Discusses two problems in defining the requirements for policy advocacy in academic debate, namely the disputes over plan specificity and counterplan competitiveness. Argues for the priority of debatability over realism. (PD)

Explores some of the arguments that are popularly lodged against the use of counterplans in modern academic debate. Suggests that most of this criticism is not persuasive due to fundamental problems with the implicit views of the debate process and the role of the judge in that process. (MS)

Examines three strategies by which competitive debaters generate and organize their affirmative cases. Discusses how the persuasive writer can use these same three strategies as heuristics for deliberative discourse and as models for its organization. (HTH)

In nonpolicy debate, the affirmative speakers must demonstrate the probable truth of a resolution. Successful formats for affirmative cases include (1) generic analysis, (2) example analysis, (3) R. J. Matlon's definitive/designative format, (4) J. Chesebro's criteria approach, and (5) "should" resolution affirmatives. In generic…

Because legal argument shares many of the characteristics of academic debate, it can serve as a paradigm for evaluating debates. Like debate, legal argument is bilateral, the judge is external to the deliberation and excluded from raising his or her own arguments, and reasons have been developed for assigning presumption, determining the wording…

A survey of 80 department chairpersons, directors of forensics, and debate coaches indicated an increased use of nontraditional, audience-centered debate paradigms since the National Developmental Conference on Forensics issued its report advancing alternative debate options during the 1970s. Report recommendations on expanding the role of…