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)

A metacritical judging model for contest oral interpretation that evaluates the performer's critical decisions is designed to meet three criteria: (1) it attempts to incorporate the advances of oral interpretation scholars outside the forensics community with the activity at forensics tournaments, (2) it recognizes that forensics competition is…

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 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…