ERIC Number: ED328924
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1990-Nov
Impact and Implications of Parliamentary Formats on American Debates.
Cox, E. Sam; Phillips, Kendall R.
The American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) provides a good example of the parliamentary style of debate. The APDA and the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) can be compared by considering several factors: (1) geographic participation; (2) sponsorship; (3) procedural differences; (4) resolutions; and (5) decision rendering. The APDA, found primarily at northeastern American colleges, is student-sponsored, involves extemporaneous debate modeled on the British Parliament, and tends to employ more generalized resolutions and debate than does CEDA. Unlike CEDA, in which debate judges must be college graduates, APDA judges are students. CEDA critics are more specific in their discussion of evidence, while APDA critics are more likely than their CEDA counterparts to operate under a uniform consensus: the legislative model. CEDA debate, taken out of the exclusive control of communications departments, could allow for a more interdisciplinary approach. The greater diversity of APDA-style topics could allow CEDA debaters to experience a variety of criteria and case-building strategies. Argumentation by CEDA participants seems too reliant on testimonial support, while parliamentary debaters use logic, analysis, and reasoning. If parliamentary debate techniques are adopted by CEDA, decision rendering must be adjusted accordingly. (Thirteen references are attached.) (SG)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A