Theoretical Arguments in Debate Rounds: Toward a Justification

References

• Allen, M. R., & Bourhis, J. S. (1982). Add-ons and turnarounds: A theoretical assessment. Debate Issues, 16, 10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Baaske, K. T. (1980). A conditional yes to conditional argumentation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Balthrop, W. V. (1983). The debate judge as “critic of argument”: Toward a transcendent perspective. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction from verbal to mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. R. (1952). What is science? New York: Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Corsi, J. R. (1983). Zarefsky's theory of debate as hypothesis testing: A re-examination. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 158–170.
   Google Scholar
• Definitional statement. (1975). In J. H. McBath, (Ed.), Forensics as communication: The argumentative perspective. Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, R. H., & Hartmann, D. J. (1986). Emergent voting criteria and judicial impotence of critics. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 167–175.
   Google Scholar
• Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eman, V., & Lukehart, J. (1976). Information use in academic debate: An information theory perspective. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 12, 179–183.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, R. H. (1984). Decision rules: Help or hindrance? Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Gass, R. H. (1986). On fiat power: Another stab. In D. A. Thomas and J. Hart (Eds.), Advanced debate: readings in theory, practice, and teaching. (3rd ed.). Lincolnwood, Ill: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Goodnight, G. T. (1981). The re-union of argumentation and debate. In G. W. Ziegelmueller & J. L. Rhodes, (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 415–32). Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hawes, L. C. (1975). Pragmatics of analoguing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Herbeck, D. A. (1983). A permutation standard of competitiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Hollihan, T. A. (1983a). Conditional arguments and the hypothesis testing paradigm: A negative view. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 171–178.
   Google Scholar
• Hollihan, T. A. (1983b). Conditional arguments and the hypothesis testing paradigm: A negative rebuttal. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 186–190.
   Google Scholar
• Hollihan, T. A., Riley, P., & Baaske, K. T. (1985). The art of storytelling: An argument for the narrative perspective in academic debate. In J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, and G. B. Walker, (Eds.), Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 807–826). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hynes, T. J. (1978). Study Counterplan: A promise or false hope. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, T. (1978). The studies counterplan: Less study needed. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman, A. J. (1975). Debate as comparison of policy systems: A critique of Zarefsky on presumption. In R. J. Branham (Ed.), The New Debate: Readings in Contemporary Debate Theory, Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Information Research Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman, A. J., & Rohrer, D. M. (1979a). A systems approach to presumption and burden of proof. In D. A. Thomas (Ed.), Advanced debate: Readings in theory, practice, and teaching. 2nd edition. Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman, A. J. & Rohrer, D. M. (1979b). Decision rules in policy debate: Presumption and burden of proof. In David A. Thomas (Ed.), Advanced debate: Readings in theory, practice, and teaching. 2nd edition. Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Lichtman, A. J. & Rohrer, D. M. (1982). Policy dispute and paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 145–150.
   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
• Olson, C. D. (1982). Pragmatic considerations of meta-argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, Kentucky.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1982a). Standards for paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 133–140.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1982b). The primacy of standards for paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 154–160.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1984a). A response to Ulrich. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21, 94–96.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, R. C. (1984b). Tabula rasa: the relevance of debate to argumentation theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21, 76–88.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R. (1981). In search of tabula rasa. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Anaheim, California.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R. (1982). Flexibility in paradigm evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 151–153.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R. (1984). Debate as dialectic: A defense of the tabula rasa approach to judging. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21, 89–93.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R. (1986). Limitations on the options available to the evaluator of policy. In D. A. Thomas & J. Hart (Eds.), Advanced debate: Readings in theory, practice, and leaching. (3rd ed.). Lincolnwood, Ill: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. R., & Bearden, L. (1982). Bad theory as a voting issue. Debate Issues, 15, 3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Unger, J. J. (1978). Investigating the investigators: A study of the studies counterplan. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Weiler, M. (1981). Debate theory: Delusion and snare. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Anaheim, California.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. (1972). A reformulation of the concept of presumption. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Evanston, Illinois.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. (1976). Argument as hypothesis testing. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, California.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. (1982). The perils of assessing paradigms. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 141–144.
   Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. Henderson, B. (1983). Hypothesis testing in theory and practice. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 179–185.
   Google Scholar
• Zerjav, D. (1973). Conditional argumentation in academic debate. In G. Tade & J. Luck, (Eds.), Proceedings of the national conference on argumentation. Fort Worth, Tex.: Texas Christian University.
   Google Scholar