NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 8 results Save | Export
Debate as Dialectic: A Defense of the "Tabula Rasa" Approach to Judging.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Ulrich, Walter – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1984
Discusses two points in response to the objections raised in the previous essay: (1) higher standards for argument are not justified and could create problems and (2) theoretical issues can and should be debated in individual debate rounds. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Methods, Higher Education
An "Ad Hominem" Examination of Hypothesis Testing as a Paradigm for the Evaluation of Argument.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Ulrich, Walter – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1984
Argues that hypothesis testing is an inadequate paradigm for evaluating academic debates because (1) defenders of hypothesis testing cannot meet the standards they impose on other arguers and (2) hypothesis testing does not achieve its goal of discovering probable truth. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Evaluation Methods, Higher Education
In Search of Tabula Rasa.
Ulrich, Walter – 1981
Each debate judge's philosophy consists not of one single view of argument, but rather of a theory of argument containing several independent levels of belief. One current issue is the extent to which a judge should impose his or her bias on the participants in a debate round. Judges can impose rules on debates by utilizing those rules to which…
Descriptors: Beliefs, Bias, Communication (Thought Transfer), Debate
Flexibility in Paradigm Evaluation.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Ulrich, Walter – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1982
Responds to Rowland's article, (CS 705 841). Considers the difficult question of how the appropriate paradigm for a debate round should be determined. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Higher Education, Models
Administering the National Debate Tournament: An Outline of the Powermatching and Judge Assignment Procedures.
Ulrich, Walter; Howard, K. Michelle – 1985
Noting that a series of mechanical rules created for pairing and placement of judges at the National Debate Tournament (NDT) may be useful in developing a computer program to pair tournaments, this paper focuses on the methods used to pair rounds at the NDT and also looks at some pairing options frequently employed by other debate tournaments. The…
Descriptors: Competition, Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Judges
Further Reflections on Hypothesis Testing: A Rejoinder.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Ulrich, Walter – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1984
Concludes that (1) the artificially high standards of hypothesis testing cannot be met by advocates who try to apply the paradigm in debate and (2) the values claimed for hypothesis testing can be achieved in other ways. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Evaluation Criteria, Higher Education, Hypothesis Testing
A Judicial Paradigm for the Evaluation of Debates.
Ulrich, Walter – 1982
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…
Descriptors: Competition, Court Litigation, Court Role, Debate
Debate and Critical Thinking.
Ulrich, Walter – 1991
Although academic debate is not viewed highly by many in the critical thinking movement, most of the attacks are based on a misperception of the activity, while others target faults that are not inherent to the activity. Contrary to the claim that debaters seek only to win, this desire is regulated by rules of evidence, time limits, rules…
Descriptors: Communication Skills, Critical Thinking, Debate, Higher Education