Debate judge philosophy statements have been part of the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Debate Tournament since the tournament's inception. Judges are asked to identify their preferred debate paradigm in the statement. The practice has raised the question of whether debate critics understand the debate paradigms as they are…

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)

A study reported on two experiments which addressed the question of whether debate judges do as they say they will with regard to the advent of judge philosophy statements. The larger goal of the combined experiments was to discover whether: (1) judging paradigms operate meaningfully in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate and (2)…

Explores some of the arguments that are popularly lodged against the use of counterplans in modern academic debate. Suggests that most of this criticism is not persuasive due to fundamental problems with the implicit views of the debate process and the role of the judge in that process. (MS)

Offers a critique of the narrative perspective as it relates to the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and suggests that an alternative "expert" model would better satisfy the goals of the activity while simultaneously remedying the primary shortcomings of NDT debate. (MS)

This paper reviews the newly emergent trend of audience-centered debate paradigms, such as the narrative and the issues-agenda paradigms, in light of an informal logic perspective on the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The paper demonstrates the complexity involved in the evaluation of ad populum arguments as well as the care which must be taken in…

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)

To develop a taxonomy of Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) critics, a study associated professed judging philosophy and responses to survey questions with ballot behavior and elaborated judging profiles. Subjects were debate critics who judged rounds at CEDA tournaments in the Northeast during the Spring 1989 season. In all, 13 critics…

Because legal argument shares many of the characteristics of academic debate, it can serve as a paradigm for evaluating debates. Like debate, legal argument is bilateral, the judge is external to the deliberation and excluded from raising his or her own arguments, and reasons have been developed for assigning presumption, determining the wording…

The purpose of the three papers that make up this document is to explore and redefine the role of debate judges. The first paper, by Leslie Phillips, begins with the assertion that the debate judge is first and foremost an educator, notes that judging is one of the forces that shape and direct competitive forensics, and goes on to consider…

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…