Examines three strategies by which competitive debaters generate and organize their affirmative cases. Discusses how the persuasive writer can use these same three strategies as heuristics for deliberative discourse and as models for its organization. (HTH)

Uses the judicial model of reasoning employed by the Supreme Court as an exemplar in teaching critical skills in the basic argumentation and debate course. Describes the model and course highlights. (PD)

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…

Debate paradigms, which at one time established standards to help judges evaluate arguments and rules to guide debaters' argument choice and strategy selection, no longer offer consistent guidance for either judges or debaters. An increased emphasis on creativity and flexibility has led to a general unwillingness to use a rigid debate format. 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…