A Comparative Analysis of Communicative Behavior in CEDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate and CEDA Team Debate.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Comparative Analysis of Communicative Behavior in CEDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate and CEDA Team Debate. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Lawson, Harold L., Skaggs, Edward C. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 1994 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Communication Research, Debate, Debate Format, Higher Education, Persuasive Discourse, Speech Communication |
| Abstract: | Keeping debate communicative is a great and recurring concern. A study investigated whether debate format may influence debaters' communicative behavior, by comparing behavior in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Lincoln-Douglas debate (LD) and in CEDA Team debate. Videotapes of the two first affirmative speeches of each, at the semi-final level at the same tournament, were transcribed and examined for quantity of evidence, pieces of evidence per minute, use of complete citations, and speaking rate. Results showed that: (1) the Team debater used 21 pieces of evidence, and the LD debater used 17, suggesting that both used their skills not to design a rhetorical masterpiece but to cram as much evidence as possible into their product; and (2) none of the four debaters qualified their evidence, with 94.3% of the evidence having no probative value or impact because its credibility could not be ascertained. Further, while Team debaters showed a definite tendency to speak more rapidly than the LD debaters, three of the four debaters (whether Team or LD) either grossly exceeded or were close to the average rates once deemed "incomprehensible" by CEDA's founders, and only the negative LD debater was clearly within the "safe zone" of delivery standards. It is notable that in both of the debates studied, the affirmative speakers--those who talked the fastest and read the greatest quantity of incompletely documented evidence--won their round. (Contains 16 references.) (SR) |
| Entry Date: | 1995 |
| Accession Number: | ED376518 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED376518 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED376518 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Report PubTypeId: report PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: A Comparative Analysis of Communicative Behavior in CEDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate and CEDA Team Debate. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lawson%2C+Harold+L%2E%22">Lawson, Harold L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Skaggs%2C+Edward+C%2E%22">Skaggs, Edward C.</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: 1994 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Reports - Research<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Research%22">Communication Research</searchLink><br /><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="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Communication%22">Speech Communication</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Keeping debate communicative is a great and recurring concern. A study investigated whether debate format may influence debaters' communicative behavior, by comparing behavior in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Lincoln-Douglas debate (LD) and in CEDA Team debate. Videotapes of the two first affirmative speeches of each, at the semi-final level at the same tournament, were transcribed and examined for quantity of evidence, pieces of evidence per minute, use of complete citations, and speaking rate. Results showed that: (1) the Team debater used 21 pieces of evidence, and the LD debater used 17, suggesting that both used their skills not to design a rhetorical masterpiece but to cram as much evidence as possible into their product; and (2) none of the four debaters qualified their evidence, with 94.3% of the evidence having no probative value or impact because its credibility could not be ascertained. Further, while Team debaters showed a definite tendency to speak more rapidly than the LD debaters, three of the four debaters (whether Team or LD) either grossly exceeded or were close to the average rates once deemed "incomprehensible" by CEDA's founders, and only the negative LD debater was clearly within the "safe zone" of delivery standards. It is notable that in both of the debates studied, the affirmative speakers--those who talked the fastest and read the greatest quantity of incompletely documented evidence--won their round. (Contains 16 references.) (SR) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1995 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED376518 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED376518 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 18 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Communication Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Format Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Speech Communication Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: A Comparative Analysis of Communicative Behavior in CEDA Lincoln-Douglas Debate and CEDA Team Debate. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lawson, Harold L. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Skaggs, Edward C. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 1994 |
| ResultId | 1 |
