The main objective of this article is to present the results of a study aimed at determining, classifying and evaluating practices of interest for general competency development and assessment in undergraduate programmes. The study encompassed the following phases: (1) focus group in order to establish a starting point regarding competency…

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…

To eliminate the rapid pace, heavy reliance on evidence cards, and professional jargon associated with the debate style of the National Debate Topic (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) proposed the use of a value topic--instead of a policy topic--to restore balance among argument, analysis, and evidence in debate. Initial…

Noting that a series of mechanical rules created for pairing and placement of judges at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) may be useful in developing a computer program to pair tournaments, this paper focuses on the methods used to pair rounds at the NDT and also looks at some pairing options frequently employed by other debate tournaments. The…

When tournament judges view a particular speaking event they are inevitably going to have different perceptions of that event. For example, typical descriptions for after dinner speaking events deal with time limits, originality, wit and creativity, and tasteful humor. Definitions of these terms vary, but efforts have been made to establish some…

The judging philosophy form has been in use at the CEDA National Tournament since 1987, and its use at the NDT has been a mainstay for quite some time. The judging philosophy statement is a document listing a series of topic areas or common issues on which the prospective judge is to elaborate so his or her views will be known to the debate…

The most common criticism of CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) debate tournaments voiced by coaches and students alike centers on the quality of judging. If the debater is completely unaware of the qualifications or credentials of the critic, he or she will be unable to fulfill the judge's expectations. Debates are then lost not on…

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)…

The judging philosophy statements of most of the judges at the 1987 National Cross Examination Debate Association Tournament are contained in this booklet. A short form on each judge details how long they have been judging and how many rounds of debate on the topic of the tournament they had previously judged. A longer form asks for information…

Neither of the two major forensics associations uses an ideal point system for the team sweepstakes award at debate tournaments. The National Forensics Association (NFA) awards points for preliminary round ballots and uses a 3-tiered system of team awards based on entry size. They restrict preliminary round sweepstakes points by capping the total…

This paper explores a philosophical framework for using the ballots which a contestant receives as part of one's participation in a forensic tournament. The central thesis of this theoretical article suggests that coaches need to prepare their students for the criticism they will encounter on judge ballots. The argument is made for establishing…

A rules-based approach to the problems of debate (such as that proposed by the American Debate Association) will fail to provide a solution to debate's ills and may only increase the problems. Debate's current problems have to do with debate performance, e.g., speaking rate, poor quality evidence, and irrational arguments. A solution to these…

Including speech transcripts and judges' critiques, this book presents the results of the 1986 (1) National Debate Tournament Final Debate, sponsored by the American Forensic Association, including the affirmative and negative presentations; (2) National CEDA Tournament Final Debate, sponsored by the Cross-Examination Debate Association, including…

Since few debate tournaments can be administered successfully without employing some hired-judge pool, one of the fundamental ethical concerns facing the tournament director is the balance between filling all judge responsibilities and securing competent judges. The responsibility of securing competent judges can be met through a more extensive…

There is very little consensus among Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) coaches as to the assignment of presumption in value topic debate. There are really three types of presumption: (1) an identification with the status quo (existing institutions), (2) a psychological state (prevailing opinion), and (3) a decision rule (who must prove).…