Decision Rules for the Policy Metaphor

References

• American Jurisprudence , 2nd ed. (1979). (Vol. 16A, pp. 316–17). Rochester, NY: Lawyers Cooperative.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. R. (1974). A study of judging philosophies of the participants of the national debate tournament. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 11, 61–71.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, J. R. , & Matlon, R. J. (1978). An analysis of judging philosophies in academic debate. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 15, 110–123.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics. Philadelphia: Westminster.
   Google Scholar
• Follert, V. F. (1981). Risk analysis: Its application to argumentation and decision-making. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18, 99–108.
   Google Scholar
• Follert, V.F. , & Benoit, W. L. (1982). Argument about argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Anaheim, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Joad, C. E. M. (1957). Guide to Philosophy. New York: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplow, L. (1981) Rethinking counterplans: A reconciliation with debate theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 17, 215–226.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, R. A. (1982). Critical issues in the use of decision models in debate: Debunking the metaphor of the ‘paradigm’. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, Ky.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman A. J. , & Rohrer, D. M. (1975). A general theory of the counterplan. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 12, 70–79.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman A. J. , & Rohrer, D. M. (1980). The logic of policy dispute. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 16, 236–247.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman A. J. , & Rohrer, D. M. (1982). Policy dispute and paradigm evaluation: A response to Rowland. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18, 145–150.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1861, rpt. 1979). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett.
   Google Scholar
• Narveson, J. (1979). New essays on John Stuart Mill. Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Philosophy.
   Google Scholar
• Oleszek, W. J. (1978). Congressional procedures and the policy process. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ripley, R. B. (1978). Congress: Policy and process (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1982a). The primacy of standards for paradigm evaluation: A rejoinder. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18, 154–160.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1982b). Standards for paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18, 133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1984). The debate judge as debate judge: A functional paradigm for evaluating debates. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 20, 183–193.
   Google Scholar
• Smart, J. J. C. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snider, A. C. (1984). Games without frontiers: A design for communication scholars and forensic educators. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 20, 162–170.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, K. (1978). New reflections on ethics and foreign policy: The problem of human rights. Journal of Politics , 40, 984–1010.
   Google Scholar
• The Race: Stay Tuned. (October 4, 1976). Newsweek , pp. 22–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R. (1982). Flexibility in paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association , 18, 151–153.
   Google Scholar
• Wavada, M. (1979). Acceptance and rejection of extra-topical plan planks. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Speech Association, St. Louis, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. (1979). Policy systems debate: A response to Lichtman and Rohrer. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegelmueller, G. W. , & Dause, C. A. (1975). Argumentation: Inquiry and advocacy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar