Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate.
Saved in:
| Title: | Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jensen, Scott |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 1996 |
| Document Type: | Guides - Non-Classroom Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Debate, Debate Format, Instructional Improvement, Judges, Parliamentary Procedures, Theory Practice Relationship |
| Abstract: | Parliamentary debate, while not a new format, has proliferated to all regions of the country. New and growing debate formats, while valuable for students and programs, must maintain sound pedagogical foundations if they are to be considered viable forensic alternatives. A reading of the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) rules as well as dialogues with many parliamentary debate educators indicates that parliamentary debate is designed as a viable form of educational debate, even though adjudicator and debater behaviors sometimes tell a different story. Although NPDA has never endorsed a set of rules for parliamentary debate, the majority of parliamentary "rules" are not only reasonable but facilitate sound argumentative practices. Most tournament administrators take an extremely conscientious approach to administering parliamentary divisions, but it seems the less experience a debate judge has, the more likely that judge is assigned to parliamentary debate. A second problem with parliamentary debate and tournament administration lies in the awarding of sweepstakes points for parliamentary debate. Topic writing is the final tournament administration concern that deals with parliamentary debate. Suggestions for improving parliamentary debate as a viable exercise in educational debate are: formalize topic writing, allow research in debate rounds, promote scholarship about parliamentary debate, evaluate criteria that emphasizes substance over style, ban time/space cases, conduct judging workshops and provide judging guidelines, define the mission of parliamentary debate, and add cross examination. (Contains nine references.) (RS) |
| Entry Date: | 1999 |
| Accession Number: | ED421730 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED421730 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED421730 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Electronic Resource PubTypeId: electronicResource PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jensen%2C+Scott%22">Jensen, Scott</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1996 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Guides - Non-Classroom<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="%22Instructional+Improvement%22">Instructional Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parliamentary+Procedures%22">Parliamentary Procedures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theory+Practice+Relationship%22">Theory Practice Relationship</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Parliamentary debate, while not a new format, has proliferated to all regions of the country. New and growing debate formats, while valuable for students and programs, must maintain sound pedagogical foundations if they are to be considered viable forensic alternatives. A reading of the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) rules as well as dialogues with many parliamentary debate educators indicates that parliamentary debate is designed as a viable form of educational debate, even though adjudicator and debater behaviors sometimes tell a different story. Although NPDA has never endorsed a set of rules for parliamentary debate, the majority of parliamentary "rules" are not only reasonable but facilitate sound argumentative practices. Most tournament administrators take an extremely conscientious approach to administering parliamentary divisions, but it seems the less experience a debate judge has, the more likely that judge is assigned to parliamentary debate. A second problem with parliamentary debate and tournament administration lies in the awarding of sweepstakes points for parliamentary debate. Topic writing is the final tournament administration concern that deals with parliamentary debate. Suggestions for improving parliamentary debate as a viable exercise in educational debate are: formalize topic writing, allow research in debate rounds, promote scholarship about parliamentary debate, evaluate criteria that emphasizes substance over style, ban time/space cases, conduct judging workshops and provide judging guidelines, define the mission of parliamentary debate, and add cross examination. (Contains nine references.) (RS) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1999 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED421730 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED421730 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Format Type: general – SubjectFull: Instructional Improvement Type: general – SubjectFull: Judges Type: general – SubjectFull: Parliamentary Procedures Type: general – SubjectFull: Theory Practice Relationship Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jensen, Scott IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 1996 |
| ResultId | 1 |
