The Elements of CEDA Debate Paradigms: An Investigation of Paradigm Accuracy.
Saved in:
| Title: | The Elements of CEDA Debate Paradigms: An Investigation of Paradigm Accuracy. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Dudczak, Craig A. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 1992 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Debate, Debate Format, Higher Education, Judges, Models, Persuasive Discourse, Public Speaking |
| Abstract: | 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) |
| Entry Date: | 1992 |
| Accession Number: | ED345306 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED345306 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED345306 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Report PubTypeId: report PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Elements of CEDA Debate Paradigms: An Investigation of Paradigm Accuracy. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dudczak%2C+Craig+A%2E%22">Dudczak, Craig A.</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 18 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1992 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Reports - Evaluative<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate+Format%22">Debate Format</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Speaking%22">Public Speaking</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: 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) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1992 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED345306 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED345306 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 18 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Format Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Judges Type: general – SubjectFull: Models Type: general – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Public Speaking Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Elements of CEDA Debate Paradigms: An Investigation of Paradigm Accuracy. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dudczak, Craig A. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Type: published Y: 1992 |
| ResultId | 1 |
