Parliamentary rules ban published evidence and omit cross examination, which the author argues undermines argumentation training¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 1996 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Parliamentary debate discourages specific knowledge and bans published material in rounds, which the author argues voids critical components of academic debate training. → Jensen 1996 q1 i? The rules omit a cross examination period, which the author, citing Wilbanks and Church, argues is a valuable part of academic debate. → Jensen 1996 (2)

Evidence¶

Jensen 1996¶

Jensen, Scott. (1996). Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED421730

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

This is the author's analytical critique of the NPDA rules text (type d/e), not an empirical test. He argues banning evidence makes parliamentary debaters' argumentation training "void critical components of academic debate," citing Hollihan and Baaske on the limits of personal knowledge.

"Academic debate teaches the valuableskills of research and usageof evidence.Parliamentary discourages the use of specificknowledge (facts not in the public domain)and bans any publishedmaterial being brought into thedebate round"

Jensen 1996 (2)¶

Jensen, Scott. (1996). Point of Information: Practical and Theoretical Concerns in Parliamentary Debate. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED421730

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

The author's rule analysis identifies the missing cross examination period as a second concern, citing Wilbanks and Church (1991) that cross examination is an important part of any debate; he adds that speakers can refuse questions and time limits prevent strategic questioning.

"A troubling omission from parliamentary debate rules isa cross examination period.I have always felt that cross examination is a valuable part ofan academic debate."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Less experienced debate judges are more likely to be assigned to parliamentary debate — related
• Judges surveyed perceive CEDA/NDT debaters as devoting more weekly work than parliamentary debaters — related
• In one informal tournament survey, coaches and students listed partly different strengths and weaknesses of parliamentary debate — related
• Unconstrained topic writing produces frivolous resolutions that perpetuate non-argumentative practices — related