View in EDS

Apples and Oranges? A Comparative Analysis of Adjudication in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT Debate.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED427376
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED427376
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Apples and Oranges? A Comparative Analysis of Adjudication in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT 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: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1998
– 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="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</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="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parliamentary+Procedures%22">Parliamentary Procedures</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1999
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED427376
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED427376
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Debate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Debate Format
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Judges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parliamentary Procedures
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Apples and Oranges? A Comparative Analysis of Adjudication in Parliamentary and CEDA/NDT Debate.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jensen, Scott
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 1998
ResultId 1