Parli - How to Master the PMR
Saturday, April 27, 2024. It was the last regular-season tournament I would ever compete in. An auditorium filled with people sat listening to the four Parli finalists go back and forth striking resolutions. After eight strikes, one resolution remained.…
Resolved: It would be net beneficial to today's four Parli final competitors if the Stoa board adopted a policy to promote arranged marriages within the league.
Sides were locked. We were Government.
Flash forward an hour and I was walking up to the podium to deliver the Prime Minister Rebuttal. A momentous Opposition block had just concluded. There were five minutes remaining for my speech. Five minutes to respond to twelve. Five minutes that were everything.
I won my last Parli final on a 3-2 decision.
Here is how to master the PMR:
Engage. I'm just kidding. Well, partly. Ideally, you will be engaging your judges—just not with an arranged marriage.
Instead, I want you to focus first on adjusting your mindset in regard to the PMR. Think of a Parli round in terms of a number line, with -10 on the left hand side of the scale and +10 on the right.
-10—————————0—————————+10
All the Government must do in order to win is make sure that, by the end of the round, the marker ends in the positives, indicating net offense for side Government. All the Opposition must do to win is to make sure that the marker ends in the negatives or at 0, indicating either net detriments to voting Government or simply zero net benefits. To master the PMR, you must first recognize that when you start, the marker is almost always extraordinarily far into the negatives due to the momentum of the Opposition block. Picture it at, say, a -8.
-10—8———————0—————————+10
The immediate question facing you as the Prime Minister, then, is: How do I move the number line as quickly and as extremely as possible into the positives?
In order to move the number line into the positives, you must do two things: You must re-center the debate and you must lead with a point of offense.
Re-centering the debate. Begin the PMR with some big-picture analysis. Highlight the (typically) two main questions that the round comes down to. The first question usually has to do with framework; the second question usually has to do with whether or not you uphold your framework. It might sound something like this: "Are we ready to begin? Perfect… This debate comes down to two questions. First, is democracy the best weighing mechanism for determining the strength of a nation? And, second, is Ireland truly more democratic than Germany, thus making it a stronger nation and making the resolution true?" In my arranged marriages final, I began my PMR with: "This round comes down to two questions. First, is there a difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage? And, second, are arranged marriages, as considered according to their true definition, net beneficial to promote?" Starting with two key questions helps re-center the debate and keep you on track throughout your PMR. It guides you in knowing what to address and what to drop. To know what to drop, simply ask yourself: "Does whether or not I win this point impact how the judge will answer the questions I posed to them at the beginning of my speech?" If not, chances are it makes strategic sense to drop the point and reallocate that time to points that will impact how the judge answers the two main questions of the round.
Leading with a point of offense. After you pose your two questions to the judge, follow-up with either an observation point or a voting issue. Start with a voting issue if the Opposition dropped a critical point of framework; start with an observation point if you still feel like you still need to fully convince the judge to use your framework. As an almost universal rule, the first tag of your PMR should either be about why your framework was conceded or why you win your contested framework. In my arranged marriages round, I began with an observation point tagged "Arranged is Different than Forced." I argued that an arranged marriage does not necessarily mean a lack of consent on the part of the husband and wife. I had a definition and several warrants to back me up. Regardless of the technical accuracy of the point, we argued it as debaters do and three of out the five judges agreed with us. However, you might be wondering: "How is giving an observation point about framework beginning with 'extreme offense?'" It is offense because—assuming you win it—it will immediately make a large percentage of the Opposition block irrelevant. This is what happened in my arranged marriages round—all of Opposition's arguments about why "forced" marriages were bad were instantly irrelevant because they were framed out of the debate in a convincing and effective way. To drive your lead offense home, I recommend following-up your framework maneuver with either another observation point or, if you are really feeling bold, a voting issue tagged something like, "No Opposition Link to the Value/Framework." This is exactly what I did in my round. As soon as I won the framework and showed why the Opposition had no link to it (since almost all of their arguments related to forced marriages exclusively), it became immediately difficult for the judges to justify voting Opposition. How in the world could the majority of a judge panel justify voting for a team that had virtually zero link to the round's proven framework?! And the best part was: I still had three minutes left on the clock! In two minutes, I had basically responded to the last twelve. In two minutes, I had brought the number line back from a -8 to at least a 0.
-10——-——————0—————————+10
I spent the remaining three minutes swinging the number line as far into the positives as I possibly could. This involved a tiny bit of direct refutation (to the one or two points that the framework mic-drop moment hadn't quite addressed) and one last giant voting issue showing why I answered the second main question that I had posed to the judges at the beginning—the question of whether arranged marriages were net beneficial to promote. While there was still a bit of work to do after the first two minutes of the PMR, at that point, it was essentially just a matter of walking in our original offense for a touchdown.
-10——-——————0—————————+10
This format for the PMR is powerful. I used it time and again like a charm. It's magic lies in the fact that it moves the number line to back to 0 so quickly after the start of the final speech, negating the Opposition's momentum and leaving plenty of time for you to swing the number line into the positives. Master these techniques and you will find yourself suddenly capable of winning rounds that the audience thought were "too far gone to be saved"—even rounds that involve crazy resolutions and potentially insane burdens. Simply remember to re-center the debate, lead with offense, and, of course, engage ;)
If you are looking to master persuasion to an even greater degree, we would encourage you to examine the resources our coaches offer.
Let us know what you think of this post! Perhaps on a scale of -10 to +10?! We hope to see you next time. Thanks!
-Coach Benjamin
Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be interpreted as Kairos Coaching endorsing or denouncing the practice of arranged marriage, nor should anything here contained be viewed as an endorsement or denunciation of any policy made by any group that is pursuant to such ends.