weekend, I served as a judge in a high school parliamentary debate tournament, as my young high schooner was participating. It’s a very fun experience, though quickly, I got more interested into the structure of the format, and can’t help but pondering how to really help those young debaters, to focus on learning. Here are some thoughts.

What is Parli

Parliamentary debate, or Parli, is a form of competitive debate that simulates the debate in British parliament. It has evolved in different English speaking countries, into different styles.

The Ethos, 20%

I don’t see opposing side as necessarily adversarial, but rather as collaborators in a joint quest for truth, where judges are participants of such truth finding journey. I suspect this maps to the original intent of the format, after all, This House1 in the context of the UK Parliament, represents the collective will of the People, for the Common Good of the country.

Of the four rounds I judged, two failure modes stood out:

  1. That the team disagrees on everything, and wants to argue about everything and win all points at all costs. The problem is that this is often unconvincing, because real issues tend to be nuanced. This also makes it very hard for them to have a coherent structure. They spend too much time opposing, and often lacking logical substrate, with less time left to build a world that makes sense.

  2. That the team addresses judges to frequently keeping track of scores, and the scores are the only thing that matters. The problem is similar, that in the end, there’s weak and inconsistent world for their argument to stand.

The Logos, 70%

I strongly favor clarity of structure and arguments. There are two levels of logic. At high level, there needs to be overall structure to keep the audience focused on the topic and key contentions, and there needs to be strong logic demonstrated in each of the skirmishes.

The key failure mode I saw is throwing kitchen sink of arguments and trying to see which stick. They seem to think it’s the judge’s responsibility to figure out what sticks. Well, I (the judge and other people of the “parliament”), am there to be convinced, not there to wash your dirty laundry and then properly fold them into the proper shelves. Each of the logical inconsistencies (insert your favorite logical fallacies here) weakens your overall consistency and undermines your argument.

The Pathos, 10%

Passion can be contagious, though you need to be careful, after all, the debate is more around ideas and logic, more so than propaganda. So the way to thread passion into the debate, is to subtly evoke shared memory and values, to make the audience tethered to your ideas, subconsciously. Used well, this likely is very potent.

For example, mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan war after 911, elicit the common fatigue of endless and aimless wars. But don’t cross the line arguing they necessarily prove or disapprove certain points. Each of those events have many historical, cultural, political layers, that fully expanded, you may or may not be able to win. So be careful of what you bargain for.

What I Hope the Kids Learn

  1. Understand contemporary events more deeply and critically (you argue on both sides after all). Hope this makes social science, civics/ethic study funner.

  2. Learn to speak in public more confidently and persuasively.

  3. Learn to be serious. I like them dressing up for debates.

  4. Learn to construct a consistent logical systems surrounding an issue, which is a skill that will benefit you for life.

  1. “This House” is a traditional term used in parliamentary debates to refer to the debating chamber itself, symbolizing the collective body of members who participate in discussions and decision-making. This House includes both the government, and surprise, the opposition as well. ↩︎