A study suggests a new approach for evaluating debate techniques. Previously used paradigms all have some disadvantages. Application of the policy-making paradigm, which involves isolating a problem, having one side propose a solution, then having the opponent point out the solution's disadvantages, is difficult because the paradigm does not require a participant to offer a specific plan. The hypothesis-testing paradigm is problematical in that attempting to superimpose scientific method upon academic debate is difficult and may result in a superficial discussion of issues. The tabula rasa paradigm is unworkable because it requires critics to put aside biases and to be guided by the directions of inexperienced debaters. A new paradigm based on the skills exhibited by participants would allow the critic to render a decision and assist in the educational development of each student. Debaters could choose arguments while demonstrating understanding of relevant theories and debate techniques. This could improve the level of argument. (SG)