An understanding of evidence is necessary for effective rhetoric, especially in the sub-area of argumentation. Evidence can be classified according to (1) the argument field in which it is used (court of reason or court of law); (2) the linkage to the assertion being made (direct or circumstantial); and (3) its persuasive force (how convincing it…

The theoretical perspectives of intercollegiate debate are constantly shifting. This paper evaluates the mirror state counterplan--a strategy open to the negative team--both generally and in light of the criticisms leveled against it by Richard H. Dempsey and David J. Hartmann in their recently published article entitled "Mirror State…

The 1988 Vice-Presidential debate between candidates Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen served as a rhetorical forum for airing the policies and behaviors of each candidate. Elements of compliance-gaining and apologia were interrelated and overlapped throughout the debate. Both candidates effectively maneuvered these strategies and avoided direct…

In the game-like world of competitive tournament debating, fiat power is simply another rule of the game, a way of saying "hypothetically" or "for the sake of argument let us assume this affirmative plan to be implemented." While fiat power is just a way of saying "let's pretend," there are limits to the pretense. For…

The mirror state counterplan is a straightforward form of negative refutation used in debate in which the negative team proposes that each state enact a miniature version of the affirmative plan that was to be adopted on the federal level. For example, the 1981-82 national debate proposition resolved that the federal government should…

Shifting theoretical perspectives of intercollegiate policy debate, especially the changing affirmative case constructs, warrant reformulations of various strategies open to the negative case such as those developed by W. Ulrich, R. Dempsey, and D. Hartmann. Options open to the affirmative have increased, e.g., the comparative advantages case, the…

Many students entering law school are surprised to find that the debating activities there (moot court, mock trial work, and trial advocacy courses) bear little resemblance to the debating they did at the undergraduate level. Those who teach, whether speech communication or prelaw, have an obligation to communicate to students the differences…

College debaters who go to law school are often surprised by the differences between the processes that take place in the court of reason and the process that takes place in the court of law. The court of reason relies mainly on authoritative testimony, while the court of law relies on direct evidence. Evidence in the court of reason is either…

Of interest to curriculum developers, the materials in this paper pertain to the communication component of the prelaw curriculum initiated in the 1979-80 school year at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The materials include (1) a brief decription of the prelaw program; (2) information sheets for students considering the program;…