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 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…

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…