Apples and Oranges? A Comparative Analysis of Adjudication in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT Debate.
Saved in:
| Title: | Apples and Oranges? A Comparative Analysis of Adjudication in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT Debate. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jensen, Scott |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 1998 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Comparative Analysis, Debate, Debate Format, Higher Education, Judges, Parliamentary Procedures |
| Abstract: | If the forensics community has real choice between debate formats, there must be distinctions that justify the existence of each respective style or organization. While such differences can exist at any one of a number of levels, this paper examines differences in adjudicating in both parliamentary and team policy debate, generally known as CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) or NDT (National Debate Tournament) debate. While the paper highlights distinctions between two debate formats, the most important point to be made is that each format is debate according to this or any other definition of debate. Although the paper's primary advocacy focuses on differences, it should be understood that when evaluating the worth of either format (something this paper does not do), these differences are not very important. The paper concludes that more research needs to be done to compare debate divisions and should focus on what differences and similarities exist among approaches to debate. (NKA) |
| Entry Date: | 1999 |
| Accession Number: | ED427376 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | If the forensics community has real choice between debate formats, there must be distinctions that justify the existence of each respective style or organization. While such differences can exist at any one of a number of levels, this paper examines differences in adjudicating in both parliamentary and team policy debate, generally known as CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) or NDT (National Debate Tournament) debate. While the paper highlights distinctions between two debate formats, the most important point to be made is that each format is debate according to this or any other definition of debate. Although the paper's primary advocacy focuses on differences, it should be understood that when evaluating the worth of either format (something this paper does not do), these differences are not very important. The paper concludes that more research needs to be done to compare debate divisions and should focus on what differences and similarities exist among approaches to debate. (NKA) |
|---|
