American Parliamentary Debating Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Parliamentary Debating Association (APDA) is the oldest intercollegiate parliamentary debating association in the United States, and one of two in the nation overall, the other being the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA). APDA sponsors roughly 40 tournaments a year, all in a parliamentary format, as well as a National Championship. It also administers the North American Debating Championship (and concurrently, the North American Public Speaking Championship) with the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate (CUSID). Although it is mainly funded by its member universities, APDA is an entirely student-run organization.
Contents |
[edit] Organizational structure
APDA comprises about 40 universities, mainly in the Northeast, ranging as far north as Maine and as far south as Florida. Most of its members are private colleges, including all of the Ivy League schools, Providence College, New York University, Brandeis University, MIT, Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, Johns Hopkins University, Boston University, Middlebury, Bates, Swarthmore, and Hobart and William Smith Colleges. It also includes several public universities, such as Rutgers University, Temple University, the University of Virginia, College of William and Mary, University of Maryland, College Park, Florida International University and the University of Maryland Baltimore County. A few APDA institutions are also located elsewhere in the United States, most notably Stanford, the University of Chicago, and the University of Minnesota.
APDA members stage weekly debating tournaments, each at a different university and occurring throughout the academic year. Some weekends have two debating tournaments, one north of New York City and one south of New York City, in order to shorten transport time. However, centrally located tournaments or particularly prestigious tournaments, such as those at Columbia, Fordham, NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, will frequently be “unopposed”, meaning that they will be the only tournament on that particular weekend. While APDA does play a role in creating a tournament schedule, the tournaments themselves are only loosely coordinated by the APDA body. Individual schools must ensure that their tournaments meet a broad set of APDA guidelines, but are free to tinker with their tournament formats.
There are a number of tournaments in which APDA does play a direct role. Most prominently, APDA sponsors a National Championship at the end of each year. Unlike all other tournaments, debating at Nationals is limited to one team per university, plus any additional teams who “qualified” for Nationals during that debate season. There are several ways to qualify for Nationals, but by far the most common is to reach the final round of a tournament. In addition, APDA sponsors a novice tournament at the beginning of the season, a pro-am tournament midseason, and the North American Debating Championships, which is held every other year in the United States and includes top teams from the United States and Canada.
APDA also has a ranking system which combines the results of all of the year’s tournaments. Both individual speakers and two-member teams can earn points based on the results of the tournament; these points also scale up depending on the tournament’s size. At the end of the debate season, APDA gives awards to the top teams, speakers, and novices of the year.
APDA is an entirely student-run organization. The APDA board members are students from various host institutions, and most of the tournaments are completely organized by the host school’s debate team. Some teams do have professional coaches, but these are frequently recently retired debaters who wish to stay involved with the circuit.
[edit] Tournaments
Weekly debating tournaments are the core of APDA. While numerous schools slightly alter the tournament format, the general format is fairly constant. Tournaments usually start on Friday afternoon and end on Saturday evening. Five preliminary rounds are held, three on Friday and two on Saturday. The first round is randomly paired, while remaining rounds are bracketed, meaning that teams with the same record face each other. Preliminary rounds generally have only one judge, most frequently a debater from the host school. After five rounds, the “break” is announced, consisting of the top eight teams at the tournament. These teams compete in single-elimination quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals, judged by progressively larger panels of judges, and a tournament winner is crowned. Trophies are awarded to the top speakers, top teams, and top novice (first-year) debaters. Certain tournaments tinker with the format, having more or fewer preliminary rounds and larger or smaller breaks; the National Championships, for instance, generally has one additional preliminary round and one additional elimination round.
[edit] Format
Debates at APDA tournaments follow a debating style known as American Parliamentary Debate, which is modeled loosely on the procedure and decorum of the UK Parliament. This style emphasizes argumentation and rhetoric, rather than research and detailed factual knowledge.
[edit] Flow of the round
A round of debate features two teams of two debaters each: the Government team, including the Prime Minister and the Member of Government, and the Opposition team, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Member of the Opposition.
Six speeches in all are delivered, varying in length:
- Prime Minister's Constructive: 7 minutes
- Leader of the Opposition's Constructive: 8 minutes
- Member of Government: 8 minutes
- Member of the Opposition: 8 minutes
- Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal: 4 minutes
- Prime Minister's Rebuttal: 5 minutes
[edit] Points of information
A debater may rise to ask a point of information (POI) of an opponent during the opponent's speech. POIs are only permitted during the first four speeches, except in the first and final minutes of the speech. The speaking debater can choose to hear the POI or to dismiss it politely. Traditionally when standing on a point of information some debaters extend one hand palm up, holding the back of the head with the other. This pose originated in old British Parliamentary etiquette: an MP would adopt the position to secure his wig and show that he was not carrying a weapon.[1] It is generally considered good form to accept at least two POIs during a speech.
[edit] The resolution
In most rounds, the resolution is squirrelable, meaning that the Government team can propose any topic it wants for debate. (Certain tournaments provide both teams with the topic of debate 15 minutes before the round.)
Since the Opposition team arrives at the round with no prior knowledge of the case, some kinds of resolutions are not permitted to ensure a fair debate. If Opposition feels that the round fits any one of these categories, they may point this out during the Leader's speech. If the judge agrees, Opposition wins. There are five kinds of disallowed resolutions:
- tight resolutions, which are deemed too one-sided (“racism is bad”, for example);
- truisms (“Bill Clinton is the greatest Democratic president of the U.S. since Jimmy Carter”);
- tautologies (“Good citizens should help the poor,” with goodness defined as "a willingness to do charitable acts");
- status quo resolutions (“The United States should have jury trials”);
- specific-knowledge cases, i.e., cases which are unfair toward the Opposition team because they require highly obscure knowledge to oppose effectively ("NASA should replace the current sealant used on the space shuttle with hypoxynucleotide-C4598")
Aside from these five limitations, virtually any topic for debate is fair game, as long as there are two coherent and debatable sides. Debaters may also present opp-choice cases, in which the government team offers the opposition team the chance to choose which side of a topic the government team will defend in the round.
[edit] Adjudication
A judge listens to the round and provides quantitative and qualitative assessments of the round as a whole and of the individual speakers. Some rounds use a panel of judges. Judges are usually debaters themselves, but non-debater judges, or lay judges, are sometimes used.
[edit] Compared to other styles
The APDA style is generally seen as occupying a middle ground between the styles of CUSID and NPDA. It is more somewhat more rule-oriented and structured than the CUSID style, as point-by-point argumentation and careful structure are considered very important. It also emphasizes detailed analysis and de-emphasizes oratory as compared to CUSID. However, APDA style is less structured and theoretical than the NPDA style, and demands less usage of technical debate formalisms. Part of the reason for this is that APDA frequently uses lay judges - judges who are inexperienced and have rarely seen debate rounds - and thus the style must be instantly accessible to a newcomer. In contrast, NPDA rarely uses lay judges, and most NPDA judges are experienced coaches who are familiar with debate theory.
[edit] Types of cases
APDA's format allows for an enormous variety of cases. This list provides a highly non-comprehensive set of debate case types.
[edit] Public policy
Cases about public policy are among the most common cases on APDA. They include common public policy debates (school vouchers, term limits, euthanasia, capital punishment, race-based affirmative action) as well as more unique ideas (mandatory organ donation, proxy voting for children, private criminal prosecution, abolishing private schools, and innumerable others). Libertarian policy proposals, such as abolishing the minimum wage or abolishing paternalistic laws, are particularly popular. Cases involving the policies of particular organizations are popular as well, such as debates surrounding university speech codes. Additionally, broad social questions can be discussed without centering the case around a government actor; “Are trade unions, all things considered, a good thing for society?” is a perfectly acceptable opp-choice debate case.
[edit] Political theory
Abstract questions about political philosophy are also popular topics of debate. Cases about the relative benefits of the Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” versus the Hobbesian “state of nature”, for instance, are commonplace. These rounds will generally be folded into moral hypotheticals; for instance, rather than a team actually proposing that the veil of ignorance is a worthwhile political theory, a team might argue that economic human rights should be included in constitutions, and use the veil of ignorance as a justification.
[edit] Law and legal theory
All aspects of law are fair game on APDA, including constitutional law (e.g. whether the Pledge of Allegiance should be constitutional), procedural law (e.g. whether standards of proof should differ for criminal and civil law) and abstract legal theory (e.g. whether retributive justice is a moral justification for the criminal justice system).
[edit] Foreign policy
Many aspects of American and international foreign policy make for excellent debate rounds. Various aspects of policy related to Iraq, Israel, North Korea, and Cuba are frequent debate topics.
[edit] Moral hypotheticals
Hypothetical moral dilemmas are popular topics for debate, given that they can be discussed with a minimum of specific knowledge and a maximum of argumentation. They can range from completely fantastical situations (“If you had definitive proof that one particular religion was the true religion, should you reveal it to society?”) to unlikely occurrences (“Should you kill one person to save five other people?”) to dilemmas we face every day (“You see a homeless person on the street, should you give him money you have in your pocket?”) The infinite number of hypothetical situations that can give rise to moral dilemmas make many moral hypothetical cases unique.
[edit] Abstract philosophy
Although somewhat less common than tangible moral hypotheticals, all aspects of philosophy make their way into debate rounds. Ethics is probably the most debated field of philosophy, including both abstract metaethics and modern ethical problems like the trolley problem. However, philosophy of religion (“Is it rational to be an atheist?”), philosophy of mind (“Can a computer have mental states?”) and even philosophy of language (“Does love result from appreciation of someone’s properties, or does appreciation of someone’s properties result from love?”) can result in excellent rounds.
[edit] Time-space
One type of case, common on APDA but rare on other circuits, is the time-space case. This places the speaker in the position of some real-life, fictional, or historical figure. Only information accessible to a person in that position is legal in this type of round. For instance, “You are Socrates. Don’t commit suicide” could not reference events that took place after Socrates’ death. The speaker can be a fictional character (“You are Homer Simpson. Do not sell your soul”), a historical character (“You are Abraham Lincoln. Do not sign the emancipation proclamation”) or virtually any other sentient individual.
One notable type of time-space case is the historical hypothetical case, in which decisions made by particular historical figures are debated from their historical context. Debates surrounding, for instance, Civil War strategy or World War I alliances are commonplace. These types of debates often require a detailed knowledge of history.
Time-space cases are a particularly sensitive type of case for the government, because their setting must leave room for the opposition to defeat the case even if that would go against the historical outcome already known to everyone in the room.
[edit] Comedy cases
Teams occasionally choose to debate very funny or silly topics in rounds. In this case, the round often becomes a contest over wit and style rather than pure analysis. “Disneyland should secede from the United States” or “The Social Security system should be transformed into a free buffet” are examples of this type of round, which have been known to get quite bizarre.
Numerous cases are run on APDA that do not fit into any of the categories; case construction is a skill that requires significant creativity, and coming up with unique debate topics is a very important skill on the APDA circuit.
[edit] History of APDA
APDA was created in 1981, and has scaled up in size enormously since then. It became an incorporated organization in 2000, mainly for reasons of legal liability. The tale of APDA's creation can be found at APDAWeb.
[edit] APDA Presidents
2006-2007 John Hollwitz, Fordham University
2005-2006 Robbie Pratt, The College of William and Mary
2004-2005 Andrew Korn, Yale University
2003-2004 Angelo Carusone, Fordham University
2002-2003 Greg Jennings, University of Maryland, College Park
2001-2002 Jeff Williams, Columbia University
2000-2001 Scott Luftglass, Yale University
1999-2000 Matt Schwartz, Princeton University
1998-1999 John Williams, Princeton University
1997-1998 Ben Karlin, Brown University
1996-1997 Peter Stris, University of Pennsylvania
1995-1996 Chris Paolella, Princeton University
1994-1995 Gordon Todd, Princeton University
1993-1994 Martin Eltrich, University of Pennsylvania
1992-1993 Damon Watson, Princeton University
1991-1992 Ted Niblock, Johns Hopkins University
1990-1991 Mike Galvin, Harvard University
1981-1982 David Martland, Princeton University
[edit] Chris Porcaro Award winners
This award is given to the fourth-year debater with the most top speaker finishes in his or her APDA career. It is named after the late Chris Porcaro, the 1998 APDA speaker of the year, who died of cancer in 2000.
2006 Jon Bateman, Johns Hopkins University
2005 (Tie) Alex Blenkinsopp, Harvard and Kat Hyland, Fordham and Kate Reilly, Princeton
2004 (Tie) Brookes Brown, Brown and Neil Vakharia, NYU
2003 Phil Larochelle, MIT
2002 Emily Garin, Princeton
2001 David Silverman, Princeton
[edit] APDA speakers of the year
2006 Jon Bateman, Johns Hopkins University
2005 Robbie Pratt, The College of William and Mary
2004 Brookes Brown, Brown
2003 Phil Larochelle, MIT
2002 Emily Garin, Princeton
2001 Brian Fletcher, Yale
2000 David Silverman, Princeton
1999 Peter Guirguis, NYU
1998 (Tie) Micah Weinberg, Princeton and Chris Porcaro, NYU
1997 John Oleske, Princeton
1996 Chris Paolella, Princeton
1995 Doug Kern, Princeton
1994 Thanos Basdekis, Columbia
1993 Damon Watson, Princeton
1992 Ted Cruz, Princeton
1991 David Gray, Yale
1990 Matt Wolf, Yale
1989 John Gastil, Swarthmore
1988 Bart Aronson, Yale
1987 Bart Aronson, Yale
[edit] APDA teams of the year
2006 The College of William and Mary: Chris Ford and Robbie Pratt
2005 (Tie) Harvard: David Kimel and Jason Wen, Johns Hopkins: Jon Bateman and Michael Mayernick, The College of William and Mary: Chris Ford and Robbie Pratt
2004 Princeton: Christian Asmar and Kate Reilly
2003 Yale: Adam Jed and Elizabeth O’Connor
2002 Princeton: Edward Parillon and Yoni Schneller
2001 Yale: Brian Fletcher and Scott Luftglass
2000 Princeton: Laurence Bleicher and David Silverman
1999 Johns Hopkins: Jon Cohen and Dave Riordan
1998 Princeton: Jason Goldman and Niall O’Murchadha
1997 Williams: Chris Willenken and Amanda Amert
1996 Stanford: Brendan Maher and Matt Meskell
1995 Columbia: Arlo Devlin-Brown and Dan Stein
1994 Columbia: Thanos Basdekis and Arlo Devlin-Brown
1993 Columbia: Thanos Basdekis and Morty Dubin
1992 Princeton: Ted Cruz and Dave Panton
1991 Wesleyan: Mark Berkowitz and Dan Prieto
1989 Columbia: Andrew Cohen and Rob Kaplan
1988 University of Maryland Baltimore County: Greg Ealick and Mark Voyce
1987 Swarthmore: Josh Davis and Reid Neureiter
[edit] APDA national champions
2006 Princeton: Dan Greco and Michael Reilly
2005 Harvard: Alex Blenkinsopp and Alex Potapov
2004 Harvard: Marty Roth and Nico Cornell
2003 Yale: Jay Cox and Tim Willenken
2002 Princeton: Edward Parillon and Yoni Schneller
2001 Yale: Brian Fletcher and Scott Luftglass
2000 Princeton: Jeremiah Gordon and Matt Schwartz
1999 Columbia: Carissa Byrne and John Castelly
1998 Harvard: Eric Albert and Justin Osofsky
1997 Johns Hopkins: Rebecca Justice and David Weiner
1996 UPenn: Liz Rogers and Peter Stris
1995 Swarthmore: Jeremy Mallory and Neal Potischman
1994 Swarthmore: Dave Carney and Neal Potischman
1993 Columbia: Thanos Basdekis and Morty Dubin
1992 Harvard: Chris Harris and David Kennedy
1991 Princeton: Robert Ewing and Christopher Ray
1990 Wesleyan: Andrew Borsanyi and Joel Potischman
1989 Harvard: Nick Alpers and Pat Bannon
1988 Brown: Aaron Belkin and Jason Grumet
1987 Swarthmore: Josh Davis and Reid Neureiter
1986 Harvard: Ben Alpers and Mike Dorf
1985 Brown: Martha Hirschfield and Tim Moore
1984 United States Naval Academy: Chuck Fish and Marshall Parsons
1983 Harvard: Neil Buchanan and Doug Curtis
1982 Princeton: Robert Gilbert and Richard Sommer
1981 Amherst: J.J. Gertler and Tom Massaro
[edit] Evolutionary changes
American parliamentary debate did not begin with APDA. Three circuits operated in the U.S. prior to its creation, in the Northeast, Midwest, and California. The University of Chicago tournament was considered the de facto national championship due to its central location and its place as the last tournament on the calendar, and was selected to host the first APDA Nationals in 1981. APDA started as a way to coordinate tournament schedules among the Northeast schools and to provide a single point of contact for what was then a close working relationship with CUSID.
Tournaments were either five or six rounds, and the length of speeches slightly different from today, at 8, 8, 8, 12, and 4 minutes. The 12-minute speech by the Opposition could be divided into 8 and 4, in which case the Leader of the Opposition took the Opposition's first 8-minute speech, the Member of the Opposition the second 8, and the leader finished with 4 minutes of pure rebuttal. The decision on whether to split was tactical, as a strong 12-minute speech could be hard for the Prime Minister to rebut in 4, but a poor one could be disastrous. Often, the decision to split was made after the Prime Minister's opening speech, when the Opposition had some notion of the strength of the Government case.
Pre- and early-APDA debate style was much closer to CUSID style, with the government required to debate the resolution provided by the tournament organizers. Teams could be creative in using alternative or pun-based definitions for common words used in the original resolution. This was what was originally meant by "squirreling" the resolution. A government could choose to debate "The U.S. should pull out" seriously by defining what the U.S. should pull out of -- a foreign entanglement or the United Nations, for example. It could be squirreled by choosing an uncommon phrase abbreviated U.S. -- the "usual seatbelt" would make it a case against airbags or other passive restraint systems in cars. Further value was placed on analyzing the underlying core assumptions of a case; in the "usual seatbelt" example, the assumption was that safety should be an individual's personal choice rather than mandated by government. The best teams were able to argue both the specific case and the general philosophical point. Cases that seemed to be prepared in advance and linked awkwardly to the resolution were strongly discouraged, and judges were trained to deduct points accordingly.
By about 1987, several factors had led debates to cease relating directly to the resolutions. Among these were APDA's increasing popularity with debaters accustomed to high school on-topic (NFL or CEDA) formats, a notable incidence of poorly-written resolutions that were hard to debate even when squirreled, and the fact that at many schools, the supply of judges willing to sit through training sessions on the fine points of parliamentary style was not sufficient for increasingly larger tournaments. The result was a rise in prepared cases, a greater emphasis on policy prescriptions and specifics, less-strict adherence to the rules and customs of Parliament, and less opportunity for broad philosophical debate.
While the content of debate rounds has changed significantly, the spirit of today's APDA tournaments is very similar to the original ones, as friendly rivals renew acquaintance every week during the season.
[edit] Member organizations
- Stanford Debate Society [1]
- Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team [2]
- Fordham Debate Society [3]
- Amos J. Peaslee Debate Society [4]
- Brandeis Academic Debate And Speech Society (BADASS) [5]
- Brown Debating Union
- Johns Hopkins Woodrow Wilson Debate Council [6]
- Maryland Parliamentary Debate Society [7]
- MIT Parliamentary Debate Society [8]
- Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society [9]
- Boston University Debate Society [10]
- New York Unversity Parliamentary Debaters' Union
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Roberts, Jeff (2006-01-26). The rules of engagement: McGill debaters dedicated to disagreement. McGill Reporter. Retrieved on 2006-08-01.
