Contends that the split between NDT and CEDA threatens the educational function of debate because it limits the forms of debate open to students. Points out the value of both forms and suggests that rapprochement between the two organizations might be facilitated by joint topic selection. (PD)

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)

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)

Criticizes three paradigms currently used in debate: hypothesis testing, policy systems analysis, and the "tabula rasa" stance. Offers five functional standards for evaluating competing debate paradigms. (PD)

Opposes the view that standards for evaluation arguments do not exist or cannot be developed. Justifies argument evaluation and sketches the outlines of a general method for evaluating ordinary arguments. (PD)

Considers the positions developed by Lichtman and Rohrer and by Ulrich, and then focuses on Zarefsky's indictment of the proposed standards for evaluating debate paradigms. (See CS 705 841-705 844). (PD)

Discusses two problems in defining the requirements for policy advocacy in academic debate, namely the disputes over plan specificity and counterplan competitiveness. Argues for the priority of debatability over realism. (PD)

Pointing out that the "tabula rasa" debate perspective is built on the assumption that free and open debate is the fairest and most accurate method of resolving disputes, this paper argues that the "tabula rasa" approach itself has not been subjected to a similar scrutiny. The paper notes that this perspective was derived from…

Argues that a definition of interactional argument based primarily on disagreement should be rejected in favor of a more traditional definition based on reason giving. Argues that views of ordinary arguers need not be given priority over those of experts. (SR)

Addresses Pamela Benoit's response to an article in the same issue by the authors, restating key arguments of why a research focus on reason giving is superior to a research focus on disagreement. (SR)

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)

Considers Walter Fisher's criticisms of the "rational-world" paradigm, as well as his defense of the narrative paradigm. Concludes that a useful argumentative tradition, best represented by the informal logic movement, avoids the dangers identified by narrative proponents. Notes that the narrative paradigm largely fails to fulfill its…

Few concepts in argumentation theory have produced as much discussion as the idea that argument practices can be divided into distinct public, technical, and private spheres. The first important question relating to the spheres concept is whether the distinction between the spheres is useful. The second primary issue concerns the degree to which…

Examines the arguments that dominated the decision making before and after the Challenger accident. Concludes that the relationship between the public and technical spheres is more complicated than has been realized previously. (NKA)