Entitled to Understand

Let's face it: NPDA Parliamentary Debate is an extremely strange format of debate.  It was designed almost 20 years ago, and it was designed to be a slow, non-technical, non-logocentric type of debate.  20 years later, the activity has little to no resemblance to what its designers intended it to be, but we are still using the same structure.

The best demonstration of this is the lack of cross-examination, with points of information as a supposed substitute.  Obviously they are very different - points of information are isolated questions, where as cross-x is a sustained period of questioning.  But more important than that is the fact that during cross-x, the questioner is in control, whereas with a point of information, the questioned is control.  This creates an obvious problem - what if the speaker does not want to take questions?  There is no rule that would prevent them from doing so (SIU-style procedurals notwithstanding,) and it would seem to be strategically advantageous NOT to take questions - you can make more arguments, and your opponents don't understand your own.

In old-school parli, this wasn't as much of a problem - since style and ethos were paramount, you would take 3 questions, because doing otherwise was "bad form."  Further, because that event was slower, the need for clarification was almost nil - points of information were a chance for witty banter, and rarely used to understand opposing arguments.  Obviously in modern parli., this isn't the case.

You'll notice something about most top-level parli debaters.  They feel entitled to understand their opponents' arguments.  So entitled, in fact, that they will badger their opponents with questions after the plan text to make sure they know what's going on.  In effect, they are breaking the rules, and creating a sort of quasi-cross-x, where the questioner is in control again.

From the perspective of the governing body of NPDA, it's clearly time to institute some form of cross-x, so that this behavior can be brought within the rules.  But from the perspective of the debater, I think that this behavior is a necessary adaptation to an outdated rule set.   So long as your questions are clearly clarification questions, and not attempts to make arguments, go ahead and talk over the speaker to get your questions answered.  Not doing so, in my mind, is basically giving up the round - if you do not understand your opponents' arguments, how are you supposed to respond?  So go ahead, debaters - be entitled.  Just this once.