Tags: Debate Theory


Theory of Intrinsicness

Recent discussions of intrinsicness highlight how effective these arguments can be, but don't thoroughly discuss the theoretical foundations for the argument. I seek to update older, more theoretical discussions of the argument, in the hopes that affirmatives will be able to more successfully deploy intrinsicness arguments. T.A. McKinney provides an enduring explanation of intrinsicness that, with some adjustment, provides a…
Tags:
Debate Theory


Judge Choice - Reply to Critics

Since I last wrote about Judge Choice, there has been considerable controversy (see here, here, here, and here). While I won’t be able to respond to the reactions of everyone, I do have six “large thoughts” (a useful term, blatantly stolen from Seth Gannon) that will hopefully clarify and deepen the debate. Wake prep calls – so I’ll post the first three here and the second half next week. 1. Judge Choice…
Tags:
Debate Theory


Paperless Debate Ethics: What Norms Will Form?

Though we rarely discuss the norms that govern debate, there are many unwritten and seldom debated rules that vastly affect the practices of debate. We take it for granted that the affirmative team will disclose the arguments that they are reading before a debate, and it is an emerging norm to disclose many of the negative arguments that a team has read. These norms can be explained by the reciprocal competitive benefit that compliance with the…
Tags:
Debate Theory


The Illogic of "Judge-Choice"

The terminology used here reveals the problem with the theory of “judge-choice.” The focus is on the “necessary” connection between the plan and a justification for the plan. We should not start with a model of policy-formation and advocacy that presumes we are likely to identify necessary connections between action and result. Though the constraints of time mean that components of an affirmative will not be challenged if we’ve learned…
Tags:
Debate Theory


Debating the Kritik and Policy Arguments in the Same Debate

Many teams seem too rigidly tied to a single argumentative strategy. I can comprehend the value of being able to gain expertise about a particular argument and pummel less informed opponents with superior knowledge. But does that require you to go for it in every single debate you have? The one-dimensional focus of these teams is often not even tied to individual arguments, but rather to an overarching strategic focus. I’ve seen teams that just…
Tags:
Debate Theory
Subscribe to Debate Theory

Support our Department

We greatly appreciate your generosity. Your gift enables us to offer our students and faculty opportunities for research, travel, and any number of educational events that augment the classroom experience. Support the efforts of the Department of Communication Studies by visiting our giving section.

Learn More 

EVERY DOLLAR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEPARTMENT HAS A DIRECT IMPACT ON OUR STUDENTS AND FACULTY.