Parli makes you a better debater, but it doesn't make you a better communicator. You don't get any depth on the topics you debate. Since you don't have a well thought out case or well thought out negative arguments, you don't learn how to make solid, well thought out arguments like you do in TP.
Going 'in-depth' doesn't necessarily provide more real-world benefits. I'm not going to be an environmental engineer, so you could say that a lot of the minutia that I learned last year is useless, in a direct sense.
But it teaches you how to go in depth. I've formulated an in depth stance on how I think we should do policy towards Russia. I might not go into a Russia related field... but knowing how to go about making that position has helped me formulate my positions on social issues, religion, politics, etc.
Also, depth won't always achieve solid argumentation, nor do solid arguments always require depth.
But depth more often than not (at least more than just breadth) leads to solid argumentation and many solid arguments do require depth to be effective.
Any communication skills you gain from parli are better learned in pre-existing NCFCA events. The only really unique benefit I can think of is learning how to make arguments on your feet, but impromptu teaches you those skills.
Impromptu doesn't require you to make an argument, or defend it in front of a judge. Parli is infinitely more useful for learning to generate actual arguments
on the fly, not just a hook, three points, and a conclusion.
Impromptu sometimes involves argumentation. Whenever I disagree with a quote, I have to construct real world arguments on the fly to show why I don't support the quote. Extemp also involves lots of construction of arguments on the fly. You have to formulate a position and defend it without using any debate terminology.
I'd contend that impromptu is actually better because it's more broadly and easily applicable in the real world.
For instance, someone in my speech club was at a friend's graduation party. And her friend's mom came up to her and asked her if she could say a few words. She was able to use the skills she learned in impromptu to quickly think of something to say. So impromptu can be used directly if you're called on to give an impromptu. Also, most (if not all) of us have to write papers, do essays, be interviewed for jobs, etc. Each one of these circumstances requires being able to think on your feet. Impromptu teaches those skills. Parli can teach you those skills... but I don't see how it's superior or as good.
The only other unique things you learn from parli are how to better use generics, how to formulate a cohesive debate theory, and other debate related skills.
Using better generics teaches flexibility and preparedness. Debate theory encourages creativity and thinking out of the box. Other debate related skills are also immediately applicable to real life.
Yes, but why can't you learn that by doing TP or LD?
Additionally, developing the ability think critically on the spot, maintaining an extemper's awareness of current events, and coupling that with a TPers opinionated stance are highly educational endeavors.
Again, I'd say that you can achieve those goals by doing TP and extemp.
Finally, in the context of debate, breaking the mold and trying something new is often very beneficial. When I switched from TP to LD, the transition forced me to think in entirely new ways, and was enormously educational.
Hehe... yeah, that's why I'm switching to LD next year.
That is a good reason... but I'm still not sure that justifies the massive amount of time and effort that would have to go into making NCFCA parli a reality.
I know I'm probably coming down a little hard on parli... but I just am not entirely convinced that it's the best use of my (or the league's) time. Why would I want to take away from the time I spend working on TP and speeches to work on parli? And how would the league justify the added headache of having to do tab, adjust schedules, etc. for a third debate event?
If you'd rather not do parli, that's entirely fine. However, Stoa provides historical precedent of the fact that parli and homeschool high school debate mix perfectly well. At the very least, that should warrant NCFCA's attention and deep consideration.
I haven't had any experience with Stoa parli, so I'm not going to disagree with you. It's something that NCFCA should definitely consider. I'm also open to having a different opinion. In some ways I'm playing a devil's advocate. I'm not entirely opposed to parli. I just don't want to rush into something that I'm not convinced is a good idea.
So if I was to sum up my opinion... it would be this: Parli might not be a bad
idea, but I know that adding a debate event requires tons of work, effort, and time. I'm not entirely sure that parli provides enough unique advantages to justify adding it as an event.