Descriptor
| Debate | 6 |
| Models | 6 |
| Persuasive Discourse | 6 |
| Policy Formation | 6 |
| Higher Education | 5 |
| Decision Making | 3 |
| Evaluation Criteria | 3 |
| Theories | 3 |
| Competition | 1 |
| Conflict | 1 |
| Judges | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Journal of the American… | 6 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 6 |
| Opinion Papers | 6 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedLichtman, Allan J. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1986
Reaffirms the primacy of the policy-making paradigm in academic debate. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Higher Education, Models, Persuasive Discourse
Peer reviewedLichtman, Allan J.; Rohrer, Daniel M. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1982
Responds to Rowland's article, (CS 705 841). Contends that policy systems analysis emerges as the only acceptable paradigm for competitive debate and that it satisfies the criteria for paradigm evaluation. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Higher Education, Models
Peer reviewedRowland, Robert C. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1982
Considers the positions developed by Lichtman and Rohrer and by Ulrich, and then focuses on Zarefsky's indictment of the proposed standards for evaluating debate paradigms. (See CS 705 841-705 844). (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Higher Education, Models
Peer reviewedRowland, Robert C. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1986
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)
Descriptors: Competition, Conflict, Debate, Decision Making
Peer reviewedBenoit, William L.; And Others – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1986
Outlines the need to develop specific decision rules for the various judging paradigms in academic debate. Uses the policy-making metaphor as an example. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Decision Making, Evaluation Criteria, Higher Education
Peer reviewedLichtman, Allan J.; Rohrer, Daniel M. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1980
Presents a theory of debate as a comparison of policy systems, a theory which satisfies the unique speech act requirements of discussing policy proposals. Describes the basic model and illustrates it by reference to the interpretation of "should" propositions and the analysis of burdens of proof. (JMF)
Descriptors: Debate, Decision Making, Logic, Models
