Lessons from Sun Tzu: Maximum Parli Prep Efficiency

Lessons from Sun Tzu: Maximum Parli Prep Efficiency

Most parliamentary debate rounds are won or lost in the 20 minutes allotted for prep, before the first words of the Prime Minister's Constructive speech. Prep time is where each team constructs their arguments for the round; the same arguments that will coalesce into each team’s case philosophy and that will boil down into each team’s voting issues.

Despite the critical importance of those 20 minutes, parli prep can often feel hectic and confusing. Many teams enter the parli prep room without a plan to maximize the effectiveness of prep time. 20 minutes might sound like a long time, but it will go by faster than you expect if you don’t approach it with direction and purpose.

The Art of War is a famous collection of proverbs often attributed to Sun Tzu. Over my time coaching parli debate, I have come to find that much of Sun Tzu’s wisdom is still applicable today, especially in the parli prep room. These lessons, drawn from his famous writings, will help you achieve maximum effectiveness before a debate even begins.

Lesson #1 - Read the Resolution

“Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle, we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight. But if neither time nor place be known, then the left wing will be impotent to succor the right, the right equally impotent to succor the left, the van unable to relieve the rear, or the rear to support the van.”

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu explains that superior knowledge of the battlefield will give you a big advantage because you can send your troops to where they are needed most. Many parli rounds have been won or lost because one team read the resolution more carefully, and was therefore able to tailor its arguments more closely to the resolution.

Every word in the resolution matters. It is a common mistake to merely glance at the resolution at the start of prep so you know the topic being debated, then forget about the resolution slip until prep has expired.

Choose to set yourself up for success. I recommend devoting at least one minute at the start of prep to carefully read and understand the exact wording of the resolution.

It is best if at least the first 30 seconds of this time is in silence. This allows both debaters to process the resolution from their own unique perspective. No two people are alike, and not even siblings will see the same way on everything. I have prepped hundreds of rounds with my brother Nathan, but one of us will still sometimes catch little things in a resolution that the other missed. After the first 30 seconds have expired, the debaters should conference to make sure they are on the same page and move forward with the rest of prep.

There are a few key things to look for as you read the resolution.

Determine Burdens

“Carefully compare the opposing army with your own, so that you may know where strength is superabundant and where it is deficient.”

This proverb from The Art of War admonishes us to carefully consider our own strengths and compare them to our opponents.

In parli prep, it is essential to understand not only your own burden of proof, but also your opponent’s. Not all resolutions are created equal. Some place a simple burden of proof on the debaters. For example, a resolution like “Resolved: This House would rather have a Ferrari than a romantic relationship” sets up very simple burdens. The government team need only talk in general about how Ferraris are better than romance, and the opposition need only talk in general about how romance is better than a Ferrari. Other resolutions might have more complicated burdens.

One key type of burden to keep an eye out for is an absolute burden. An absolute burden is signalled by absolute language like “best,” “greatest,” “always,” or “never.” An absolute burden is the most difficult type of burden.

Consider the resolution “Resolved: Natural disasters are the greatest threat to the United States.” If you were the government team, you would not only need to prove that natural disasters are a threat to the United States, but you would also need to somehow prove that it is the greatest threat out of all the other threats out there. If you didn’t, a good opposition team would notice and call you out for failing your burden of proof.

There are also other kinds of heightened burdens that might not rise all the way to the level of an absolute burden. A common example is "abolish"-type resolutions. It is more difficult to prove that a particular institution ought to be completely done away with than to merely prove that that institution has problems or flaws. For example, the resolution "Resolved: Zoos should be abolished" is harder to prove than "Resolved: Zoos do more harm than good,” but on the other hand, it is easier to prove than "Resolved: Zoos are never beneficial."

Another type of burden to watch for is a compound burden, where you will have to prove more than one thing in order to win the round. Consider the resolution “Resolved: In the United States, SAT scores are overvalued in college admissions.” The word “overvalued” should stick out to you because it sets up a compound burden, under which the government team must prove two things. First, it must prove how much college admissions are valuing SAT scores right now. Second, it must prove how much college admissions ought to value SAT scores in an ideal society. Only by proving both levels of value can the government team argue that one exceeds the other.

I recently watched an outround where the resolution “Resolved: John Adams was the most underrated president” was debated. As you will notice, this resolution imposes both absolute and compound burdens on the government team. The resolution is absolute because Adams must be proven to be the most underrated, not simply underrated in general. It is compound because the government team must prove both Adams’s current rating level and the proper rating level for Adams to argue that one exceeds the other. Pointing out these extremely high burdens to the judging panel was instrumental to securing victory for the opposition team in this debate.

When reading the resolution, make note of any burdens of proof that you think will be difficult for the other team to satisfy. Don’t hesitate to bring them up to the judge, and if the other team falls short of satisfying those burdens, don’t hesitate to remind the judge in your team’s final rebuttal speech. And of course, don’t forget to keep track of your own team’s burdens and make sure you have the proof necessary to satisfy them.

Define Terms

Don’t neglect to define your terms during the time you’re spending to read and understand the resolution. You need not read definitions for every word in the resolution during the debate - that would waste speaking time and bore the judge. However, be sure to read definitions for all key terms if their meanings could be subjectively interpreted or if they aren’t completely clear. 

Usually the most common-sense definitions are best - judges are more likely to agree with positions that seem reasonable and don’t come across as trying to twist the resolution. However, feel free to take liberties with interpreting the resolution as long as your interpretation is reasonable and defensible.

I remember coaching a team debating the resolution “Resolved: The United States federal government should add more seats to the Supreme Court.” The opposition team expected “seats” to metaphorically mean Supreme Court justices, but the government team defined “seats” literally to mean chairs in the Supreme Court chambers. The government team had a reliable dictionary definition supporting their interpretation, and their interpretation reasonably fit the wording of the resolution, so the government team was able to secure victory in the round.

Striking Resolutions

If you are in a “strike” round, your first step should be to evaluate the burdens imposed by each resolution as discussed earlier. Determine which resolutions will have high burdens for your opponent and think about how you can use those burdens to swing a debate in your favor. Also determine which resolutions will have high burdens of proof for your team. Unless you have full confidence in your ability to satisfy each burden, try to avoid them. 

I also strongly recommend avoiding resolutions that relate to controversial topics. Picking a controversial resolution is always a gamble. Your judge may end up completely disagreeing with your take on the topic. Even if your judge’s personal bias aligns with your arguments, it is possible that they could end up voting against you because they are overcompensating for their bias. Controversial resolutions are a huge risk, and they ultimately do little more than take the focus of the round off of your skill and persuasive abilities.

Of course, when all else is equal, choose a topic that you are familiar with. You’ll be able to come up with better responses on-the-fly once the round begins, and you’ll be able to communicate more confidently in general.