Analyzes the present nature of topicality argumentation. Argues for an alternative view of topicality as jurisdiction, balancing resolutional ground and focusing debaters' attention and arguments on central substantive policy issues implied by the resolution under consideration. Concludes with an application of the jurisdiction analogy to…

Argues that "substantive" rules instituted by the National Debate Tournament (NDT) Committee are ineffective and counterproductive. Critiques the rule restricting evidence reading at the end of a debate and the rule requiring judges to compare definitions when evaluating topicality arguments. Concludes that the NDT Committee should…

Identifies the purpose of academic debate (to teach students argumentative skills) and the characteristics that a debate paradigm must have to fulfill that purpose. Takes a functional view of the debate judge as one who judges argumentative practices, not one who decides policy issues as would a real-world decision maker. (PD)

Discusses how paradigms, such as "tabula rasa," reduce the judge's influence as a critic. Suggests alternatives. (PD)

Contends that, while "tabula rasa" has produced improvements in academic debate, it also has encouraged harmful practices. Proposes limitations and draws implications for a more general dialectical approach to argument evaluation. (PD)

Counters that the best answer to the problems engendered by "tabula rasa" is to strengthen this approach by applying a minimum standard for argument evaluation and by banning argument about certain theoretical issues that could destroy debate. (PD)

The editor of the NDT transcripts since 1978 confirms statistically Professor Southworth's observations about the trend of debaters toward rapid speaking rates and garbled, incomprehensive reading of large quantities of evidence; also agrees that decisions ought to be rendered promptly after the debate. (PD)

Reports a survey of the opinions of 40 debate coaches and/or participants on the best debaters, teams, tournaments, coaches, and judges in the 1970s. (PD)

Discusses two points in response to the objections raised in the previous essay: (1) higher standards for argument are not justified and could create problems and (2) theoretical issues can and should be debated in individual debate rounds. (PD)

Analyzed the consistency of debate judges' philosophy and ballot statements. Found that their debating philosophies accurately reflect the criteria they use to decide debates. (PD)

Examines the use of pretournament workshops and instruction packets as means of eliminating errors made by uninformed debate judges. Offers suggestions to judges which are intended to help them develop more articulate and educationally valuable student critiques. (Author/GEA)

Describes the judge's entry into a critical relationship with debate, investigates what it means to function as a "critic of argument," and considers the implications of this judging perspective on intercollegiate debate practices. (PD)

Outlines the need to develop specific decision rules for the various judging paradigms in academic debate. Uses the policy-making metaphor as an example. (PD)

Asserts that policy debate is declining, mainly because of incomprehensible argumentation and speaking. Claims that judges should intervene in the debate process to demand certain minimums of effective argument. Advocates the creation of a debate coach organization that would establish general norms for judging behavior. (MM)

Argues that the "Multiple Preference System" in assigning debate judges should be discontinued because it is unfair, discriminatory, and perpetuates ethnocentric responses. Recommends a nonevaluative system of judge assignment. (PD)