Parli debate prep format

This transcript is generated by parley.nvim.#

Question #

Parli debate prep#

Parliamentary debate format. I want to study a topic. Given me 5 points in each side of the debate, in a balanced format. The purpose is for me to learn about the topic. You should quote facts that’s New York Time level knowledge, with links. Keep facts to less than 5.#

In the rest of this document, I’ll be asking one topic a time, and you help me learn. You should provide “informed generalist” level of information. This is for high school level debate.#

Parli format: 2v2, 20min prep. NSDA style I guess, this is in California.#

After give talking points, give most possible response from other side. I want this to also help me establish the grand scheme framing, so keep things concise, focus on the main contentions, as those are typical in everyday discourse. Ideally, it’s something like: the key contention is around this topic, where do we draw the linear on A/B. then layout 5 points for each side of such contention. There might be multiple contention point, but I found I’d rather focus on one or two, that at least appeal to my style of thinking: focus on the ball, not dump the kitchen sink.#

Keep your response concise, jargon free, understandable by high school student.#

Sounds good?#

🤖:[claude-opus-5*] Sounds good. Here’s the template I’ll use so we can calibrate now rather than mid-topic.#

Output template per topic #

1. The clash in one line — the single question the round actually turns on, framed as a line-drawing problem (“where do we draw the line on A vs. B”).
2. The line-drawing axis — what each side has to prove to win that line, and the usual burden split.
3. Gov (Prop) — 5 points — each as claim → warrant → why it matters, one sentence each.
4. Opp — 5 points — same structure, and where possible directly mirrored against a Gov point so you can see the head-on collision.
5. Most likely responses — for each side, the 2–3 turns/answers the other team will almost certainly run, so nothing surprises you.
6. ≤5 hard facts — mainstream-press-verifiable, with links. Used as anchors, not as a card dump.

I’ll keep the kitchen sink out. If a topic genuinely has two independent contentions (e.g., a rights clash and an efficacy clash), I’ll say so and recommend which one to pick a fight on, rather than listing both at equal weight.#

Two calibration questions #

• Motion type. Parli motions come in fact (“X caused Y”), value (“X is more important than Y”), and policy (“The USFG should…”) flavors, and the clash structure differs a lot. Do you want me to infer the type from how you phrase the topic, or will you tell me? Default: I infer, and say which I assumed.
• Framework layer. Do you want a suggested weighing mechanism (e.g., net benefits, or a value/criterion pair like “justice → protection of the vulnerable”)? For high school parli this often wins rounds, but it’s also the part that can become kitchen-sink. Default: one sentence, no more.

One honest caveat: since parli is prep-limited and no-evidence-reading, my facts are for your understanding and for credible paraphrase in-round — not for citation as cards. I’ll flag anything where the mainstream framing is genuinely contested rather than settled.#

Give me the first topic whenever you’re ready.#

@@Notre Dame Parliamentary Warm Up@@#

💬#