Analyzes the actual substance and procedure of legal jurisdiction to argue that (1) the theory of subject matter jurisdiction is inappropriately applied to debate, and (2) the theory of personal jurisdiction implies recognition in debate practice of important procedural characteristics of the jurisdictional challenge. (SR)

The Developmental Speech Sequence Model (DSSM) can be applied effectively with beginning forensics competitors. It provides a detailed 10 point model, outlined within the headings of introduction, body, and conclusion: (1) Opening; (2) Objective of Speech; (3) Overview of Main Ideas; (4) Statement of Problem; (5) Statement of Solution; (6)…

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)

In nonpolicy debate, the affirmative speakers must demonstrate the probable truth of a resolution. Successful formats for affirmative cases include (1) generic analysis, (2) example analysis, (3) R. J. Matlon's definitive/designative format, (4) J. Chesebro's criteria approach, and (5) "should" resolution affirmatives. In generic…

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…

The growth in the popularity and importance of disadvantage arguments in debate has been, in some measure, due to the growing belief that debate should be viewed from a policy-making perspective. And, with the focus of contemporary debate shifting to the consequences of policy actions, there has been a concurrent increase in the sophistication of…

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…

Views gaming from a communication perspective. Reviews the major benefits of gaming and relates them specifically to academic debate. (PD)

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…

A survey of 80 department chairpersons, directors of forensics, and debate coaches indicated an increased use of nontraditional, audience-centered debate paradigms since the National Developmental Conference on Forensics issued its report advancing alternative debate options during the 1970s. Report recommendations on expanding the role of…