NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED345306
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1992-May
Pages: 18
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
The Elements of CEDA Debate Paradigms: An Investigation of Paradigm Accuracy.
Dudczak, Craig A.; And Others
Debate judge philosophy statements have been part of the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Debate Tournament since the tournament's inception. Judges are asked to identify their preferred debate paradigm in the statement. The practice has raised the question of whether debate critics understand the debate paradigms as they are described in the forensics literature. Where previous attempts have been made to compare debate critics' professed preferences with their actual behavior, results have been inconsistent. In evaluating critics' understanding of debate paradigms, it is necessary first to construct a taxonomy describing the features of each of the several paradigms. Such a taxonomy requires an understanding that: (1) paradigms are metaphors; (2) paradigms construct merging similarities while admitting dissimilarities; (3) debate paradigms are appropriate for substantive issues, but are inappropriate for addressing procedural issues; (4) most paradigms originated in policy debate, but they have been used in non-policy debate; and (5) the shared meaning of a given paradigm may be found in the literature describing it. Brief descriptions of several debate paradigms (stock issues, policy-making, policy implications, value comparison, hypothesis testing, argument critic, and tabula rasa) point to dimensions for taxonomic description. Presumption, stock issues, and critic role show initial promise for a taxonomy for study. Judges' evaluation questions should be structured around the three dimensions. (Thirty-seven references are attached.) (SG)
Publication Type: Reports - Evaluative; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A